Sitting of 24 February 1986

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

  FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL
  Ordered,
  That the Committee on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill have leave to visit and inspect the site of the proposed works, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an Appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, Agent or other representative.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Flightpaths (Developments)
    Mr. Sternasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to seek to extend his powers to control or influence major developments of public or private buildings under existing flightpaths.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): No, Sir. The consideration of planning applications is a matter for local planning authorities, although with certain proposals for developments near to an airport or affecting aircraft using it planning authorities are bound to consult the airport authority and either the Civil Aviation Authority or the Ministry of Defence.
    Mr. Stern: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that whereas, in general, the planning authority has powers to prohibit the extension of a flight path over existing development, his powers to comment on a development or concentration of people under a flight path are rather more limited, and that that causes considerable anxiety, especially in my constituency, where the Filton airfield provides more than 10,000 jobs? In view of proposed developments in that and many other areas, will he seek to extend his powers?
    Mr. Spicer: I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety over this and a number of related issues. Planning authorities must consult the CAA about safety considerations before they make their decisions. In the context that my hon. Friend mentioned, the Secretary of State for the Environment advises about noise considerations, and he has discretion to call in the applications.

    Dartford Tunnel
    Mr. Cartwrightasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce a decision on future plans for the Darford tunnel complex.
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): We shall issue the invitation to promoters to make proposals for a third crossing at Dartford later this week.
    Mr. Cartwright: Is the Minister aware that it is now seven months since the Secretary of State first suggested the involvement of private enterprise in the building of the third Dartford tunnel, and that only now do we have some idea of the time scale involved? Does he accept that the completion of every new section of the M25 increases the risk of Dartford becoming Britain's biggest bottleneck? Why does the Department of Transport not show the same sense of urgency over the Dartford tunnel as it did over the Channel tunnel?
    Mr. Mitchell: This is a new idea and it requires careful assessment before we start inviting the private sector to put proposals to us. As to the bottleneck, I understand that congestion at Dartford is not likely to become serious before 1991–92.
    Mr. Higgins: Is my hon. Friend aware that congestion on the M25 has already become considerable and presents a problem? When he studies possible proposals for a new tunnel, will he consider the fact that, sooner or later, we are likely to need to make the M25 four lanes in each direction rather than three?
    Mr. Mitchell: I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said, and we shall keep it in mind.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I am interested to hear that the Minister is leaving traffic congestion problems for the next Labour Government, but in the meantime, will the third Dartford tunnel have any impact on his plans for the east London river crossing?
    Mr. Mitchell: On the first point, we have no intention of waiting until the end of the century' before that is put in hand. We shall of course take his second point into account.
    Mr. Squire: I endorse what the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) said about urgency. Has my hon. Friend come to any preliminary conclusions about the advantages of a private tunnel versus a possible tunnel from the joint councils?
    Mr. Mitchell: When my hon. Friend sees the invitation to promoters he will find that there are opportunities for people to quote both ways, and we shall look with great interest at what is the best value for money.

    Rushden and Higham Ferrers Bypass
    Mr. Fryasked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate for the commencement date for the A6 bypass of Rushden and Higham Ferrers in Northamptonshire.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): Subject to the clearance of the statutory procedures, and provided that the resources are available, construction could begin during 1990.
    Mr. Fry: Is my hon. Friend aware that a possible route for the bypass has been in existence for many years and so there is likely to be the minimum amount of opposition to it? What is required is the will and the money to build it, and in those circumstances can my hon. Friend make any improvement on the date that he has given me?
    Mr. Bottomley: I shall do what I can. The scheme has always been in the reserve list at the end of the roads programme. We now have a good prospect of a start in 1990.
    Mr. William Powell: May I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) said? The delay in providing the bypass is having extremely bad effects upon my constituents in the parish of Stanwick, through which traffic is being diverted simply because the existing facilities through Higham Ferrers and Rushden are so crowded. Any improvement in the date will be welcomed by my constituents.
    Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is clear that any improvements that we can make in the roads programme will generally be welcomed by people in the locality.

    Bus Lanes (London)
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the operation of bus lanes on trunk roads in London following the abolition of the Greater London council.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: As with all forms of traffic management on national roads, I shall want to satisfy myself as to their effects.
    Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister agree that bus lanes in London have proved an excellent way of speeding up bus services and so improving the efficiency of London transport? Will the hon. Gentleman have a look at the bus lane in Park Lane in the morning rush hour? It is being made a nonsense of because buses and vans are using it for parking. Unless parking is abolished in bus lanes, buses cannot benefit from them.
    Mr. Bottomley: I shall do as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. Greenway: Do not bus lanes in London produce the most ghastly chaos and delay motorists and bus passengers getting to work? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that some of the bus lanes recently introduced by the GLC have been not for traffic reasons but for spiteful, silly reasons?
    Mr. Bottomley: All hon. Members will benefit from the review of the bus lane assessment criteria and performance, being carried out for the Department and London Regional Transport.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is not whingeing by Tory Members about bus lanes most inappropriate, since bus lanes generally speed up buses and are for the advantage of bustravelling members of the public in London? Will he ensure that when the GLC is abolished and borough councils and his Department are looking at bus lanes, they will take first into consideration the convenience of the travelling public, and not that of the Right-wing fanaticism of his Back Benchers?
    Mr. Bottomley: Proper expressions of concern from my hon. Friends behind me are sometimes preferable to the witterings of Labour Members.
    Mr. Ward: When my hon. Friend looks at the review of bus lanes, he may consider that many of them should go the way that the GLC is rightly going, and disappear. If he gets around to looking at bus lanes in Park Lane, will he consider that that is probably the most crazy system of all, because buses occupy two lanes on one of the most highly-used roads in London?
    Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is clear that one of the most popular things that I can do, given the expressions of interest on both sides of the House, is to visit Park Lane in the morning and see it for myself.

    Oil Tankers (Sea Routes)
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Secretary of State for Transport what further consideration he has given to the designation of sea routes for large crude oil carrying tankers west of the Hebrides and clear of the Minch; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): Surveys carried out under the Government's civil hydrography programme have confirmed that there is a route of sufficient depth for deep draught vessels to the west of the outer Hebrides. The surveys were completed last autumn, and relevant charts have been updated to show the area surveyed and to make it clear that it is suitable for deep-draught vessels.
    Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply and for the written answers that I received last year from his hon. Friend the Minister of State. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether he enjoys the power to make those routes statutory, or is his power simply advisory? Concern has been expressed that the Government do not have the statutory power to enforce rerouting outwith the Minch and west of the Hebrides. There is evidence that the French Government, in the wake of the Amoco Cadiz catastrophe, were able to take such power. What is the Government's position?
    Mr. Ridley: I am advised that I do not have powers to close a route to traffic, so I cannot do more than advise traffic as to the preferable route. Obviously I cannot answer for the French Government. They may have different powers. We are dealing with international traffic, so the question of powers does not seem to me to be one that we should raise at this time.

    Aviation (Liberalisation)
    Mr. Hindasked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with British airlines about the liberalisation of aviation.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: We regularly seek the advice of British airlines in negotiating for more liberal aviation agreements. We have made notable progress in Europe, with liberal agreements with five other countries, and are pushing hard this year for real progress in the EC.
    Mr. Hind: Does my hon. Friend agree that cheap air travel cannot come quickly enough? Will he take every possible step to liberalise the cost of flying in Europe?

    661
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] I am not reading. One cannot even look down these days. Does my hon. Friend agree that the sooner the EEC and our European allies come to terms with free and non-protective flights between European nations the better that it will be for the consumer, especially the British consumer?
    Mr. Spicer: As a direct result of the new air service agreements that we have signed with several European countries, cheaper air fares and many more services are being introduced. I am confident that during the coming year more British airlines will fly those routes and that as a result the quality of service will rise and air fares will fall.
    Mr. Evans: What is the difference between liberalisation and complete deregulation of aviation? Has the Department of Transport considered what has happened in the United States, where complete deregulation has meant several aviation companies tottering on the brink of bankruptcy? Will he confirm that he does not intend to go down that track?
    Mr. Spicer: There is no proposal on the table in Europe or in the mind of the Government for complete deregulation. Obviously the Government will be involved on a bilateral or a multilateral basis. We wish to make it easier for competition to exist, in the interests of passengers.
    Mr. McCrindle: From his discussions with British Airways and Al Italia, is my hon. Friend satisfied that no barriers are being placed in the way of the proposed additional service to Milan from Gatwick, in conformity with the Government's policy of dual designation by British airlines to European destinations?
    Mr. Spicer: I am not satisfied that the Italian Government understand, as we understand, that the Treaty of Rome should apply to aviation matters as it applies to other matters, and that there should be far greater competition and multidesignation of airlines on that route and on other routes into Italy.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister accept that price considerations must always be secondary to safety? In the discussions that he and his Department are having, what consideration is being given to safety standards?
    Mr. Spicer: Safety standards are the statutory responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. My Department supports the Civil Aviation Authority in precisely the way that the hon. Gentleman implies.
    Mr. Soames: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the fine work done by him and his Department. Anyone working in the aviation industry is grateful for the progress that he has made, but does he agree that there is much more to be done? Will he assure the House that he will continue to press, especially within Europe, for further and dramatic liberalisation'?
    Mr. Spicer: I thank my hon. Friend warmly for his kind remarks. I agree completely that there is much to be done to reduce fares and to establish the rules of competition, so that our formidable airline industry can succeed in Europe, as it is succeeding in other parts of the world, to the benefit of passengers throughout Europe.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it not the case that in 1984 the Secretary of State rejected the Civil Aviation Authority's
    662
    competition policy because he wanted to protect the value of British Airways for privatisation? Is this sudden new-found enthusiasm for competition today a recognition that the value of BA has fallen by half and that the Government cannot sell it with a proper competition policy?
    Mr. Spicer: I hope that that question means that the Opposition, led by the hon. Gentleman, will nov, fight for more competition. If that is true, it is to be welcomed. The arrangements that my right hon. Friend made last year, whereby British Caledonian could take over some substantial routes into Saudi Arabia in exchange for some not-so-substantial routes to South America, were a move towards further competition, and go against what the hon. Gentleman implied in his question.

    Road Humps
    Mr. Gerald Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the proposed draft amendments to the Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1983 to be put before the House.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: As soon as possible.
    Mr. Bowden: Will my hon. Friend take note of the anxiety felt by many of my constituents, especially those who live in Court lane, Dulwich where the delay in implementing the regulations has meant that many serious accidents have taken place and that the residents are in fear of life and limb because of the speed of traffic on that road? I am delighted that the regulations will be implemented as soon as possible.
    Mr. Bottomley: I have seen the correspondence that my hon. Friend had with my predecessor, and I am aware of the leading role played by Mr. Sholem. Road humps are not the only way to reduce vehicle speeds. It is well worth while for local authorities to look at other ways of reducing the danger that clearly exists.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that consultation was originally due to take place last autumn with the amended regulations being laid before the House in the early part of 1986, will the Minister give an assurance that consultation will start within a matter of days, and that the regulations will be laid before the end of the spring? It is not only in Southwark, which the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) and I represent, that the amendment of these regulations will be greatly beneficial. I am sure that the Minister will support them. Will he ensure that his Department moves quickly?
    Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman gets it slightly wrong, because when we are dealing with complex and controversial subjects it may be better to take weeks rather than days. If I can begin consultation by Easter, it will be possible to lay the regulations before the House by the summer.
    Mr. Gregory: Will my hon. Friend pursue the possibility of issuing a circular to local authorities to encourage the greater use of speed humps, which in medieval cities such as York would certainly stop heavy vehicles from making short cuts through residential areas and avoiding the proper routes?
    Mr. Bottomley: I shall give the consideration that my hon. Friend requests, but humps are not the only way and are not always the most satisfactory way of reducing excessive speed.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Boyesasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has yet made any estimate of the number of jobs that will be created in the north-east as a result of building the Channel fixed link; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Mitchell: We have made no such estimate. CTG-FM intends to invite bids for the supply of equipment from companies throughout the United Kingdom. It has indentified approximatedly 3,500 man-years of work for which companies in the north-east, Yorkshire and Humberside are well placed to compete successfully. In addition, British Rail's investment of up to £390 million is likely to benefit companies in the north and midlands.
    Mr. Boyes: On 20 January the Secretary of State said that he would
    "consider carefully the employment consequences of the development."—[Official Report, 20 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 20.]
    Once again he is giving me no assurances for the people of the north-east that the Channel tunnel will create jobs. We know full well that it will make matters even worse for the region with the highest unemployment. It is nothing more than a massive drain on vitally needed cash that should be invested in the nort-east to create jobs for the people there so that the economy there can begin to thrive again—something that it will never do while this Government are in power.
    Mr. Mitchell: First, there will not be a drain on jobs anywhere in the country. Much of the money is coming from abroad and would not be invested here if it were not for the project, which is in the private sector. Secondly, jobs will be awarded not on a Buggins' turn basis, but substantially to those who win them because they are competitive. That includes a large number of firms north of Watford.
    Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend will be aware that north-east Kent has higher unemployment levels than those in some parts of the north-east of England. Following his reply in the debate on the White Paper, is my hon. Friend able to comment further on whether his Department has plans to publish a prospectus for north-east and east Kent, along the lines of that published by the French Government on behalf of the north Pas de Calais?
    Mr. Mitchell: I am conscious of the number of unemployed in east Kent. The committee that I shall chair will consider that aspect to see how best to ensure that the development provides them with jobs.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Is the Minister prepared to initiate discussions with the regional CBI, the trade unions, the major industrialists and the ports in connection with the effect on the region's economy of the building of the link? If he is not prepared to take the initiative, will he respond favourably to an invitation from these bodies to discuss the important matter of the economy of the region?
    Mr. Mitchell: I am always prepared to respond to an invitation to discuss the matter. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bring a deputation to see me.
    Mr. Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have had communications from the business community in Cleveland, including one from the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, welcoming the Government's decision to
    664
    go ahead with the Channel tunnel and recognising that, with its good labour force, the opportunities in the north-east will be taken up, which will expand the economy in that area?
    Mr. Mitchell: I am sure that my hon. Friend reflects the spirit of those in the north-east who are determined to be successful and secure jobs and orders.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the experience of the development of North sea oil, and recollect that in the early stages most orders went abroad and that only after the establishment of the Offshore Supplies Office, chaired by a Minister at the Department of Energy did 71 per cent. of contracts over £100,000 come to Britain? Will he immediately set up such an office to make sure that we get the maximum benefit from the British end of the construction costs?
    Mr. Mitchell: No. I am confident the British industry is well-equipped to keep a substantial share of the business that is available and, without any duck shoving, it is much more competitive that the hon. Gentleman imagines.

    Safety Cones
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications for traffic flows on motorways and major trunk roads undergoing repairs and maintenance of the numbers and location of safety cones, especially at weekends; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ridley: Traffic management arrangements at roadworks sites are designed to allow vehicles to pass safely through the works with as little delay as possible. We monitor the arrangements and revise our standard layouts when improvements are identified.
    Mr. Dykes: As there is nothing more infuriating for hard-pressed motorists—who see too much congestion nowadays anyway, including on motorways—will my right hon. Friend reassure the House and the public, after all the discussion in the House last summer, that the excessive deployment of cones in lanes that are not being worked on, particularly at weekends, is now a thing of the past? There is still much mail about this subject, and people are fed up with it.
    Mr. Ridley: There are reasons why sometimes there are some cones with no visible work. Concrete may be setting, it may be too cold for asphalt laying, the cones may have been set up for work to start shortly, or work may be taking place underneath the structures. Equally, on many occasions cones are there for no good purpose. I wish that agent authorities would apply the same spirit of urgency to moving cones as I do to getting the contracts done by applying the lane rental system, which has saved up to 25 per cent. of the time of the works.
    Mr. Snape: Are we not the only developed country that is happy to have miles of cones for yards of work—particularly at weekends as the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said—or for no work? Will the Secretary of State look at other parts of the world—he can have a long trip if he likes—to see how they do it? Does this happen because much of the coning is carried out by a private company, which perhaps can charge so much per cone and use as many as possible?
    Mr. Ridley: No, Sir. Coning is carried out by agent authorities, which are usually the county councils. I have already reminded them, and I shall do so again, that they should not leave cones in place for a minute longer than is necessary. Our system of lane rental, whereby a contractor is paid a bonus if he finishes the contract early, has reduced the time by 25 per cent. in many cases. It is the envy of the world. I am afraid that I shall not have time to go round the world, because so many foreigners are coming here to see what we are doing.
    Mr. Higgins: Given the success of that incentive scheme, will my right hon. Friend consider imposing penalties on agencies that leave the cones in place unnecessarily?
    Mr. Ridley: I have looked at that very point, but it is very difficult to think of a legal way of imposing a penalty on one's agent.

    Stansted Airport
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has held with the British Airports Authority about disposal of land in the safeguard area around Stansted airport.
    Mr. Spicer: I expect to be able to announce within the next week or so the details of the new area of safeguarded land at Stansted. The British Airports Authority will then dispose of land outside that area.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the purpose of safeguarding, in the first place, an area of land amounting to 2,500 acres was against the possibility of a second runway? As my right hon. Friend has said emphatically that there will not be a second runway at Stansted, what is the difficulty about determining the exact amount of land of which to dispose?
    Mr. Spicer: I can confirm that the reason for the disposal of this land is that there will not be a second runway. I understand that certain legal difficulties have led to the delay, but they have been overcome and I expect shortly to be able to make the announcement for which my hon. Friend is looking.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my hon. Friend describe the difference between the new area of which he is prepared to dispose and the area which was previously designated under inquiry by the Eyre report?
    Mr. Spicer: As my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) said, that land is no longer needed for a second runway. There is nothing new about this. It was proposed in the White Paper.

    Coaches (Tachographs)
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amoryasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce measures to enable tachographs fitted to coaches to be used for on-the-spot speed checks.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is for chief officers of police to decide what evidence is needed to support prosecutions for speeding. The proposed requirement to fit coaches with speed governors will greatly help compliance with speed limits.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Is my hon. Friend aware that tachographs are used on the continent to enforce speed
    666
    restrictions and that it is a cheap and effective system? Does he agree that such a system is preferable to his proposal, which will force small bus operators to fit these new-fangled speed governors—a burden which they could well do without?
    Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will be aware that the laws in this country are different from the laws in the rest of Europe. It is for the police to decide what evidence to bring and what resources should be deployed. Speed governors tackle the problem more directly and are a more certain way of ensuring compliance. Prevention is better than cure.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: The Minister has mentioned twice the fitting of speed governors, which already exist on coaches on the Oxford Link service. What time scale does he envisage before this becomes a legal requirement?
    Mr. Bottomley: I am not yet certain.
    Mr. Lyell: Will my hon. Friend think again about the use of tachographs? They are extremely effective in preventing accidents. I have seen them in operation when travelling on coaches throughout Europe. They have much to recommend them.
    Mr. Bottomley: I shall give further consideration to my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Evans: In view of the widespread concern in the country about the speed at which certain coaches travel on motorways—all hon. Members have seen coaches flying past them at 70, 80 or 90 mph—why does the Minister not instruct the police regularly to inspect the tachographs? The introduction of the governor will cause problems for some vehicles that are forced to speed to escape from a possible traffic hazard.
    Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will want to know that the Department has analysed about 80,000 tachograph charts in the last 12 months.

    Road Accidents
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will state the number of people killed on the roads in the years 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985, respectively; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bottomley: The number of people killed in road accidents in Great Britain between 1982 and 1984 is as follows: In 1982 5,934; in 1983 5,445; in 1984 5,599. Final statistics for 1985 are not yet available.
    In the first nine months of 1985 road accident deaths were 10 per cent. lower than in the first nine months of 1984. If this trend is continued through the fourth quarter of 1985 the number of road accident deaths in 1985 will be the lowest recorded since 1954.
    Mr. Dormand: If that number of people were killed in aircraft crashes each year, would not the Government take more effective action to reduce the slaughter? Will the Minister consider introducing legislation to provide for an automatic prison sentence for those convicted of drunken driving?
    Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman expresses the widespread concern about the appalling slaughter on our roads. It is worth giving a pat on the back to those who have contributed to reductions in the numbers of accidents,

    667
    especially because of the increase in the use of our roads. We must think of all possible ways of getting through to drivers, especially at local level, the initiatives that can be taken to maintain the downward trend.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend's Department keep a record, not only of the number of vehicles using our roads, but of the frequency with which they use our roads? Would it not be a good idea to measure that against the number of road accidents to discover the efficiency of road safety measures and to assess the need for new roads and bypasses, which might bring down the figure further?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes. Road design might make a significant reduction in the consequences of driver behaviour, but driver behaviour itself makes the greatest contribution to accidents, serious injuries and deaths on the road. We must put out that message, especially at local level, because that is where people misbehave.
    Mr. Snape: May we have the equivalent figures for railway passengers killed in the past four years? Does the Minister agree that it would make more sense, and be safer, if the Government encouraged the greater use of public transport, especially railways?
    Mr. Bottomley: The figures are available. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that everyone should move from the roads to the railways, he will find that the democracy of transport moves in a way different from that which he expects.

    M25 (Lighting)
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received any representations in favour of lighting all remaining sections of the M25; and what offers he has received from lighting companies about lighting the motorway.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: We have received a number of representations, including a press release with a covering letter from a lighting manufacturer.
    Mr. Bruinvels: Is my hon. Friend aware that 26 people have lost their lives on the M25 since it was opened? Is he further aware that a number of companies such as Philips are showing interest in taking over lighting on the M25, because only 40 miles are lit and 80 miles are unlit? Will the Minister consider proposals by any lighting company making a bid to undertake the complete lighting on the M25, because lighting saves lives? Is my hon. Friend aware that non-lighting fatalities cost £206,000 per person?
    Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will be happy to know that I am shortly to meet representatives of the company which he named. As a Right-winger like myself, in terms of value for public money, my hon. Friend will know that even the most inspired reaction to European Road Safety Year and Energy Efficiency Year should not preclude any lighting proposals going out to competitive tender.

    British Rail (Capital Equipment)
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the procurement of capital equipment.
    Mr. David Mitchell: The policy of the British Railways board, agreed by Ministers, is for competitive procurement. The implementation of this is a matter for the board.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would the Minister wish to see the retention of railbus production at Workington in the event that the Laird Group succeeds in taking over Leyland Bus? Would he say that the Government and the British Railways Board are more than satisfied with the railbus while it is being produced at Workington?
    Mr. Mitchell: I understand that British Rail was satisfied with the production at Workington. As to the competitive sourcing of DMUs, there will still be at least three potential suppliers for railbus and two for Sprinters. That is important to British Rail.
    Mr. Roger King: Can my hon. Friend confirm that this Government's investment in British Rail is running at an all-time high?
    Mr. Mitchell: I can confirm that British Rail's proposals for investment have been fully met whenever they have come forward and that they have been quickly turned round.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there is widespread anxiety in south Wales about British Rail's announcement during the weekend of major cuts in the south Wales rail network, including the loss of 424 jobs at the Severn tunnel junction, which will decimate railway villages such as Rogiet, Magor and Undy? When the Minister next meets the chairman of BR, will he ask him to reconsider? Will the Minister notify the Secretary of State that there will be some concern about the fact that he has chosen not to make a statement to the House today about this extremely important matter?
    Mr. Mitchell: The issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised are for the management of British Rail, but I shall look into the matter and write to him in response to his question.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Law Officers (Advice)
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Attorney-General what steps he has taken to ensure that, in future, advice from the Law Officers remains confidential.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): As I informed the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) in a written answer on 13 January, I am satisfied that the arrangements in my Department are adequate and that other Departments are aware of their duty to maintain the confidentiality of any advice which the Law Officers may give them.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not fair to say that, in standing before the House and answering the questions of my right hon. and hon. Friends about confidentiality, the Attorney-General is showing that he is accountable to the House of Commons? Why should that accountability not extend to addressing members of the Select Committee, which is examining these matters? Should they not be treated in the same way? What is the distinction?
    Sir Michael Havers: It is a well-accepted convention because the usual work of the Law Officers is to give advice, and that advice would not be required by a Select Committee.
    Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remember that the question is, I think, asked not out of devotion to the British constitution but to stir up trouble, and that these things are far better left to the old conventions on which we have managed our affairs for many centuries?
    Sir Michael Havers: I agree with my hon. Friend. As I have said before, the House should think very carefully before it tries to alter that convention.
    Mr. John Morris: Was anybody in the Attorney-General's Department consulted about the possibility of the letter to be written by the Solicitor-General being put into the public domain? When the leak inquiry was set up, did the right hon. and learned Gentleman have reason to believe that it might have been an official leak?
    Sir Michael Havers: The answer to the first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's questions is no. As for the second, there was no communication at all save for my communication with the secretary to the Cabinet.

    Westland plc
    Mr. Winnickasked the Attorney-General if he considered granting immunity from prosecution to any other civil servant involved in the disclosure of the Solicitor-General's letter to the then Secretary of State for Defence.
    The Attorney-General: No, Sir.
    Mr. Winnick: What remains puzzling is why the director of information at the Department of Trade and Industry was apparently given immunity from prosecution but that the same was true for no other civil servant, including Mr. Powell at No. 10, who certainly had a hand in the leaking of the letter from the Solicitor-General to the then Defence Secretary. Why was the decision to write the letter taken? Does the Attorney-General agree, on reflection, that the Solicitor-General was used by the Prime Minister, and that she prompted him to write the letter to the then Defence Secretary?
    Sir Michael Havers: The answer to the first question is that nobody even suggested, let alone asked me to grant immunity to anyone else, so that matter did not arise. As for the hon. Gentleman's second question, I repeat yet again that there was no question of my hon. and learned Friend being used. He carried out his duty in the normal way.

    Law Centres (Funding)
    Mr. Gerald Bowdenasked the Attorney-General if he will make it his policy to take over the funding of law centres currently funded under the urban aid programme when the funding under that programme expires.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): No, Sir. The reallocation of ministerial duties is not a matter for individual Ministers.
    Mr. Bowden: Will my hon. and learned Friend acknowledge the good work that is done by many law
    670
    centres, especially by the Southwark law project? After the ending of urban aid for that project it is likely to be funded by Southwark council, which is a recipient of many of the complaints and cases that the centre receives and conducts on behalf of clients. Therefore, there is likely to be a conflict and unsatisfactory funding.
    The Solicitor-General: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that the Southwark law project does extremely good work. That being so, I hope that the local authority will not stint support for it. It would be wrong for any local authority, in determining its funding responsibilities, to take account of the fact that a law centre encourages individuals to draw attention to any impropriety of such an authority.
    Mr. Eastham: May I underline the valuable work that law centres undertake, especially on behalf of the disadvantaged and the poor in inner city areas? Is it not about time that a thorough appraisal was undertaken with a view to the Government coming to some decisions that will mean that local authorities do not have to find money to fund law centres through urban aid, bearing in mind all the restrictions that Government Departments place upon them?
    The Solicitor-General: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that many law advisory centres undertake extremely good work. However, they are local voluntary organisations and do not form part of the statutory legal services framework. As such, their funding falls for local decision, especially local authority decision.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Solicitor-General not recognise that the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee was that money should be found for the continuance of law centres, and that the complacent answer given by his noble Friend in another place last Monday suggested that the Government have no intention of doing anything to help any of the law centres throughout the land? Is he aware that that is unacceptable to those in the legal profession, both the Bar and solicitors, and to the majority of clients who depend upon law centres and Government funding for them for any hope of obtaining decent legal representation in cases which are often important?
    The Solicitor-General: I recognise the recommendation to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I do not recognise the conclusion that he seeks to draw from it. Law centres are part of the local framework by which the statutory legal services are supplemented. Therefore, their funding must be subject to local decision. I believe that that is the right way of proceeding. It is for local authorities to determine their priorities, not for central Government to impose priorities upon them.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Dubsasked the Attorney-General whether it will be open to the legal aid review committee to propose savings in expenditure; and whether he has any particular areas in mind.
    The Solicitor-General: Yes, Sir, and it will be for the committee itself to select the areas of review.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Solicitor-General aware that there is widespread concern at the apparent intention of the

    671
    Government to cut eligibility for legal aid for the first time since the scheme was introduced? Does he realise that the Law Society and many other bodies have expressed their dismay at the proposal, which is likely to lead to a cut in the right to legal representation for poor people, especially those with families? Can that really be the Government's intention?
    The Solicitor-General: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the announcement that was made about dependants last week. The Government keep the working of the legal aid scheme under review at all times, and not only when special review teams are established. There are no plans for further changes in eligibility at present. The reduction in dependants' allowances will in a small way moderate the rate of growth of legal aid expenditure. It still remains true that expenditure in the next financial year on legal aid will exceed that for the present year by far more than can be accounted for by inflation
    Mr. Ashby: Has my hon. and learned Friend read the Coopers and Lybrand report on the remuneration of the Bar? Is he aware of the widespread unrest at the Bar? Does he understand that the Bar is most unhappy at the refusal even to negotiate with it and with the attempt to impose a 5 per cent. increase in fees? Does my hon. and learned Friend want to be responsible for the destruction of the Bar?
    The Solicitor-General: Tempting though it is, it is not for me to comment upon a matter that is now before the courts.

    Solicitors (Rights of Audience)
    Mr. Abseasked the Attorney-General what conclusions have been reached by the Lord Chancellor's Department on the rights of audience of solicitors in the higher courts in the course of its consideration of the desirability of changes in the general practice of the courts.
    The Attorney-General: It is the view of the Government that solicitors should be able to deal with certain formal or unopposed matters in any court. We have recently sought the views of both branches of the legal profession and the National Consumer Council on how this might best be achieved.
    Mr. Abse: The collegiate of judges met on 13 January, no practice direction has emerged from the collegiate, and we have no definitive statement from the Lord Chancellor's Department. Does the Attorney-General not realise that there is widespread disquiet, however ill-founded it may be, about the belief that backstairs pressures are at work? Will the Attorney-General try to get an early announcement about the matter from the Lord Chancellor's Department, or will he prompt the judges to give the required practice direction?
    The Attorney-General: A matter as important as this is a matter for consultation, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. In the end it comes down to looking at the public interest. That must be the key to this problem.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Rapid Disbursement Funds
    Mr. Bowen Wellsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what money from the Overseas Development Administration budget has become available, either from slippage or because emergency funds have not been taken up, for rapid disbursement during February and March; and to which investments he has allocated it.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): Inevitably, some adjustments within the programme are necessary towards the end of the financial year. I have recently announced new allocations of emergency aid for the Sudan and refugee relief in African countries, involving some £5 million of expected spending in the current financial year.
    Mr. Wells: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that only £5 million has been underspent in the expected expenditure at the beginning of the year? If that is so I am rather surprised, because it would be one of the lowest figures ever in the ODA budget. Does this need to disperse money quickly not militate against long-term development projects, particularly in agriculture, which we should be undertaking, or is it a result of African and other countries becoming so impoverished over the last 10 years that they are unable to implement the projects for which my right hon. Friend has allocated money? Is there not a case for a longer carry-over period, so that the projects can be carried out and properly funded in the following years?
    Mr. Raison: Obviously there would be some convenience to me and to my Department if we had a long carry-over period. One must recognise that public expenditure requires a tight discipline and the system used for a long time is, broadly, effective.
    Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister recognise the danger of aid fatigue on the part of donors, in view of the immense effort put in over the past year, particularly by voluntary agencies? What attempt will he make by way of example, through Government expenditure and generally, to spearhead a public relations exercise to show the continuing need in Africa?
    Mr. Raison: People talk about the possibility of aid fatigue as it is called, and such fatigue may exist in the voluntary sector. However, the signs are that the British public still have a great determination to play a part in solving the problems of Africa, and the Government are equally committed to solving those problems.

    Kenya
    Mr. Merchantasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department provides for rural development in Kenya.
    Mr. Raison: In 1985–86 we expect to spend about £11·3 million to assist development in rural areas in Kenya. This covers activities in agriculture, livestock production, forestry, health, transport and the training of teachers for rural schools. I have just agreed to a grant of a further £4·37 million for applied research in the Embu, Meru and Isiolo districts, where we are seeking to achieve better use of arid lands.
    Mr. Merchant: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what contribution is being made from our aid programme towards the health and population programme in Kenya? There is high population growth in that country and anxiety has been expressed there about the increased rise in the population.
    Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend is right. The rate of population growth in Kenya is over 4 per cent. a year, and that is one of the highest rates in the world. We are contributing to an integrated rural health and family planning project. We have also financed the construction of six rural dispensaries and a rural demonstration centre, and have recently undertaken to finance a district hospital in Isiolo.
    Mr. Beith: Was the right hon. Gentleman satisfied, after his visit to Kenya, that expenditure of so large a sum of money—£21 million of last year's aid—on the Nkubu road project was a satisfactory priority and one that was well directed towards rural economic needs?
    Mr. Raison: I was completely satisfied. The road is a fine piece of engineering. On top of that, the project is essentially designed to serve the rural community east of Mount Kenya, and I am sure that it will do that.
    Mr. Moynihan: Will my right hon. Friend consider more smallholder agricultural projects in rural development schemes in Kenya?
    Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend has made a good point. I should be happy to discuss it with him.
    Mr. Pavitt: In view of the importance of rural democratic co-operatives for coffee growing and marketing in Kenya, may I ask what special action the right hon. Gentleman is taking to provide the training necessary to enable those co-operatives to play a proper part in rural development?
    Mr. Raison: The record of co-operatives across Africa, as elsewhere, is somewhat mixed. They are certainly more useful in marketing than in production. I am happy to look at the hon. Gentleman's specific point.

    Aid and Trade
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the likely balance in the Vote for the aid and trade appropriation at the end of March.
    Mr. Raison: I hope that the Vote will be fully spent, but spending on the aid and trade provision is subject to many uncertainties about the acceptance and timing of commercial contracts.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the amount can vary considerably? For instance, last year, one project in India—the Balco power station—cost £10 million. If the variation in the aid and trade provision can be so great, is it not possible to vary the amount in respect of rural development projects, such as those to which the right hon. Gentleman referred a short time ago?
    Mr. Raison: The essential point one must bear in mind is that all that funding—whether it is the aid and trade provision or conventional aid—has to come out of the
    674
    overall aid budget. Managing that budget is a difficult operation. I believe that the facts show that our record in managing is very good.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Is that not an argument for making more aid and trade provision commitments so that we achieve the expected disbursement by the end of each year?
    Mr. Raison: The aid and trade allocations are much higher than the amount that is taken up. Obviously, not every contract is successful. Getting it right is a difficult matter, but, by and large, I believe that our record is successful.
    Mr. Stuart Holland: Surely the reality is that the right hon. Gentleman is planning to increase the aid and trade provision tenfold over the next two to three years—a major increase. Does that not contrast in practice with, for example, the right hon. Gentleman's unwillingness to finance a refugee study programme at the University of Oxford, which would have major implications for developing countries?
    Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman has got it totally wrong. There is no plan to increase the aid and trade provision tenfold during the next few years. There is a sensible plan to bring in a new loan facility, but it will not result in such an increase.

    Advancement of Women
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the implications for his Department's policy on development of the conclusions of the United Nations Nairobi conference set out in forward-looking strategies for the advancement of women.
    Mr. Raison: My Department has long sought to ensure that the interests of women are taken into account throughout the development process. The conclusions of Nairobi, which were accepted by consensus, require implementation by donors and recipients alike. We are doing our full part through the aid programme.
    Mr. Deakins: Are not special efforts required from the right hon. Gentleman's Department, particularly in view of the conclusions of the Nairobi conference, which, I am happy to say, are now available in the Vote Office for hon. Members? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for example, in Africa women do most of the work, including about 90 per cent. of the agricultural work? Surely that should be taken into account in considering aid projects in that part of the world?
    Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is evident that women in Africa and elsewhere in the world have an enormous role. I can claim that my Department has long recognised that role. In assessing projects, we look carefully at their likely impact on women in the area. I believe that we have a good record. I propose to make a grant of £50,000 in the next financial year to the United Nations development fund for women, which I believe will be very welcome.

    Crown Agents
    Mr. Galeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commowealth Affairs if he is satisfied that the service provided by the Crown Agents to other governmental organisations presents, in all cases, good value for money.
    Mr. Raison: Yes, but problems arise in all organisations and the Crown Agents should be able to deal with them.
    Mr. Gale: I had hoped that my right hon. Friend would take the opportunity to comment on our excellent aid programme in the Gambia. As part of that aid programme, the ODA is supplying Land Rovers. Land Rovers have to be bought through the Crown Agents and commission is paid on them. Would it not be more satisfactory if the ODA were able to buy the vehicles direct from the manufacturer at a discount and thus provide more aid?
    Mr. Raison: I can confirm from my own experience that we are running a good aid programme in the Gambia. I acknowledge that there have been problems with Land Rovers supplied by the Crown Agents. However, I think that the case for operating through the Crown Agents is a good one. It is important to have competence and integrity in the procurement operation. I believe that the Crown Agents can provide that.

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any new plans for land purchase in the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Raison: I have agreed to an allocation of £550,743 from the 1982 £31 million Falkland Islands development aid grant to enable the Falkland Islands Development Corporation to buy Fox Bay west from the Falkland Islands Company. The farm will subsequently be sub-divided and sold to local buyers.
    Mr. Greenway: May I welcome that admirable news from my right hon. Friend? Does he agree that any move which gives land to local people for development must be good news?
    Mr. Raison: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Our programme has been well judged. We have been careful not to move too rapidly, but I think that the steps we have taken have proved sensible, and we shall continue in that way.

    Philippines
    Mr. Tom Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the level of overseas aid to the Philippines in each of the last three years.
    Mr. Raison: We have a small technical co-operation programme which in the years 1982, 1983 and 1984 amounted to £0·177 million, £0·190 million and £0·225 million respectively. Investments in this period by the Commonwealth Development Corporation and disbursements from the aid and trade provision totalled £6·7 million and £1·4 million respectively.
    Mr. Clarke: Does not the contribution which the Minister has just outlined, as well as the House's commitment to human rights, demand that the Minister should take this opportunity to condemn the blatant rejection of democracy in the Philippines? Will he join every other civilised country in saying that the people of the Philippines have voted for a change and it is time that their democratic wishes were respected?
    Mr. Raison: It is not for me to comment on the general political position in the Philippines. However, I can confirm that we are watching it carefully from the point of view of aid and thinking carefully about what we should be doing in that area.

Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd.
3.31 pm
Mr. John Smith: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Department of Trade and Industry's decision to cancel the decision to extend the deadline date for completing the sale of Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd.-Cammell Laird Group.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Morrison): Last Thursday the Government proposed a short postponement in the date for the receipt of bids for the sale of Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. to allow prospective bidders for the company to tender simultaneously for the first Trident submarine contract. The prospective bidders, however, saw practical difficulties in such a delay and I therefore decided to proceed according to the original timetable.
Mr. Smith: Is it not the case that the Ministry of Defence made representations to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to postpone the date for the sale of the yard and that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry agreed to such a postponement, that one of the bidders contacted the Minister of State, and as a result it was decided to overturn the decision to delay it, so that it is now going ahead?
Can the Minister explain how it is possible to sell a yard when the asset value of the yard is said to be £40 million but the value of a contract, which has not yet been negotiated, is £400 million? How is it possible to fix any kind of price, having regard to the public interest, when the contract remains unfixed and unagreed? Was the Ministry of Defence not right to seek a postponement until that had been clarified, and is the Minister not wrong not to accept its advise?
As the Department of Trade and Industry has fixed a deadline which is inconsistent with the negotiating timetable of the Ministry of Defence, is it not clear that we have reached another situation in which the Government appear totally incapable of co-ordinating the activity of two separate Departments? Is it not clear also that the replacement of two Secretaries of State has not made the slightest difference to the incapacity of those Departments to work together? Above all, is it not now abundantly clear that the Government's privatisation dogma takes precedence over all other consequences of the public interest, including national defence?
Mr. Morrison: The date for the bids for Vickers shipyard has been known for a long time. Indeed, at the same time, over a long period, the negotiations between the Ministry of Defence and the shipyard on the Trident contract have been continuing, and are not quite finalised. Therefore, it seemed sensible—if the prospective bidders thought it was a good idea—to offer them the opportunity of extending the date for their bids. In the event, they decided not to. Therefore, it would have been incorrect to change the goal posts.
Mr. Cecil Franks: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the disgraceful interference in the privatisation programme, for purely commercial reasons, by Trafalgar House? Is he aware that, by delaying for six weeks from tomorrow the date for bids,
678
Trafalgar House would have been able to use its City connections to know the amount of the Vickers' bid, which was to be put in tomorrow? Will my hon. Friend comment on the rumours which are rife, which appear to be well founded, that, once in control of the Vickers group, after a decent passage of time, the Trafalgar House group would close the Shipyards of Cammell Laird and transfer that business to Scott Lithgow, together with the business from Barrow? Finally, is my hon. Friend aware that, by the Ministry of Defence giving the reason for postponing the time scale and finalisation of the Trident contract, that would oblige the present Vickers management to settle that contract on terms which it would not have accepted at arm's length negotiations?
Mr. Morrison: The Government and I are concerned to get the best possible deal on Vickers shipyard so that we have a proper submarine manufacturing capacity—
Mr. John Evans: There is one now.
Mr. Morrison: And, indeed, in the private sector. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, it was not until 1977 that the submarine manufacturing capacity of Vickers was put into the public sector.
I apologise to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) for not answering the second part of his question. I cannot anticipate what bids will come forward tomorrow or, indeed, on what terms.
Mr. Franks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take it afterwards.
Mr. Frank Field: I thank the Minister for maintaining the timetable, which prevents Trafalgar House from gaining undue advantage in the sale. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the loose talk by some Trafalgar House officials that, should they be successful in the sale, they will close Cammell Laird shipyards. As Cammell Laird is the much smaller of the two yards, will the Minister pay particular attention to its interests when he decides what the future of the two yards should be?
Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman will realise, the bids go to British Shipbuilders, it examines them carefully and it then makes a recommendation to the Government, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government give consent. The hon. Gentleman makes some important points about Cammell Laird. I realise that he has a constituency interest. I am sure that all those angles will be taken carefully into account before any recommendation is made to the Government by British Shipbuilders.
Mr. Alistair Burt: Will my hon Friend note the strong feelings on the issue in the north-west of England and accept that the task of promoting the Government's privatisation policy in that area will be made easier by the success of the VSEL consortium bringing, as it does, the interest of management, work force, community, patriotism and the Government together for a change?
Mr. Morrison: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, but I think he will agree that we have to look at all the bids that come forward, because if we do not look at them all and take the best, that will not be in the interests of privatisation.
Mr. John Cartwright: Will the Minister assure the House that in their anxiety to encourage privatisation the Government do not intend to construct the contract for the first Trident submarine so as to make cancellation by a future Government extremely difficult even if the British people vote in a general election for such a cancellation?
Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the contract is being negotiated on commercial terms. I agree with what he said about the Opposition's current policy towards the Trident missile and submarine. It makes a considerable difference.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is not the bleating of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) predictable in the circumstances? Is it not true that over the past one and half years the Labour party has been telling the people of Barrow that massive redundancies would arise from the privatisation of those shipyards, whether they were taken over by Trafalgar House or by anyone else? Is it not true that the future of those shipyards is fully secured only while they remain in the public sector? Is not the fact that the hon. Gentleman persists in coming to the House and making such ludicrous statements only a reflection of the inadequate way in which he has represented the shipyard workers in Barrow in the House over the past one and a half years?
Mr. Morrison: The real anxiety of all those who work in the shipyards, whether in Barrow or Birkenhead, is the Opposition's policy towards Trident. If it ever comes into being, it will ensure that work prospects on Barrow amd Birkenhead are much lower than they are now.
Mr. John Evans: How many millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been spent over the past few years creating the facility to build Trident submarines at Barrow? How can it possibly be in the interests of those taxpayers for that yard to be privatised in advance of the signing of the multibillion pound Trident programme?
Mr. Morrison: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the precise figure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I cannot give the figure off the top of my head. The sum will be taken into account when British Shipbuilders reviews the bids. I answered the hon. Gentleman's second question when I answered his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East.

Social Security Benefits (Uprating)
3.41 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission. Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the uprating of social security benefits. As the House knows, benefits were increased only three months ago at the end of November. We have made it clear that we intend to move to April upratings from 1987 in order to bring tax and social security closer together and to ensure that benefit changes coincide with changes in rents and rates. The uprating that I am announcing today enables the transition to be made and is the second of these upratings in the 16-month period from November 1985 to April 1987.
Those further increases will be paid in the week beginning 28 July and will be based on the change in prices between May 1985 and January 1986 when the retail prices index rose by 1·1 per cent. The overall cost of the new increases will be an extra £410 million in a full year and they follow the 7 per cent. increases in benefits which were paid from last November. As a result, the retirement pension for a married couple will rise from £61·30 to £61·95 a week and for a single person from £38·30 to £38·70. Public service pensions will be increased by the same percentage as will benefits for disabled people and war pensioners. Mobility allowance will go up to £21·65 a week although transport costs have in fact fallen over the period. The basic rate of unemployment benefit will also be increased by 1·1 per cent. from £30·45 to £30·80 for a single person and from £49·25 to £49·80 for a married couple. Other main contributory and non-contributory benefits will be similarly increased.
I made it clear last year that the Government believe it right to continue child benefit for all children irrespective of the income of their parents, but I also said that we have to consider its level both in relation to overall priorities within social security and with the aim of doing more for families with children on low incomes. I have considered the uprating of child benefit on that basis. My conclusion is that child benefit should be increased by 10p a week to £7·10—rather more than the rate of inflation. The older children's rates for supplementary benefit and the age-related amounts for family income supplement will also go up by slightly more than 1·1 per cent.
Three upratings in 16 months places inevitable administrative burdens and costs on local authorities and local offices of the Department of Health and Social Security. To contain this extra work sensibly I propose to increase the long-term rate of supplementary benefit and the housing benefit needs allowance by the same cash amount as will apply to retirement pension, which means putting supplementary benefit up by 1·1 per cent. although the increase in prices after excluding housing costs is 1·2 per cent.
For similar reasons, I do not propose to make any general changes in the additional amounts paid with supplementary benefit. In some cases no increase would be due in any event, and in others only small amounts. However, I have thought it right to increase the higher rate of heating addition which goes to the very elderly, the severely disabled and to people with homes which are specially difficult to heat. This addition will increase from £5·45 to £5·55 a week.

681
One other change will be made from this July which is consistent with bringing the current supplementary benefit scheme into line with the new proposed income support arrangements. From the date of the uprating, no new awards of the non-householder housing addition will be made between the ages of 21 and 24. Equally, no deductions will be made from the householder's housing benefit or supplementary benefit in respect of such non-dependants in this age group. This means that the poorest households will remain fully protected. There will be no increase in the amount of non-dependant deductions generally nor will there he any increase in the deduction from benefit which applies during industrial disputes.
There are two other matters I should mention. First, over the last few years there has been a steep rise in supplementary benefit single payments. Since 1981 the number of these payments has risen from under 1 million a year to over 4 million and the real cost has increased by over five times to more than £300 million a year. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security has reviewed the position and, as a result, I am today referring draft regulations to the Social Security Advisory Committee for consultation in the normal way.
Secondly, concern has been expressed over future policy on the payment of benefits at post offices. In a report by the Public Accounts Committee last summer the possibility was discussed that cash incentives should be offered to beneficiaries to encourage payment directly into bank accounts. I am aware that this has led to anxiety that the existence of many sub-post offices might be threatened if inducements were paid which reduced significantly the volume of benefit business which they transact. To remove that anxiety I want to make it clear that the Government do not intend to offer cash incentives. We recognise that very many people wish to retain the option of being paid in cash at post offices, and it is clear that post offices will retain an important role in the payment of benefits in the future. To ensure that the service to the public is as effective as possible, a joint study is being carried out by the Post Office and my Department to see what improvements can be made.
I am laying before the House a full schedule detailing all benefit rates payable from next July. This uprating will mean that in 1986–87 spending on social security will be almost £43 billion—that is 31 per cent. of all public spending.
The last time that an uprating statement was made less than a year after the previous one was in 1975, but the circumstances today are different. In 1975 inflation was out of control and the value of savings was being sharply eroded. Today inflation is low, which is to the benefit of the whole nation—but perhaps most of all to millions of pensioners. This interim increase keeps pensions ahead of the rise in prices since this Government came into office and I will be making a further uprating statement in the autumn.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that an increase of only 1·1 per cent. for pensioners is insulting when, by the time they get it in July, the annual surge in prices following the Budget and rates rises will have pushed up inflation to probably four times that level? Is he aware that it is deeply offensive to offer a single pensioner a crumb of 40p a week, enough to buy a couple of first-class stamps, when at the same
682
time the Chancellor is deploying every device to make tax handouts next month running into thousands of pounds for the well-off and the rich?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is cheating pensioners when he says that the change in the uprating date makes no difference and that what pensioners may lose in this uprating they will make up in the next? Is he aware that if the uprating had taken place at the normal time in November, single pensioners would have received double the extra cash from a 4 per cent. increase over a four-month period to April 1987 than they will get under today's uprating from a 1 per cent. increase over an eight-month period to April 1987? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every time the Government make a simplification or adjustment in social security that always involves a cut, and on this occasion the change in the uprating arrangements will mean a loss for pensioners of £120 million, which they will not recover?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if Labour's formula for uprating benefits in line with prices or earnings, whichever was higher, had not been levelled down by the Government in 1980, a single pensioner would now be receiving a pension of £4 a week more and a married couple one of £6·50 a week more? Is he further aware that if Labour's earnings link had been retained, even this shortened assessment period of the last eight months, during which earnings rose by over 4 per cent., would have given single pensioners a rise of £1·60 a week, instead of the measly 40p which they are being offered today?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an increase. of 10p for child benefit is piffling and does not begin to compensate 7 million mothers for the loss of 35p per child per week which they suffered at the last uprating?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a mean innovation to lower the uprating formula for the poorest claimants of all on supplementary benefit, which is what he is doing today, and, although the cut today is small, in the future it may involve significant losses for those on the lowest breadline?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement means that there will be no increases in 1986 for pensioners under 80 for diets or heating, and that the increases for the very elderly and severely disabled are precisely 10p a week—not enough to keep a bar fire going even for one afternoon?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement represents yet another attack on young people's incomes, when the 21 to 24-year-olds are already at the forefront of a Government drive for poverty wages? Is he also aware that the statement heralds the end of single payments for essential furniture, bedding and clothing for the poorest claimants? Where, in future, will a single mother or unemployed family find the money to pay for even a secondhand cooker or gas fire? Is this not paving the way for the abolition under the social fund of claimants' rights for basic essentials which any civilised society would provide?
This Scrooge-like and miserly statement gives no one more than the barest minimum, and it gives millions of pensioners, single mothers, the unemployed and children a great deal less in real terms than they had even last year.
Mr. Fowler: I entirely reject what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He talks about Labour's formula. We have costed Labour's formula on the basis of the interview that

683
the hon. Gentleman gave last week on social security plans. The proposals which the hon. Gentleman is putting forward would mean an extra £15 billion a year. The public will not be taken in by such deceptions.
The uprating follows a 7 per cent. uprating in November, when inflation was only 5·5 per cent. It is the second of three upratings between November 1985 and April 1987. Between May 1985 and January 1986, 1·1 per cent. was the measure of inflation. An autumn uprating statement will follow, based on the period between January and September. We are spending an extra £410 million, which will take social security spending to more than £43 billion.
For pensioners, the increase—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who keeps on interrupting from the Front Bench, wishes to come to the Dispatch Box and question me, I invite her to do so. For pensioners, the increase comes on top of an increase last November, when pensions were increased by £4 a week for a married couple and £2·50 for a single pensioner. Clearly the Government remain committed to keeping pensions at least in line with prices.
With regard to uprating dates, I believe that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), with his knowledge of social security, will accept that it is not possible to have an uprating at the end of November 1986 and another in April 1987. The DHSS would have to work on two upratings at the same time, and the hon. Gentleman will be the first to confirm that that is simply not possible.
The increase in child benefit demonstrates our belief that, under the tax and social security systems, child benefit is the only way of recognising the added responsibility that children represent. That is why we have increased child benefit by 10p.
On the question of the additional requirements, I have made it clear that we shall uprate the higher rate of heating addition, which goes to the elderly and the severely disabled and to hard-to-heat homes.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong about single payments. He has got the facts wrong, and I suggest that he reads what is set out in my statement.
The hon. Gentleman is saying that low inflation is of no benefit to pensioners. That is untrue. The banana republic economics which the hon. Gentleman wishes to practice, which provides high inflation so that upratings can seem higher, is ludicrous and is entirely in line with the policy of the Labour Government, which presided over an increase in inflation of 110 per cent.
Sir Ian Gilmour: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on maintaining the real value of child benefit. As child benefit is the best way of dealing with family proverty, will he do his best on the next occasion to restore the previous cut?
Mr. Fowler: I shall take into account what my right hon. Friend has said. I accept that child benefit is the only way in the social security and tax systems of recognising the undoubted added expense that children represent. We hope that under the new system of family credit, which will be in operation in 1988, that position will be better recognised and that more low-income families with children will be helped. I shall in the next uprating bear in mind what my right hon. Friend said about child benefit.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Secretary of State said that he was spending an extra £400 million. Does he accept that when the increases reach the pensioners' pockets they will be seen as derisory, and that those who do not follow these matters will be confused? As the statutory uprating percentage is small, will he take this opportunity to follow the advice of the SSAC and made the link with earnings, not with price increases? If he were to do that, it would give him the opportunity to appear generous.
Will the Secretary of State tell us more about the terms of reference of the Post Office study and the time scale for the report?
Mr. Fowler: The kind of earnings link which the hon. Gentleman advocates would have cost an extra £3 billion during the lifetime of the Government. From the pensioners' point of view, it is important that pensions should be uprated in line with prices and that inflation should be brought down. The most significant achievement of the Government has been to bring down inflation. Ten years ago inflation was running at between 23 and 24 per cent. That was dramatically bad news for pensioners.
We recognise that many people want payments in cash at post offices, so it is sensible that the service is made as good as possible. We are considering what improvements can be made to counter services in the survey which the DHSS and the Post Office are carrying out.
Mr. Ian Gow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the major cause of the synthetic indignation shown by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is the Government's massive achievement in keeping the rate of inflation at only 1·1 per cent. between May 1985 and January 1986? [Interruption.] Can he tell us now, or will he circulate in the Official Report, the best and the worst figures for inflation achieved by the Labour Government in any period between May and January, so that we and our pensioners can see the Government's genuine achievement?
Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is on to the right point, and to judge from the reaction of the Opposition, they also recognise that. I shall seek to set out in the Official Report the detailed figures that my hon. Friend seeks. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Derby, South makes a great deal of noise. I wish that she would come to the Dispatch Box and ask me a question. If she is not the Labour party spokesman on social security, perhaps she should make a takeover bid.
During the last period of the Labour Government inflation rose by 110 per cent. That was their economic achievement. At this time 10 years ago, inflation was between 23 and 24 per cent. That was another economic achievement of the Labour Government.
Mr. Frank Field: Given the past defeats of the Secretary of State to increase child benefit, I congratulate him on today's announcement and say that it is welcome to both sides of the House. Will he comment on his uprating formula? By changing that formula, has he not gained substantial savings for the Exchequer, which will allow him to double the Christmas bonus? Will he give pensioners that increase, or will cheat them of it?
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point on child benefit, which is in stark contrast to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Oldham, West.

685
With regard to indexing, we are talking about the difference between 1·1 and 1·2 per cent. That is a difference of 5p or 10p, and in some cases there is virtually no difference. The savings made from that would not remotely pay the cost of the increase that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: In describing the uprating statement as an insult, was not the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) delivering the most complete insult, by making it clear that a future Labour Government would have learnt nothing from the inflation experience of the previous Labour Adminstration? I note what my right hon. Friend proposes for heating benefits, but does he feel, as some of his hon. Friends feel, that the severe weather payments are not working effectively? Can we anticipate a review of the system before the next uprating statement?
Mr. Fowler: As my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security said, severe weather payments are being reviewed. The House will want the review completed and a decision on it before the next uprating statement. Last year, exceptionally severe weather payments amounted to about £1·7 million. The main help for heating comes both through the supplementary benefit scale rates and through the heating addition. Help with heating costs now totals some £400 million, which is £140 million more in real terms than under the Labour Government.
Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he originally intended to make the statement tomorrow, but that because he was so embarrassed by the fact that it is so mean and miserly he produced it today, thinking that he would get an easier ride in a thin House? I assure him that that will not be so. The choice before the Government was either to give pensioners a real increase, instead of just keeping them up with the cost of living, or to give tax handouts to the rich. The Government have chosen the latter, as we shall see in the Budget, and the pensioners will be screwed again to pay for them.
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has it wrong on both counts—not untypically.
Mr. Foulkes: That is not true.
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken, and I shall put it no higher than that. If he seeks to challenge that, any of my hon. Friends and anyone who knows anything about the matter will confirm it.
On the question of tax thresholds, the hon. Gentleman talks about tax reductions for the rich, but the Government seek to take many people on low earnings out of tax. That seems to be a good policy.
Mr. Tony Favell: I recognise the importance of providing benefits for the needy, but will my right hon. Friend spare a word for the millions of people who must go to work to earn those benefits? Will he assure them that he will not buy short-term cheap popularity at the expense of jacking up inflation?
Mr. Fowler: Yes, and I think that both sides of the House will agree with me on that. The hon. Member for Oldham, West proposes to spend an additional £15 billion to £20 billion a year, which must be raised from taxpayers. I am content to compare the Government's policies with those of the Labour party, because Labour party policies will never be put into effect.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Is the Secretary of State aware that the 40p a week increase for a single pensioner will purchase about six eggs, two small lumps of coal, one and a half small loaves or 110 peanuts? What has he to say to the 10,000 pensioners in my constituency who are fearful of putting on an electric fire because they cannot meet the bill?
Mr. Fowler: I would say that the increase comes on top of last November's increase, when pensions were increased by £4 a week for a married couple and £2·50 for a single person. I would also tell the people of Erdington that the Government have been more successful than any other Government in recent times in bringing down inflation. The hon. Gentleman had better realise that low inflation is good both for industry and for the millions of pensioners.
Mr. Andrew Bowden: Will my right hon. Friend look urgently at the regulations for the extra heating allowance for severe weather in relation to the savings figure of £500, which is wholly unfair? Will he take steps to ensure that applications for money are considered on the basis of receipted bills, not merely unpaid bills?
With regard to the three pension increases during the change-over period, will try right hon. Friend assure me that no pensioner will be worse off in future when the assessment is made, assuming that the three increases are based only on the retail prices index? If that were to be the case, will he ensure that the final increase in the autumn is above the rate of inflation, to take that into account?
Mr. Fowler: I cannot make any promises about the future, but the Government are committed to keeping pensions ahead of prices, and we have also made it clear that we shall abide by the historic method of measuring that inflation. That is fair and reasonable, and that was put before the country clearly at the general election.
I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend said about heating, and if we can help along the lines that he has suggested I shall seek to do so. The severe weather allowance is only one, and a small, part of the help with heating that we are providing. The fact that £400 million is being devoted to heating costs shows the priority that we place on that help.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Secretary of State and his Friends in the Tory Government use all the information that he has given the House today and put it in a leaflet for the Fulham pensioners in the by-election campaign? If he does, there is a fair chance that some of his Friends will not want to take the leaflets round, but he will get a few takers among Labour party members, such is the miserly offer that he has made today. Is he aware that he should not have instructed the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) to come here the other Friday and object to the Standing Charges (Abolition) Bill, which would have relieved pensioners of fairly substantial charges on heating and other bills? Had he not done so, the announcement today, plus a little extra, might have got more than one cheer from the many millions of pensioners, who will now say that there must be a lot of money around because those on top salaries received 19 per cent. extra only six months ago, and top business managers have had increases of 17 per cent. overall in 1985, while the pensioners are to be given 40p. What a scandal. The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself.
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman again ignores the fact that this increase follows the 7 per cent. uprating in November, when inflation was at 5·5 per cent. He also ignores the fact that inflation has been brought down by this Government, which is of considerable benefit to millions of pensioners. As to the heating benefit, the hon. Gentleman also ignores the fact that the Government are devoting £140 million more to heating than did the last Labour Government.
Mr. Nigel Forman: I welcome the figures in my right hon. Friend's statement, notably the continued price protection for pensioners, but does he realise that many Conservative Members would give him the strongest possible support if he would negotiate with the Treasury a real increase in child benefit? The recent record shows that a married man's tax allowance has gone up by 17 per cent. in real terms, but child benefit, before the announcement today, had decreased by 3 per cent. in real terms.
Mr. Fowler: I understand what my hon. Friend says, and clearly the Government have decided, by increasing child benefit, to take account of those feelings. All I can say is that for the next uprating statement in the autumn we shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: We give the Secretary of State credit for the consolidation of child benefit, although I echo the sentiments expressed on the Conservative Benches that more should be done as soon as possible to restore it to its real value following the developments of last year.
There will be a welcome in many constituencies for the statement about the security of the future of sub-post offices. Is not the most profoundly damaging aspect of the Secretary of State's statement the circular going to the Social Security Advisory Committee for consultation, which encompasses some quite horrendous constraints on future single payments? Does this not auger badly for the future of the social fund? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by constraining the level and range of single payments the Government, who have become known for selling off the family silver, are showing that they want to inhibit the right of the poor to keep their family furniture?
Mr. Fowler: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about child benefit and the policy on post offices. When he has had a chance to look at the proposals on single payments more closely, he will see the case set out. Single payments have escalated since 1981 from 834,000 to over 4 million in 1985. That is not a simple product of unemployment. In 1981 there were 231 single payments per 1,000 claimants, while in 1985 there were 880 such payments per 1,000. As the hon. Gentleman will know, substantial campaigns are being run by a number of councils and others to increase the take-up of these payments. There is an overwhelming case for reform and the proposals that we have laid out for consultation with the SSAC strike a fair balance between the rights of the individual claimant and those of taxpayers generally.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Do not pensioners want financial security and predictability, and does not the reaction of the Labour party suggest that it has failed to learn the lessons of the past? Should it not recognise the fear under which pensioners live, of inflation rising again to 25 per cent.? Does my right hon. Friend
688
agree that since the Government came into office pensions have more than kept up with prices, and that what matters to pensioners is not letting inflation run away, as it is the most cruel tax of all?
Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right. Pensions in this period of government have kept ahead of prices, but the Government have also brought inflation down. Everything that the hon. Member for Oldham, West has said during this and other exchanges shows that the Labour party has learnt nothing from the past.
Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister will know that, despite what his hon. Friends are saying, pensioners want the security of knowing that they can put clothes on their backs, shoes on their feet and coal on their fires, which they will not be able to do following this statement. How much will the right hon. Gentleman save by moving the uprating from November to July?
Mr. Fowler: It is not possible to say that, because there is no way in which I can predict what the May to May inflation will be. That would be the measure if there were an uprating in November, but the whole question is academic because, for the reasons that I have stated, it would not be practical to have a November uprating.
Mr. Tim Smith: Does not the statement graphically underline the Government's achievement in getting inflation down—something that is of benefit to pensioners in Fulham and elsewhere? Has my right hon. Friend seen the forecast yesterday from the London Business School, which shows inflation moving below 4 per cent. this year, and 3 per cent. next year? Is this not the best possible news for anybody living on a fixed income or having a fixed amount of capital?
Mr. Fowler: Yes, and that is what the public will see as the position. This is good not only for pensioners and those living on fixed incomes but for employment, business and industry. If the Labour party wants to stand as the party of high inflation, it can do so. This party and this Government stand for low inflation, which is to the benefit of the nation.
Mr. John Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the announcement of these miserable sums will be greeted with anger and disbelief by pensioners and their organisations everywhere? They will bear in mind his Government's performance when they cast their votes at the next election. Is he also aware that his announcement of a 10p uprating in the heating allowance is adding insult to injury at a time when the severe weather payments are a national scandal? Will he answer the question about how much benefit there will be to the Treasury by changing the formula?
Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman means the change to May to May, that would depend on the May rate of inflation, and there is no way of knowing that at the moment, self-evidently. Also, there is no way in which we can have a November uprating followed by an April uprating. As to the other points, I am content that the Government are judged on their record in the economic and social sectors, compared with the disaster that we inherited from the Labour Government.
Mr. Robin Squire: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on increasing the child benefit by more than the rate of inflation, but I gently remind him that the

689
2·5p per week is modest when set against the 35p a week reduction in real terms last November. Is he aware that many Conservative right hon. and hon. Members will expect even greater progress by the time of the next statement?
Mr. Fowler: I have taken on board my hon. Friend's point. I hope he will recognise that by introducing the family credit system we are seeking to help an additional 200,000 families with children on low incomes. My hon. Friend should concentrate on the two policies, but I shall take into account what he has said about child benefit.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that if he had any self-respect he would feel humiliated at having to make a statement about these miserable increases? Is he aware that one of the reasons for the unpopularity of the Conservative party is that there is a growing recognition that this Cabinet is concerned with helping the rich in every way, and is utterly unconcerned about the plight of the unemployed, pensioners and others who have to live on the smallest possible incomes? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise how nauseating it is to see Conservative Member after Conservative Member get up in this Chamber and praise him? They are extremely complacent about these increases, although in many cases those Conservative Members are earning large sums of money because they have two, three or four jobs. They are in no position to lecture pensioners who are having to struggle on £50, £60 or £70 a week.
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is making a constituency speech. He is mistaken if he thinks that low inflation is of benefit only to the rich. The Government's policies have resulted in low inflation. We are also trying to take out of tax many more of the people who are on low incomes. Those are the realities, rather than the complete nonsense that the hon. Gentleman talks on every ocassion.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising to ask a question, but I can allow these exchanges to continue for only another four minutes before I call the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: If the elderly, the sick, the disabled and those on fixed incomes are the hardest hit by high levels of inflation—which they are—should we not all rejoice at the low level of inflation that underpins my right hon. Friend's statement?
Mr. Fowler: Yes, that is right. I have said during these exchanges that low inflation is of the greatest benefit to the most vulnerable in our country.
Mr. Michael Stern: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that part of his statement which shows his confidence in the ability of the Post Office and sub-post office network to compete with the banks, provided that no element of subsidy is involved. Will he ensure that pensioners and others retain the right to choose for themselves their method of collecting benefits?
Mr. Fowler: Yes, I recognise the concern. That is why I believe that it is right to make clear the Government's policy. I hope that the statement of policy will be noted
690
not only by those concerned but by the sub-postmasters. Freedom of choice for the beneficiary is implicit in our policy.
Mr. Richard Hickmet: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what would be the position of pensioners today if inflation were running at 25 per cent., rather than at 5 per cent.? Am I right in thinking that pensions have increased by more than 10 per cent. since the Government came to office in 1979? What would be the position of pensioners if the £24 billion of public expenditure promises that have been made by the Labour party were put into effect? Would not the result be a dramatic increase in inflation?
Mr. Fowler: Since November 1978 there has been a 98 per cent. increase in pensions, compared with a 91 or 92 per cent. increase in prices. A 25 per cent. inflation rate would have the clearest effect on the savings of pensioners. During the last Labour Government savings were eroded and tax was increased. As far as one can tell, that is what is promised by the Labour party if it ever gains power again.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement about the future of sub-post offices. Will he confirm that today's announcement about pensioners means that for the foreseeable future they can rely upon the Government to allow them to continue to use post offices for the payment of their pensions?
Mr. Fowler: Yes. In addition, everyone will have the freedom to choose which form of payment he or she requires.
Mr. Christopher Chope: I, too, thank my right hon. Friend for what he said about sub-post offices. Is he aware that profitable urban sub-post offices are still being closed down by the Post Office? Will he assure me that in his negotiations with the Post Office he will ask it to ensure that it maintains its existing network of profitable urban sub-post offices?
Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend's question goes a little further than my responsibilities, but I shall bear in mind what he has said.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I, too, welcome the lifeline that has been given to sub-post offices by my right hon. Friend. Their future has been in question.
When my right hon. Friend has completed his social security review of those who claim unemployment benefit but who may have a job and may not therefore necessarily be unemployed, will he ensure that the additional £410 million is provided for those who are genuinely unemployed and also for doubling next year's Christmas bonus for the elderly?
Mr. Fowler: I cannot give any commitment about the Christmas bonus. However, nobody wants benefit payments to be made if they are not justified.
Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State has ostentatiously evaded two central issues. Will he confirm that the cuts in pension increases as a result of this double change in the uprating arrangements until April 1987 means that pensioners will lose about £120 million? Will he acknowledge that most of this money will end up in tax

691
cuts which, contrary to the Secretary of State's claims today, the Prime Minister has recently admitted go overwhelmingly to the better off and the rich?
Secondly, the Secretary of State has made several claims about lower inflation. Will he confirm that what matters to pensioners is the real level of the pension increase over and above inflation? Will he acknowledge that after six years of Labour Government the real increase in the pension was 20 per cent., but that after six years under this Government the real increase has been only 5 to 7 per cent.?
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has always ignored, and he continues to ignore, any savings that pensioners may have made. During the period of the last Labour Government inflation increased over 110 per cent. Not a great deal of imagination is required to know what happened to the savings of millions of pensioners. Until the hon. Gentleman takes that point on board, he will continue to bring forward only half-baked social security plans.
As for the May to May proposals, it is not possible to have an uprating at the end of November 1986 and another one in April 1987. Therefore the issue does not arise.
Following is the schedule:

New Social Security Benefit rates

Old rates

New rates

Attendance Allowance

higher rate

30·60

30·95

lower rate

20·45

20·65

Child Benefit—each child

7·00

7·10

Child's Special Allowance

8·05

8·05

Death Grant (Lump sum)

30·00

30·00

Dependency Additions

Adult Dependency Additions For spouse or person looking after children, with:

23·00

23·25

retirement pension on own insurance, invalidity pension, unemployability supplement and, if beneficiary over pension age, unemployment benefit non-contributory retirement pension, invalid care and severe disablement allowance

13·75

13·90

sickness benefit if beneficiary over pension age

22·00

22·25

unemployment benefit:

standard rate

18·80

19·00

three-quarter rate

14·10

14·25

half rate

9·40

9·50

maternity allowance/sickness benefit

standard rate

18·00

18·20

three-quarter rate

13·50

13·65

half rate

9·00

9·10

Child Dependency Additions

For each child with:

retirement pension, widows benefit, invalidity benefit, invalid care and severe disablement allowance, higher rate industrial death benefit, unemployability supplement an sickness/unemployment benefit if beneficiary over pension age

8·05

8·05

692

Old rates

New rates

Earnings Rules

Retirement Pension

75·00

75·00

Invalid Care Allowance

12·00

12·00

Unemployment Benefit Subsidiary Occupation (daily rate)

2·00

2·00

Therapeutic Earnings Limit

25·00

25·50

Industrial Injuries Unemployability supplement permitted earnings level (annual amount)

1,300·00

1,326·00

War Pensioners' Unemployability Supplement permitted earnings level

25·00

25·50

Earnings rule for Adult dependant's benefit with Sickness Benefit where

claimant is under pension age

18·00

18·20

claimant is over pension age

22·00

22·25

Maternity Allowance

18·00

18·20

Unemployment Benefit where

claimant is under pension age

18·80

19·00

claimant is over pension age

23·00

23·25

Retirement pension, invalidity pension, Severe Disablement Allowance, Unemployability supplement where dependent living with claimant

30·45

30·80

As above where dependant still qualifies for tapered earnings rule

45·09

45·09

Retirement pension, Invalidity pension and Unemployability Supplement where dependant is non-resident

23·00

23·25

Severe Disablement Allowance where dependant is non-resident

13·75

13·90

Invalid care allowance wife or female housekeeper

13·75

13·90

Child dependency additions point at which CDAs payable with long-term benefits are affected by earnings of claimant's partner

for first child

85·00

85·00

for each subsequent child

10·00

10·00

Family Income Supplement

Prescribed amount for one-child family, where child is aged

under 11

97·50

98·60

11–15

98·50

99·60

16 and over

99·50

100·60

increase for each additional child

under 11

11·50

11·65

11–15

12·50

12·65

16 and over

13·50

13·65

Maximum amount for one-child family where child is aged

under 11

25·00

25·30

11–15

25·50

25·80

16 and over

26·00

26·30

increase for each additional child

under 11

2·50

2·55

11–15

3·00

3·05

16 and over

3·50

3·55

Guardian's Allowance

each child

8·05

8·05

693

Old rates

New rates

Hospital Downrating

20 per cent. rate

7·65

7·75

40 per cent. rate

15·30

15·50

60 per cent. Rate

22·95

23·25

Resettlement benefit

62·00

62·00

Reduction where wife has pension on own insurance (category A)

22·95

23·20

Housing Benefit

Needs allowances

single person

47·70

48·10

couple/single parent

70·20

70·85

single handicapped person

53·20

53·65

couple (one handicapped) or handicapped single parent

75·70

76·40

couple (both handicapped)

78·25

79·00

pensioner addition

·85

·85

dependent child addition

14·50

14·60

Non-dependant deductions/contributions

Rate rebates

aged 18 to pension age, and not on supplementary benefit or YTS, nor qualifying for modified deduction after 56 days

2·60

2·60

of pension age, or over 21 and on supplementary benefit or qualifying for modified deduction after 56 days*

1·10

1·10

age 16–17 and not on supplementary benefit, YTS or Severe Disablement Allowance

1·10

1·10

Rent rebates and allowances

aged 18 to pension age and not on supplementary benefit or YTS nor qualifying for modified deduction after 56 days

7·80

7·80

of pension age, or over 21 and on supplementary benefit or qualifying for modified deduction after 56 days* qualifying for modified deduction

2·80

2·80

aged 16–17 and not on supplementary benefit, YTS or Severe Disablement Allowance

2·80

2·80

Disregards for:

Claimant's earnings

17·30

17·30

spouse's earnings

5·00

5·00

various pensions etc.

4·00

4·00

for maintenance of non grant-aided students (maximum)

23·60

23·85

Deductions

applied to grant-aided students† London

20·80

20·80

Elsewhere

15·75

15·75

for amenities (maximum) heating

6·55

6·70

hot water

·80

·80

lighting

·50

·50

cooking

·80

·80

all fuel

8·65

8·80

Expenses allowed for sub-tenants

furnished letting

3·00

3·00

unfurnished letting

1·50

1·50

garage or outbuilding

·40

·40

Industrial Death Benefit

Widow's pension first 26 weeks

53·60

54·20

higher permanent rate

38·85

39·25

694

Old rates

New rates

lower permanent rate

11·49

11·61

Allowances for children paid with pension

8·05

8·05

Industrial Disablement Pension

over 18 or under 18 with dependents

per cent.

100

62·50

63·20

90

56·25

56·88

80

50·00

50·56

70

43·75

44·24

60

37·50

37·92

50

31·25

31·60

40

25·00

25·28

30

18·75

18·96

20

12·50

12·64

under 18

per cent.

100

38·30

38·70

90

34·37

34·83

80

30·64

30·96

70

26·81

27·09

60

22·98

23·22

50

19·15

19·35

40

15·32

15·48

30

11·49

11·61

20

7·66

7·74

Maximum life gratuity

4,150·00

4,200·00

Unemployability Supplement plus where appropriate an increase for early incapacity

38·30

38·70

higher rate

8·05

8·15

middle rate

5·10

5·20

lower rate

2·55

2·60

Adult dependant increase

23·00

23·25

Child dependant increase

8·05

8·05

Maximum special hardship allowance

25·00

25·28

Constant attendance allowance normal maximum

25·00

25·30

part-time rate

12·50

12·65

intermediate rate

37·50

37·95

exceptional rate

50·00

50·60

Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

25·00

25·30

Invalid Care Allowance

23·00

23·25

Increase for adult dependant

13·75

13·90

Invalidity Benefit

Invalidity pension

38·30

38·70

Invalidity allowance

higher rate

8·05

8·15

middle rate

5·10

5·20

lower rate

2·55

2·60

Maternity Benefit

Maternity Allowance

adult single full rate

29·15

29·45

adult dependant full rate

18·00

18·20

adult single three-quarter rate

21·86

22·09

adult dependant three-quarter rate

13·50

13·65

adult single half rate

14·58

14·73

adult dependant half rate

9·00

9·10

Maternity Grant

25·00

25·00

Mobility Allowance

21·40

21·65

695

Old rates

New rates

One Parent Benefit

4·55

4·60

Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis, Workman's Compensation and Other Schemes

Major incapacity allowance (maximum) and allowance for total disablement

62·50

63·20

partial disablement allowance

23·00

23·25

Unemployability supplement; plus where appropriate increases for early incapacity

38·30

38·70

higher rate

8·05

8·15

middle rate

5·10

5·20

lower rate

2·55

2·60

Constant attendance allowance normal maximum rate

25·00

25·30

part-time rate

12·50

12·65

intermediate rate

37·50

37·95

exceptional rate

50·00

50·60

Exceptionably severe disablement allowance

25·00

25·30

Lesser incapacity allowance (maximum)

23·00

23·25

—based on loss of earnings of over

30·60

30·95

Retirement Pension

category A or B—on own insurance

38·30

38·70

category B (lower)—spouse's insurance

23·00

23·25

category C or D—non-contributory

23·00

23·25

category C (lower)—non-contributory

13·75

13·90

graduated retirement benefit (unit)

0·05

0·05

increments to basic and additional pension, guaranteed minimum pension, and graduated retirement benefit

increased by (1·1 per cent.)

(also paid with widows' and invalidity benefits)

addition for over 80's

0·25

0·25

Severe Disablement Allowance

23·00

23·25

increase for adult dependant

13·75

13·90

Sickness Benefit

over pension age single rate

36·65

37·05

increase for adult dependant

22·00

22·25

under pension age single full rate

29·15

29·45

adult dependant full rate

18·00

18·20

single three quarters rate

21·86

22·09

adult dependant three quarters rate

13·50

13·65

single half rate

14·58

14·73

adult dependant half rate

9·00

9·10

Supplementary Benefit

Scale rates ordinary rates

single householder

29·50

29·80

couple

47·85

48·40

non-householder 18 or over

23·60

23·85

non-householder 16–17

18·20

18·40

long-term rates single householder

37·50

37·90

couple

60·00

60·65

non-householder 18 or over

30·00

30·35

non-householder 16–17

23·00

23·25

696

Old rates

New rates

dependent children over 18

23·60

23·85

16–17

18·20

18·40

11–15

15·10

15·30

under 11

10·10

10·20

Board and lodging personal expenses: short term

single

9·70

9·80

married

19·40

19·60

personal expenses: long-term

single

10·85

10·95

married

21·70

21·90

personal expenses: dependants

18 and over

9·70

9·80

16–17

5·85

5·90

11–15

5·00

5·05

under 11

3·25

3·30

Maximum special increase in board and lodging

single person

17·30

17·50

married couple

34·60

35·00

Personal expenses

for claimants in private and voluntary residential and nursing homes

8·95

9·05

for claimants in re-establishment centres

9·85

9·95

for claimants in resettlement units

7·50

7·60

for claimants in hospital and local authority accommodation

7·65

7·75

for claimants in the Polish home Ilford Park

10·85

10·95

Additional requirements Heating additions (including age-related heating additions)

higher rate

5·45

5·55

lower rate

2·20

2·20

Central heating additions

higher rate

4·40

4·40

lower rate

2·20

2·20

Estate rate heating additions

higher rate

8·80

8·80

lower rate

4·40

4·40

Special dietary additions

lower rate

1·60

1·60

higher rate

3·70

3·70

haemodialysis rate

10·65

10·65

Blind addition

1·25

1·25

Over 80's addition

·25

·25

Laundry cost deduction

·55

·55

Addition for extra bath

·30

·30

Housing costs Reduction for non-dependants aged 18 to pension age, and not on supplementary benefit, YTS nor qualifying for modified deductions after 56 days

7·80

7·80

of pension age or over 21 and on supplementary benefit or qualifying for modified deduction after 56 days*

2·80

2·80

non-householder rent addition

3·90

3·90

697

Old rates

New rates

repairs and insurance allowance

1·85

1·85

Capital Limits

For reciept of Supplementary benefit

3,000·00

3,000·00

for single payments and related items

500·00

500·00

for interest on loans for repairs and improvements

500·00

500·00

lower rate voluntary unemployment deductions

100·00

100·00

Other limits

expenses on starting work religious requirements

35·00

35·00

for funerals

75·00

75·00

for repairs

325·00

325·00

Earnings disregard

£4 and in the case of single parents half the next £16

Deductions for direct payments fuel direct

5% rate

1·50

1·50

10% rate

2·95

3·00

housing costs direct

1·50

1·50

Reduction in benefit for strikers

17·00

17·00

Unemployment Benefit

Claimant over pension age

single rate

38·30

38·70

increase for adult dependant

23·00

23·25

Under pension age

single full rate

30·45

30·80

increase for adult dependant

18·80

19·00

single three-quarters rate

22·84

23·10

adult dependant three-quarters rate

14·10

14·24

single half rate

15·23

15·40

adult dependant half rate

9·40

9·50

War Pensions

Disablement pension private or equivalent (100 per cent.)

62·50

63·20

officer (100 per cent.) (£ per annum)

3,259·00

3,295·00

Age allowances

40 per cent. to 50 per cent.

4·35

4·40

over 50 per cent. but not over 70 per cent.

6·80

6·85

over 70 per cent. but not over 90 per cent.

9·75

9·85

over 90 per cent

13·60

13·70

Disablement gratuity specified minor injury

4,150·00

4,200·00

unspecified minor injury

2,282·50

2,310·00

Unemployability allowance

personal allowance

40·65

41·10

increase for adult dependant

23·00

23·25

increase for each child

8·05

8·05

Invalidity allowances higher rate

8·05

8·15

middle rate

5·10

5·20

lower rate

2·55

2·60

Constant attendance allowance

normal maximum rate

25·00

25·30

part-time rate

12·50

12·65

intermediate rate

37·50

37·95

exceptionable rate

50·00

50·60

698

Old rates

New rates

Comforts allowance

higher rate

10·80

10·90

lower rate

5·40

5·45

Mobility supplement

23·80

24·05

Allowance for lowered standard of occupation (maximum)

25·00

25·28

Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

25·00

25·30

Severe disablement occupational allowance

12·50

12·65

Clothing allowance

higher rate (per annum)

85·00

86·00

lower rate (per annum)

54·00

55·00

Education allowance (per annum)

120·00

120·00

War widows' pension standard rate for widow of private

49·80

50·30

childless widow under 40

11·49

11·61

widows' age allowance

age 65 to 69

5·35

5·40

age 70 to 79

10·70

10·80

age 80 and over

13·40

13·55

war widow's child addition

11·55

11·55

addition for motherless or fatherless child

12·60

12·60

Unmarried dependant living as wife

47·75

48·25

Rent allowance (maximum)

18·95

19·15

Adult orphan's pension

38·30

38·70

Widower's pension (maximum)

49·80

50·30

Widow's Benefit

Widows' allowance

53·60

54·20

Widowed mothers' allowance

38·30

38·70

Widows' pension

standard rate

38·30

38·70

Non-contributory category C'

23·00

23·25

Age-related widows' pension standard rate age 49

35·62

35·99

age 48

32·94

33·28

age 47

30·26

30·57

age 46

27·58

27·86

age 45

24·90

25·16

age 44

22·21

22·45

age 43

19·53

19·74

age 42

16·85

17·03

age 41

14·17

14·32

age 40

11·49

11·61

Non-contributory category C

age 49

21·39

21·62

age 48

19·78

20·00

age 47

18·17

18·37

age 46

16·56

16·74

age 45

14·95

15·11

age 44

13·34

13·49

age 43

11·73

11·86

age 42

10·12

10·23

age 41

8·51

8·60

age 40

6·90

6·98

* From 28 July 1986 this will read "aged 25 or more for new cases".
† Rate to be increased in September.

BILL PRESENTED
  COMMON OWNERSHIP OF LAND
  Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. Terry Fields, Mr. Martin Flannery, Miss Joan Maynard, Mr. Bob McTaggart, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Allan Roberts and Mr. Dennis Skinner, presented a Bill to restore to the British people their heritage in the ownership of land: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill [84.].

Children in Care
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
4.27 pm
Mrs. Renée Short: I am sure that all members of the Select Committee on Social Services are glad to have an opportunity to debate, even for a short time, the report that it produced on children in care. The Committee had the benefit of the Government's reply and of the Government's working party on the legal issues. A good deal of evidence has therefore been collected together.
I thank all those who helped the Select Committee in its inquiry into the problems of children in care. The inquiry began in November 1982, which seems aeons ago, but it was interrupted by the general election. In 1983 the Committee decided to pick up the threads again and to complete its report, which was presented to the House in November 1984. The Committee is especially grateful to all the professional and voluntary organisations that gave evidence to it. The Committee is also especially grateful to the local authorities, including two in Scotland. They showed the Committee what they are doing in caring for deprived children who are sometimes delinquent. We are also grateful to those who develop the training of social workers in this difficult and sensitive work.
We learnt much from our visit to Denmark and Holland. We are also grateful to our three specialist advisers who have great experience in social work, administration and research and in the massive intricacies of the law.
Caring for children who are separated from their families is expensive. In 1981–82 we spent £370 million, mostly on residential homes, hostels, and boarding out. It costs £137 a week to keep a child in a community home, £123 a week in a voluntary home and £197 a week in residential accommodation, whereas fostering costs between £60 and £70 a week. We must be sure that we are right when deciding what we are to do to help a child in difficulty.
When we began our inquiry there was a debate going on about the rights of children and of parents. Now it is even more urgent to deal with the many shortcomings that were highlighted recently in the tragic Beckford case. Children in care are not obviously different from others of their age. A small minority might be in trouble for truancy, for example — often the first sign of difficulty in a family. Generally, the parents or other adults are in most need of help in dealing with a child who has difficulties.
We found that 8,400 children are in care because of parental neglect or abuse, 11,200 because their single parents cannot cope, 8,000 because of unsatisfactory home conditions, 5,700 because of parental illness and 3,200 because they have been orphaned or abandoned. Not all the children require long-term care.
Children in care are the victims. They are in care because the care system is designed to protect children against adult society, not to protect society against children. Although the state can never be a substitute for good parents and the good, loving home, it has an overriding responsibility to protect children when parenthood breaks down, for whatever reason.
The Committee accepts that parents and the family have rights and that they should be involved in the process of

701
care, especially if the break-up of the family can be prevented. However, when the family cannot provide for the child, for whatever reason, the state must intervene. Poverty and unemployment increase the risks of marital breakdown and, therefore, the risk of juvenile delinquency. Many children in care come from families on supplementary benefit who live in poor housing, or from families with too many children. We tend to forget the appalling strain on mothers, especially mothers bringing up children singlehanded. Children from prosperous families are also in care. We must not forget that most children from deprived families are well cared for by their families. We must keep the issue in perspective.
Local authorities are closing down many of their community health and education facilities and their residential homes, so fostering has increased. The number of interim care orders has increased, as have remands into care and matrimonial care orders. That means that the courts have an increasing role in child care.
Our report covers some specific areas which need specific Government action. It makes a number of recommendations for local authorities about the large number of placements experienced by some children. Sometimes they must move within weeks or months from one foster home to another—perhaps for good reasons—but that can be unsettling and set a child back at school. Our report recommends that children attend their reviews where possible so that they are involved in the decisions made about them. We recommended that local authorities encourage foster parent groups. It is important to bring foster parents together so that they can discuss their mutual problems and perhaps exchange good ideas
We say that the inspectorate should assess the way in which local authorities monitor their policies and practices so that good ideas can be passed between authorities. We say that the Department should keep itself well informed about developments so that if necessary other Departments can become involved. Housing and education often need to be involved. While different avenues of research are being pursued, the more consultation across boundaries the better. When more than one Department is involved it is often difficult to bring together different groups of Ministers and civil servants. We hope that the Department will do its best.
We should like to know what progress has been made in recruiting black foster parents. We found that to be a serious gap, according to the evidence taken in the House and as a result of our visits to various local authorities. There is a shortage of black foster parents and there are problems in persuading local authorities to provide support, training and housing accommodation for young people leaving care. It is not good enough that young people should be in care until they are 16 and then be pushed out into the big world. That is the time when they are most vulnerable and in need of help. We must consider the problem of finding accommodation and bringing the Departments together to ensure that provision is made for young people. Lack of care at that age is one of the reasons why so many young people drift to London, all too often with disastrous consequences.
We were encouraged to learn of the formation of the National Association for Young People in Care which gave evidence in the House. We met representatives from that organisation when we visited Bradford where its headquarters are. We found them to be stimulating, intelligent and caring. The association is run by young
702
people who have been in care. They deserve every support, including financial support, that the Department can give.
Is the Minister satisfied with the protection provided for handicapped children in care and leaving care? Such children are vulnerable. What progress has been made with our recommendation that a named medical adviser, should be responsible for the oversight of all children in care in each local authority area? What progress has been made towards establishing a permanent medical practice for children in care? If teachers, social workers, foster parents and others can get in touch with a medical adviser, that could provide the necessary co-ordination.
Doctors and teachers should have some understanding of the wide range of circumstances that can lead to a child being taken into care. That is important for teachers because they will receive children in care into their classrooms. The Blom-Cooper report into the tragic case of Jasmine Beckford shows that many important recommendations were not carried out in that case. That report was made some time after our report was published and showed that inadequately trained young people should not deal with such cases.
We urge the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work to take on board our recommendations about training its students. We urge it to finalise its proposals for the better training of social workers generally, who are expected to carry a very considerable responsibility. We do not underestimate the burdens that social workers, particularly young ones, are expected to shoulder. They carry considerable responsibility for widely disadvantaged groups, and their training should therefore be as adequate, careful and conscientious as possible.
We recommended that the training period should be for three years. It is clear that we have been expecting too much of young, inadequately trained men and women who are very keen to do social work but who have not been adequately prepared. We must extend the training course and improve its content.
I hope that the Minister will have some contact with the central council and will be able to give us some information about that. It is essential for directors of social service departments to provide the support and supervision that young social workers need. In recent cases it has been clear that that has not been provided.
I remind the House that we are still awaiting the Lord Chancellor's proposals, following our recommendations which arose from our visits to Scotland and Denmark, for the setting up of family courts. We saw admirable examples of what can be done in an informal atmosphere to help young people in difficulties, and their families, to deal with their problems. That may not necessitate taking the child away from home. The informal atmosphere that we saw is a great improvement on what can sometimes be a rather adversarial situation in juvenile courts in England. We have much to do to enable the legal side of the inquiries to function more effectively.
Before coming to the House I had some experience as a magistrate and sat on the juvenile bench. During our inquiry I visited three juvenile benches—two in London and one in my constituency—to see whether practice had changed. I was very depressed to find that it had not. The presence of uniformed policemen in the court, the magistrates sitting on a dais separated from the witnesses and the completely bewildered parents, guardians or

703
whoever is representing the young person, makes for a very difficult atmosphere. There is no real heart-to-heart conversation, which is necessary if one is trying to find out from a young person what motivated him or her to steal a car or to try to bump a policeman on the head.
We are waiting anxiously for the Lord Chancellor's proposals. We have had the advantage of the review of child care law, which made interesting reading, but it is for the Lord Chancellor's proposals that we are waiting. I hope that this debate will stimulate all of the organisations that are working in this area of social care and that we shall be able to give them, through the decisions made by the Department, all of the help that they obviously need.
4.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I am very happy to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) and to congratulate her on her personal contribution in these matters. I also congratulate her colleagues on the Select Committee, who have examined this vital topic. It is of the greatest parliamentary and public concern, as recent debates have shown. I refer to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and the Second Reading of the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) a couple of weeks ago.
The Government fully share the anxiety about these matters, which is due to some extent to the steady and depressing succession of child abuse cases that have come to light. It is not possible to make with any confidence any assertion about whether that phenomenon represents a serious rise in the incidence of child abuse or whether such cases are now detected and reported more frequently.
I remind the House that it is no coincidence that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which does such good work and of whose Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) is a member, is more than a century old. This is by no means a new problem. There can be no disagreement, however, about our having to do anything to reduce or, as far as possible, eliminate this horrifying cancer in our society.
We must be careful not to over-react to any headline. My colleagues and I will continue to pay tribute to the thousands of unreported successes of social workers and other professionals. They achieve a great deal in extremely difficult circumstances. The Government are not content, however, with present circumstances. As the hon. Lady said, we have responded in Cmnd. 9298 to the Select Committee's report, which we greatly welcome. It made a valuable contribution in an area which is a matter of great public concern, which is complex and sensitive and in which fashions change. Indeed, fashions conflict and there is most certainly no one simple clear solution.
The Select Committee's report covered a great deal of ground. It made no fewer than 108 recommendations and reached 42 conclusions. We tried to respond positively. We also covered much of the ground in the triennial report for 1982–84, which was published last December under the Child Care Act 1980. It, too, is available to hon. Members.
704
In all of our debates in this House, in all the guidances and consultations which issue from our Department, in the flood of articles in the general media and in the professional journals, in all the deliberations of the courts, our objective must always be to find practical ways in which to help children who may be in need or even in danger. Whatever may be the structure of the court system, the state of the law, the level of liaison and control of all the various agencies involved, in the end, the effectiveness of that whole system must rest to a very large extent on how one adult can work with one child and his family.
We must ensure that he or she has the best and most relevant training for that task and the best possible support from the appropriate services. As the Select Committee states in paragraph 27 of its report, there is a
"crying need for improved liaison between the many statutory agencies involved."
That observation and passages in a number of the other sections of the report highlight a crucial message which also emerges clearly from Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper's inquiry into the Jasmine Beckford case and the reports of other child abuse tragedies. That message emphasises the importance of the role and responsibilities of the elected members of local authorities to see that there are satisfactory arrangements for discharging their child-care responsibilities and that in practice they work as intended.
The local authorities are at a critical point in the whole system. They must ensure that the right staff are selected for this very difficult work and that the staff are given the appropriate training. They must ensure that the social services departments are able to work harmoniously and productively with other departments such as education and housing, and that there is good co-operation at the local level—and I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East about the importance of co-operation and liaison at the national level—but even when co-operation is achieved at the central level, it may not be at the local level.
It is essential, therefore, that there is co-operation at the local level between the local authority and the other agencies involved in the care of children. It is through the elected members of local authorities that the deep public concern about child-care issues can be given its most effective and immediate expression.
In central Government, the responsibility must be to provide the framework in which the local authority and other services can meet the challenges confronting them. One element must, of course, be our responsibility to provide financial resources and we are all aware of the difficulties of funding local government expenditure in the face of mounting pressures and the overriding need for national financial restraint. Against that background, I believe it is encouraging to note that since 1979 expenditure on the personal social services has grown in cost terms by over 19 per cent. and that this year local authorities have again budgeted to provide for expenditure at another record level.
Another area of central responsibility relates to training, and we fully recognise the importance of training and the emphasis, interest and attention on the adequate training of social workers is increasing. The Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East noted, is very active. It is the independent statutory body

705
responsible for the approval of training programmes and courses, and resources for that work come from a variety of sectors.
The council's overall expenditure has increased from £7·8 million in 1982–83 to £8·7 million in 1984–85. There has been an increase in the number of social workers and, together with the whole House and the Select Committee, I have been glad to note and welcome the fact that the number of trained social workers has been rising steadily and now stands at over 80 per cent. of the total.
As the hon. Lady said, the council has put forward new proposals for the training of social workers. These are being studied by all concerned, including the Department. We shall closely watch the results of the consultation which the council is conducting with the training institutions, professional bodies, employers and other central Government Departments to determine what the implications would be and how far they are feasible.
The Department is playing a full part in the council's consultations on which the council is to report by the middle of 1986.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I acknowledge the points made by the Minister, but it sounds from his description as if we cannot expect anything positive to happen quickly. What timescale does the Minister's Department envisage for the consultation processes and decisions to take effect?
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the increased expenditure, but over the timescale he mentioned it is arguable, when set in the context of the Government's other social policy, whether that constitutes an increase. The Minister must recognise that, as with the Health Service, the social workers' morale is extremely low. Social workers feel that they are not held in any significant regard by the Government. That is the feeling, but I cannot detect anything in the procedure which the Minister has just outlined which will reverse that fundamental problem.
Mr. Whitney: After talking to a great many social workers over the past few months, I found that they are conscious that they have been fully supported by the Government from the Dispatch Box and elsewhere, during what has been a very difficult time given the horror cases that have been in newspaper headlines.
The Government, of course, are looking for better training. We all recognise the need for that, but that is an area where we must move with due care, taking full account of the consultative processes. We are fully committed to that and I repeat that we welcome and certainly think that it is a matter, not for complacency, but at least for some degree of pleasure, that the number of trained social workers has steadily increased and is now more than 80 per cent. of the total. I hope that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) would not want us to go helter-skelter into a reorganisation of this fundamental and important area. That would be misguided.
The most important of all the Department's roles is to promote the highest standards of practice in all aspects of social work and to ensure that those practices are understood and applied throughout the country. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East mentioned that point. Much of that responsibility rests with the Department's social services inspectorate, an organisation
706
that was formed last April and that has already made a significant contribution in a difficult field, and I pay a warm tribute to what it has achieved so far.
The inspectorate will continue to be as active as it has been in many areas. Last week, for example, it published a report of an inspection it completed of 149 community homes in 29 English local authorities. These homes, as the House will understand, have been going through a particularly difficult time of change. As child-care policies have developed in recent years, a strong emphasis has emerged on reducing the amount of residential provision and the length of time that children spend in it. This has also meant that the homes are being used by those children who need the most concentrated and skilled attention.
The report makes positive recommendations for improvement in a number of areas. For example, it calls for improvements in the integration of field work and residential care staff and closer collaboration between homes and educational and employment services. Again the hon. Lady and I would agree on the need for improvements to continue in that area. Copies of the report, which are availabe in the Library, have been sent to all directors of social services and I am quite sure that they will provide welcome guidance in a difficult area.
Other areas where work by the social services inspectorate is in the pipeline include reports on assessment and supervision in child abuse cases and local authority practice on the provision of access to children in care and in the taking of parental rights resolutions—resolutions by which local authorities can take over all the parental rights and duties for a child in voluntary care. The inspectorate will also be looking closely at the operation of family centres, as recommended by the Select Committee, and on the scope and quality of planning for children in care.
As I said earlier, good social work with children depends on the quality of practical decision making and that is an area in which a number of major research projects have just been completed. The Select Committee recognised the need for research into the development of good social work practice and for the findings of such research to be properly disseminated. We entirely share that view and that is why, with the help of the group of practitioners, we have prepared a document which provides an overview of the findings of these projects and includes summaries of research reports.
The publication is entitled "Social Work Decisions in Child Care" and contains much material which, I believe, will be very helpful to local authorities, other statutory bodies and, above all, practitioners. Again, a copy has been placed in the Library. Important messages from the research include the need for social workers to develop and improve preventive services to keep families together; to avoid over-concentration on the actual point of admission to care; and to take a more positive approach to planning purposefully for children in care, either for return to their family or long-term alternative care. To achieve these objectives agencies need to set clear policy guidelines for staff based on clearer views about their objectives and purposes of care.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I welcome all that my hon. Friend is saying. However, does he agree that one of the great problems is that the concept of care often does not square with the pressures that social workers experience when living and working in urban areas? The

707
turnover of social workers in children's homes often leaves much to be desired and subjects children in so-called care to added strain.
Mr. Whitney: I am sure that my hon. Friend has a valid point. It is one that should be noted by all the local authorities concerned. My hon. Friend will be aware that the move is away from residential care wherever possible, and I hope that it will continue. We hope to work on the need for improved training of workers in residential-care homes.
It is important that we disseminate "Social Work Decisions in Child Care". As a first step, we organised a national seminar on 10 January, which I was privileged to initiate. We were delighted to welcome to that seminar a number of chairmen of social services committees, other elected members and a number of chief officers. This will be followed by a series of regional seminars mounted by the social services inspectorate. We have also commissioned a training package that is based on the findings of the research so that all the benefits can be transmitted quickly to managers and practitioners throughout the country.
I have tried to highlight some of the areas where we are seeking to give practical help to those who have direct responsibilities in this sensitive area. It is not an exhaustive list and there is more to come in a number of areas—for example, our response to Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper's important report on the Jasmine Beckford case.
I should not conclude before referring to two other areas for which the Government and all of us in Parliament must be responsible, and these are the legal and judicial systems operating in relation to children in care.
One of the Select Committee's main concerns was, justifiably, the confused state of the law on the care and protection of children. The Committee commented on the harmful effect of the piecemeal implementation of the Children Act 1975, which I am glad to say is now fully implemented with the exception of a statutory adoption service. The Government responded quickly to the Committee's recommendation for an urgent and speedy review, and a team started work on this major task within two months of the Select Committee's report. It produced a thorough and detailed report to Ministers with commendable speed, given the complexity of the area. The report was published early in October 1985 as a consultation document, and comments were sought by mid-January. We have received over 180 comments which have generally been favourable. We are now in the process of considering this response and taking decisions on what changes need to be made in the law. I hope that it will not be too long before it will be possible to bring proposals before the House.
In fact, many of the report's recommendations simply encapsulate what is already good practice in the best authorities and in the voluntary organisations. In these areas, there is no need for other authorities to wait for changes in the law, which inevitably take time to go through the proper and necessary constitutional arrangements. Better practice can and should be achieved now. But other areas will have to await legislative change, and I would offer the House three examples which illustrate the main themes of the report.
708
First, given the existing state of the law, it can at present be difficult to take a child into care where serious harm is thought likely in the future. The working party therefore recommended changes so that children can be committed to care more easily by reference to a magistrates' court where substantial harm is thought likely. The working party has also managed to meet one of the Select Committee's main concerns by bringing into line the different legal grounds for care which exist in different legal processes.
Secondly, the working party followed the Select Committee, and indeed the Beckford report, in recommending better safeguards to ensure that removal of a child to care is properly and thoroughly tested by a court and that the parents should have an early opportunity to put their case even if it is not, in the event, accepted. For example, it proposes that there should continue to be power for a magistrate to make an emergency order removing a child from home without the parents necessarily being present to challenge it. But these orders should last for only up to eight days before being carefully examined by a court rather than 28 days at present. This is in line with the Select Committee's report, although I note Mr. Blom-Cooper's report has suggested that these orders should last only 72 hours. We shall need to consider which approach gives the better protection to children, both from harm from their parents and from arbitrary and unjustified removal.
Thirdly, the majority of children enter care not as a result of being abused or neglected, nor because they have offended. The parents of many children simply find themselves unable to cope, generally for a short period as a result of a parent's illness, sometimes for extended periods. As a result, they themselves ask for a child to be taken into care. This includes parents of handicapped children, who can make particularly stressful demands. The working party recommended that we should try to get away from the old stigma of "care" and develop new models of "respite care" to give families a break from caring for a child and of "shared care" where parents share the responsibility of looking after their children with the local authority. This will also ensure in law that any handicapped child living away from home receives the careful supervision and review which the Select Committee recommended.
The House will also have noted that simultaneously with the review of child care law we embarked last October on a consultation on day care legislation, the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948, and I am glad to say that here, too, we have had a similar volume of helpful responses.
The working party on the reform of child care law emphasised that the changes it proposed would be able to fit either into the present court system or into any future family court system, and the Select Committee itself said that the review of the law should fall short of a fundamental examination of family courts, which must of necessity take longer.
However, there is a powerful and increasing demand for the creation of a family court system, and the Select Committee recommended that the Government should provide the House with a detailed and fully costed scheme for the establishment of such a system. Accordingly the Government set up the family court review to consider the feasibility of a unified family court. That team, which was made up of officials from the Lord Chancellor's

709
Department, the Home Office, the Treasury and my own Department, will be producing a consultation paper around Easter which will set out the main options for such a court. I share the regret that it has taken the review such a long time to produce a paper, but I hope that the House will recognise the inherent difficulty and complexity of devising a family court which would not only take on jurisdiction in care proceedings but in all other family and domestic proceedings as well.
Many questions arise from the contemplation of such a major step in an area as complicated and sensitive as the administration of justice. There are questions, for example, on the best use of judicial manpower. Would it be appropriate to require judges to specialise only in family law cases? Are lay magistrates to continue to play a role in this field? How are the very different jurisdictions of a county court registrar in a divorce court and the lay magistrates in the domestic court to be brought within a single unified jurisdiction? There are questions of resources and of accommodation. And what would the family court provide for the family which is involved in the multiplicity of court proceedings? To what extent are criticisms of the present court structure really criticisms of a very complex system of law?
I do not have the answers to these questions, but it is certainly not my intention in raising them to suggest that answers cannot be found. I merely wish to make the point that those who say that family courts could be established overnight have probably failed to consider the practicability of the form of family court that they have in mind. I hope that the forthcoming consultation document will focus attention on the many questions involved, and that it will also point the way to the answers which must be found if family courts are to fulfil the hopes now held by so many people about the positive contribution they could make to the handling of the problems of children in care.
I have spoken at length about some of the things the Government are doing in this crucial area. I shall listen to the contributions of all hon. Members during the debate. The care of our children is not just a matter for Parliament and the Government or for local authorities and social workers. It is a matter for each and every one of us as parents, as neighbours and as individuals. Children brought into care represent a challenge to society—all too often a failure of society — that all of us must recognise and deal with.
5.11 pm
Ms. Harriet Harman: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) for the important contribution made by the report of her Committee. One of the most valuable aspects of the Select Committee report was the emphasis on the need to reduce the number of children coming into care. The Government have not responded to that emphasis and that is the Government's most serious failing. Children that are well housed and have a decent income and go to nursery schools are unlikely to find themselves in care.
The Select Committee rightly emphasised the well established link between poverty and reception into care. Not all children of the poor are, in care, but most of the children who are are children of the poor. Since the report was written, there has been a relentless increase in unemployment, in the number of people claiming supplementary benefit, and in the number of people who
710
are forced to claim single payments. That means an increase in the number of families where children are at risk because of a combination of poverty and other problems.
The Government's response seems to be that families are better off than they were and long scale rates for unemployed families with children are too expensive. The Government are taking steps that will increase the financial problems of the very families that are already vulnerable. For example, child benefit is a major bulwark against poverty. It is paid to the person who is responsible for feeding and clothing the children, which is usually the mother, and it is used for the purpose intended. It is a universal benefit and does not suffer from the problem of other benefits of a low take-up. The Government have already undermined child benefit by not increasing it last November in line with the rate of inflation. While the Government have not abolished it altogether, I fear they are allowing it to fade away. There is unanimous hostility to the Government's failure to keep child benefit up as a meaningful contribution to the cost of upkeep of a child. There is hostility even from the Government's own Conservative women's organisations.
Mr. Whitney: Would the hon. Lady not agree that the Government's proposals for social security reform and especially for the reform of family credit and income support that concentrates help on the poorest families is the right way to go? Should we not do that rather than continually and steadily spread the family benefit across the board? The statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has uprated above the rate of inflation, but the major thrust of our social security review with the important proposals on family credit and income support is directed towards those members of the population with whom the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and all of us are concerned.
Ms. Harman: The Minister has clearly revealed his hostility to the universality of child benefit. That is precisely why child benefit is so important. The other advantage of child benefit is that it is paid to the person looking after the child, whether or not that person is a wage earner. A further threat to low income families is the proposal in the Social Security Bill that instead of single payments there is a proposal for a social fund. That will plunge tens of thousands of families into further debt because, instead of cash grants for necessary items, families will have to seek payments in the form of loans that are later repayable to the DHSS by way of weekly deductions from the new income support.
There are already 300,000 claimants with direct deductions for fuel payments that amount to about 10 per cent. of their supplementary benefit. This proposal is likely to increase indebtedness, especially among those identified as vulnerable in the Select Committee's report, that is, children of single parents and children of the unemployed. A further threat is the ending of the work expenses disregard for calculating income support. Apparently, work expenses are disregarded when assessing income for the purposes of calculating supplementary benefit. One of the major work expenses, especially for a lone parent. is child care. Because of the drastic shortage of day nurseries and nursery education and the lack of local authority-sponsored child minder places, most single parents have to pay for child care provision while they are at work.

711
If a lone parent in part-time work cannot get child care expenses of, say, £20 a week disregarded, that person will become ineligible for supplementary benefit. That means it will be no longer be worth while for that parent to work. That will arise if the Government's proposals go through and would mean an increase in the number of lone parent families where the parent in not working and suffering a combination of isolation and poverty.
The Select Committee not only identified money as being important in preventing families reaching a stage where children have to go into care but highlighted the importance of services. The Select Committee referred to children who are vulnerable out of school, that is, after school hours, in school holidays or during half term. There should be comprehensive provision for out of school care. Children with nothing to do during the school holidays, in half term and after school hours, instead of enjoying themselves, can end up in hospital or in the juvenile courts. Far from encouraging such out of school care the Government are inhibiting its development. Education authorities who might be the main source of such schemes are being told by the Government that they are indulging in spending sprees. Last year the Government cut £400,000 from the urban programme of holiday play schemes. Because of great protest about that, at the last minute the Government restored the money. But it was too late and sponsors of many of the schemes had to cut the length of time they operated or the number of children they were able to care for.
Pre-school care and education is important for all children. The first five years of life are vital for the mental and physical development of children, who blossom when they can play and learn with other children. As a means of preventing children coming into residential care, day care is crucial. In response to the Select Committee's anxiety about provision for the under-fives, the Government have the cheek to say that there has been an increase in day nursery places. I say to the Minister that that has been despite Government action, not because of it. The Government have been trying to reduce local authority spending and have branded as irresponsible councils that have increased spending to expand provision for the under-fives. The increase in day nursery places is attributable to those councils that have refused to bow down to the Government and have stoically defended and improved services in spite of the fact the Government have told them not to do that. The Government have even financially penalised them for doing so.
The list of authorities that make provision for the under-fives bears an uncanny resemblance to the list of authorities that the Government are ratecapping or heavily penalising. For example, at the top of the list for day nursery places for the under-fives are: Camden, Islington, Brent, Lambeth, Manchester, Hackney, Southwark, Liverpool, Greenwich, Lewisham, Haringey and Birmingham. According to the response to the Select Committee report, the Minister apparently thinks it is a responsible policy to provide day nursery places. Perhaps the Minister will tell that to his colleagues in the Department of the Environment and his Conservative colleagues in local councils, because a number of Conservative local authorities provide not a single day nursery place. They are: Cornwall, Warwickshire, West Sussex and Wiltshire. What about those caring Liberal
712
councillors? In the Isle of Wight — the Liberals' flagship, because it is the only authority where the Liberals have had control for a number of years, and where they can be judged on their record—there is not one single day nursery place. This is not because there are no children under five, but because the "caring" Liberals do not think it is important to provide parents with the choice of provisions.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Far be it from me to defend Liberal councils or, indeed, any other kinds of council, except good Conservative ones, but is the hon. Lady really saying that the only form of child care is day nursery provisions provided by the paid staff of a local authority? What about play groups, child minders, voluntary care and all the other people who look after children? Many of them do not require any assistance and would not accept it from the state.
Ms Harman: The hon. Lady was not listening. I said that it was important for local authorities to provide day nursery places so that there is a choice of provision based on what suits the child and what suits the parent. That is what I always say. I said that just as the hon. Lady rose but she was too quick to intervene.
I believe that a statutory duty should be imposed on local authorities to make them take account of the needs of children under five and make available a range of provisions to meet those needs. The Government must ensure that they match with resources the responsibilities of councils to children under five in their area. Not only is this an important step in preventing children from coming into care but it gives all parents what they want—a comprehensive range of services so that they can choose the services that meet the needs of their families.
The Government appear in their response to endorse the Select Committee's correct concern to improve child minding and, in particular, to increase legislation. The Government talk about local authorities "encouraging registration" by making support for child minders available. This will be greeted with hollow laughter from those authorities which are trying to improve the services available to child minders and which are told, as a result, by the Department of the Environment that they are reckless overspenders.
Under the under-fives initiative fund, the National Childminding Association set up three experimental schemes—in Trafford, Southwark and Stafford. Last week, I visited the excellent Trafford scheme and I know very well the work of the Southwark scheme. The schemes' aim was to give children who are minded, minders and parents a better deal by providing support services, training and information for minders, not least about how to recognise signs of child abuse, in case a child minder feels that a child in his or her care is being abused by its parent, and about what to do if his or her suspicions appear to have some basis.
All these schemes are coming to an end. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will respond to this point and tell us what will happen to the schemes. Unless they obtain finance from local authorities—which, courtesy of the Minister's colleagues in the Department of the Environment, already have their backs against the wall—they will disappear. The schemes were an experiment which has clearly worked. However, it is difficult for

713
councillors to take up this useful experiment and put it into practice — a practice that would benefit hundreds of thousands of children who are minded.
Perhaps the biggest threat to the child minding service comes from the Social Security Bill. I should like the Under-Secretary of State to respond specifically to this point. Two thirds of a child minder's fees are disregarded in assessing eligibility for supplementary benefit. It is not entirely clear, but it is feared by the National Childminding Association and many other organisations that the new social security framework will mean that all child minders' fees will be taken into account when assessing them for supplementary benefit and that they will therefore lose that two thirds disregard. That will mean that a large number of minders will become ineligible for supplementary benefit and, for many, it will mean that it is not worth their while working. Increasing their fees is not an option, not only because the women who are paying the fees are already low paid but because, with the implementation of the Social Security Bill, their position will be even worse because of the ending of the work expenses disregard.
Camden council has estimated that, if the earnings disregard for child minders is ended, it will lose up to 50 per cent. of its minders overnight. Will the Under-Secretary of State assure the House that child minders will not lose their two thirds disregard, as this will undermine one important plank of the provision for children under five?
The Select Committee asked the Government to examine and cost proposals for a family court. The case for a family court is overwhelming. Implementation of the proposals is long overdue. Current court procedures for dealing with children are complex, overlapping and lengthy. Our adversarial system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East has said, is not always the best way of reaching the correct conclusion on a case. We have no inquisitorial arm for the courts as in the Scottish system. Magistrates and judges are inexpert in these matters because they lack specific training and experience with respect to child care because they deal with a wide range of issues. It is therefore impossible for them to build up the expertise that such a complex aspect of law and public policy requires.
We should do well to remember what Mr. Blom-Cooper said about magistrates in the report on the Jasmine Beckford case. He said that they had been "utterly misguided", had "failed to protect" abused children and should be "publicly upbraided". Clearly, we need to demonstrate the inadequacies of the current system, but they are well known to the Government. Action should be taken. There is a definite demand for a family court.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Lady called for action. I believe that in 1974 the Labour party's manifesto called for family courts but, when the Labour party came to power, it found all sorts of reasons not to take action.
Ms. Harman: This has been a long-running saga. It has run for far too long. The tune is now right for all vested interests to unleash their grip on whichever part of the system they are hanging on to. It is time for a bit of change and progress. The momentum and consensus behind the family courts issue is enormous. All the organisations involved agree on the need for family courts. There is a broad measure of agreement on the shape of that court.
714
The Government still have not provided their report on family courts. When may we expect that overdue report? This creates a problem, because the child care law review is nearing its end. The Select Committee's report provided the impetus to that review. There are many organisations whose support for the changes in the substantive law is conditional upon a change in the procedural law. It would be madness to jeopardise the consensus emerging on the substantive law changes by failing to get a move on and to set up family courts.
In a way, the subject of intermediate treatment parallels the child minders' support schemes. In 1983 the DHSS gave £15 million in finance for intermediate treatment. More than 90 schemes have been set up throughout England, providing 3,000 places. They have made a useful contribution by providing courts with an alternative to taking a child into care or imposing a custodial sentence. The money is running out, as the schemes were to continue for only two or three years. The Government have responded by extending the period to six months, but that merely postpones the evil day. The Challenge project in Durham, the Milestone project in Sunderland, the Community Alternative for Young Offenders project in Sandwell and several National Children's Home projects in Devon are under threat because their funding is about to end. I hope that we can have an assurance from the Government that those schemes, when they have taken the initiative of providing pump-priming funding, vial not disappear as a result of the enormous pressure on local government finance which the Department of the Environment has been exerting.
When reading the Government's response to the excellent Select Committee report one gets the feeling that the Department of Health and Social Security recognises what needs to be done but refuses to acknowledge it because it is afraid to do anything to undermine the Government's relentless drive towards public expenditure cuts. It is difficult to see how we can improve preventive measures and provision for children while they are in care while the DHSS acts like a sub-division of the Department of the Environment and both the DHSS and the Department of the Environment act like sub-divisions of the Treasury. The DHSS Ministers have abdicated their reponsibility for social services in favour of being an arm of the Government's brutal economic policies.
5.30 pm
Mrs. Edwina Currie: The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and I have crossed swords before on child care. I always think that it is rather sad that she seems to feel that children are a burden and that families have to be assisted by the state in all the ways that she has outlined. I think that most Conservative Members would say that most people have children because they want them and they should be encouraged to look after them by themselves as far as possible. The only other party point that I would make is that it is sad that the Labour party has largely seen fit to ignore this debate. For much of it the only other person on the Opposition Benches, Back or Front, has been the hon. Member of Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) who is the distingushed Chairman of the Committee which produced the report.
The report was the first act of the Select Committee in the new parliamentary Session. Although I was a member of the Committee when it produced the report, I was not

715
a member when it did all the work. I would like to pay tribute to all those hon. Members in the previous Parliament who put in what must have been a staggering amount of work, going round the country and visiting other countries to see how child care policies worked. I am sorry that it is likely that I shall have to leave the Committee soon. I regard the work that I have done during the two years that I have spent on it as being among the most valuable things that I have been able to do in the House.
The report is first class with a wealth of excellent detailed work in it. It is a pity that it has taken nearly two years to get to the stage where we are able to debate it, but perhaps the Committee has done quite well in having had a recent debate on community care for the adult mentally ill and mentally handicapped. Much of the current interest in the subject is the result of recent child abuse cases. One could only wish that those feelings of shock and horror among the public, councillors and members of the responsible bodies, such as health authorities, which are aroused when they read the reports of cases in the newspapers were effective at the time they take the decisions which determine what level and what type of resources are available to prevent such cases.
Much of what I feel about such matters arises out of my service in Birmingham. In 1978 and 1979 we commissioned a major report to look at the child care we were providing in an authority which was not poor and which was not divided on political grounds over how to look after our 4,000 children in care. We found to our horror that at that time we were spending about £ 15 million each year to keep children in care and about £400,000 to keep children out of care. We had 104 children's homes, including nine residential nurseries, many of which were half empty. About 70 per cent. of the children we were looking after came from broken homes and we were shuffling those poor children around like brown paper parcels. As a result of that we changed the pattern of child care in Birmingham. I believe that it has stayed changed. The number of children in care is now below 2,000, so the figure has dropped by about half. My colleagues in Birmingham seem to be making a much better job of it than we did some years ago.
The report examines in detail two of the thorny problems of children in care. On the whole it steers a clear course between the extremes that are offered in the particular problems. I particularly want to direct my attention to two issues—when a child is in trouble, or is to be rehabilitated. Who should we favour, who should we believe and who should we give power to? Should we give power to the parents or the statutory worker, usually the social worker? The other main problem is how should we look after a child when it is in care. Should we aim for children's homes or fostering? Those are the broad arguments.
I shall deal first with the problem of the pattern of care. The report devotes a great deal of attention to that. We should recognise that vested interests are at work in that issue, particularly the National Union of Public Employees. I am not surprised. Why should it not be? If NUPE does not speak for its members I suspect that nobody else will.
Those in children's homes see themselves as offering a safe haven for children at risk, and very often they are
716
doing just that. However, they often fail to see the risks of putting children in homes — the risk of institutionalisation, not only of the children but of the people who work with them. They fail to see the tendency to treat children as brown paper parcels — shuffling children around. We discovered to our horror in Birmingham that the bulk of our homes were set up for short periods of care only. Each child made an average of six moves during their child care career with us, and many children were moved around 10 times or more. Many children set up the move as a means of controlling their environment. They would make themselves exceedingly awkward, get themselves moved and feel that they had managed to achieve something.
Many people in residential child care fail to prepare children for the outside world. That is not surprising when a child never sees a gas bill and thinks that food rolls up on a Monday morning in large refrigerated vans. Residential child care also fails to catch up with changes in the type of child and the type of need.
I have not seen the report of the inspectorate, but I should like to refer to an article by David Hencke in The Guardian which deals with that report on children in care. It points out that nearly four out of five residents in homes are now aged 13 or more, and half were first admitted to care after their twelfth birthday. Many of the comments that the inspectors made pointed out that the homes had become unsuitable:
"'Adult-sized young people were sleeping in small beds and occasionally having to use wash basins and lavatories designed for young children."'
It is not only a matter of the physical environment of the home, but the people concerned have not been trained to look after what are no longer little children or babies but extremely difficult, disturbed and frequently dangerous adolescents. The child care provisions have been set up as if we were running orphanages, but well over 98 per cent. of those children have parents and we are not talking about orphanages at all.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend has told the House that she was not on the Committee for the majority of its work, but came on to it when the Committee was reconstituted in the current Parliament. Is my hon. Friend aware that the association representing young people in care — the National Association of Young People in Care—gave us strong evidence to support the continuation of residential care homes. It believed that, with those homes being restructured, it was a very valuable facility for those young people who did not want fostering, were not prepared to be adopted and could not go back to their original homes. Will my hon. Friend confess that there are a number of young people who would wish to see residential care homes maintained for the future?
Mrs. Currie: Yes. With the greatest respect to those young people, I wonder how many of them have been influenced by foster parents to speak in favour of fostering. I am not aware of whether the Committee took any evidence at that time from foster children or whether there is an organisation for children who are being fostered, but I feel that the institutionalisation to which I referred can affect everyone concerned, including the children. I am not saying that we should close all children's homes. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to continue and I shall reach the point with which I think he will agree.

717
I am concerned that residential care staff are often the Cinderella staff of social services departments, which are themselves the Cinderella departments of many local authorities. If we are to move from the staff being frequently untrained, unqualified and often very young, who think they will be looking after little babies and doing a lot of nappy changing but who find to their surprise that they are looking after great hulking teenagers who are in care because of some horror they have committed, we have to ensure that those residential care staff are properly trained, supported, advised and have the appropriate status in terms of the advice that they are able to offer. It always seems curious that it is social workers who feel so hard done by in all these discussions when it is residential child care staff who perhaps have some grievances.
The other extreme of what to do with children in care requires an answer as to whether we need children's homes at all. I think that we do, but I feel that we could make more progress using foster parents. In those local authorities which regard foster parents as a vital and valuable resource, over 50 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the children in their care may be out with foster parents. In that way I believe that children can experience normal home life, and they are offered some kind of model for their future. They come into a home in which rows are not resolved by somebody pulling out a kitchen knife, in which bills are paid and the electricity does not get cut off and in which children are treated with love and dignity and encouraged to treat other people in the same way.
Fostering requires a lot of strenuous effort, and it should not be regarded as a cheap option. It will not be possible to do without some form of residential accommodation especially for severely disabled children and for respite care for those families who might need some assistance from time to time.
The other major hassle to which the report devotes a great deal of attention is the balance between parental influence and the role of professional workers, particularly in the context of the court, but there are other aspects to the matter as well.
For some time there have been moves to take powers away from social workers and return them to the parents. Some of them have been resurrected recently in the case of Mrs. Gillick and the role of doctors vis-a-vis parents and children. I would dub that as the "parents know best" argument. I think that parents usually know best, and that is why I am all in favour of foster parents, but years of seeing what some parents do to their children, and the way in which some parents treat their children, and the way in which some parents have damaged and abused their children, as I saw over all those years in Birmingham, has led me to believe that there are occasions when other people know best. Indeed, sometimes even children know best. I know that it sounds like a cop out to say that we should look at each case on its merits, but that is really the only way.
What is wrong, and what annoys me, is when social workers are blamed by the media for the deaths of children in care. It is worth remembering that Tyra Henry was killed not by her social worker, but by her mother's lover, and that Jasmine Beckford was murdered not by any social worker or health visiter, but by her father. Whether we should regard the social workers as culpable in any way, the fact is that it is the murderers who are in prison, not the people employed by the local authority.
718
Just as good community policing requires officers who understand the local people and can gain their respect, that is true of social workers and care staff. We have a lot more social workers around. I understand that in 1978 there were 22,000 social workers on the books, and in 1984 there were 24,300, which is a substantial jump. However, I wonder whether, instead of just recruiting more social workers, instead of just looking at the input and the amounts of money that we spend on them, we should not look at the quality of what we are getting. I believe that we should recruit far more social workers from the ranks of mature people who have had families of their own and whose experience of life and child care should alert them when something is going wrong, instead of nice girls with philosophy degrees—often from other countries—from good homes where no one ever tells a lie, and whose understanding of some of the families that they are dealing with leaves a great deal to be desired.
I should like to make one last comment. All children in care are the results of failure. Most are the results of failure in the family. In the survey in Birmingham, which I mentioned earlier, in 1978, 70 per cent. of the children came from a broken home. I guess that if that survey were done again, we would find a much higher proportion, yet all those children had parents. Is it not about time that we thought again about putting together a family policy? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in a House of Commons written reply back in March 1983:
"Improving family life is one of our principal objectives".—[Official Report, 3 March 1983; Vol. 38, c. 204.]
At the time there was a great deal of discussion about family policy, how to make it effective, and so on. Such thoughts go back to the most impeccable Socialist origins, in 1976, when in New Society Brian Jackson suggested a Minister for the family. I believe that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has called for a family policy. The all-party penal reform committee called for a Minister for the family. I suggest that it is about time that we had another look at that.
It is said sometimes that asking for a Minister for the family is rather simple-minded. I am a simple-minded soul, and I think it is worth while looking at whether we can, in a simple-minded way, emphasise once again that the family is important, and the collapse of the family is disastrous, particularly for the children concerned.
Other countries have a Minister for the family. For example, West Germany has something which I understand is called —slightly unfortunately -- the Ministry of Family Affairs. All that we have is something called the Study Commission on the Family, funded by the Department of Health and Social Security and the Social Science Research Council, which produces excellent reports that nobody ever reads and, as far as I can see, nobody ever acts on. We can see in the social security reviews that were published last year, and in the Social Security Bill, now in Standing Committee, of which I am a member, the result of not having a family policy or a review of family policy. We found that, contrary to public opinion, it was not pensioners who had become worse off, although everybody believed that, but families with children, whose position had worsened in recent years and nobody had noticed.
I should like to see a Minister for the family, and in the Department of Health and Social Security. Such a Minister could do four jobs. The first job should be to administer that part of the DHSS that supports family life—child

719
benefit, family income supplement and its future incarnations, with all the billions of pounds that are involved.
The second job should be to administer the funds for voluntary organisations that support the family. At the top of my list would be marriage guidance and family conciliation services. The Government's response to recommendation 10 in the report of the Select Committee on Social Services was a little mealy-mouthed. We could wait for ever to prove that those services are worthwhile. Meanwhile the number of divorces increases, the number of children affected by divorce increases, and more and more children are at risk. It is axiomatic that if we help to support good quality, experienced marriage guidance services with some money we might help to keep some marriages together and help some families.
Ms. Harman: I think that the hon. Lady is muddling up marriage guidance counselling, which is an attempt to resolve differences within a marriage and to keep marriages together, with conciliation services, which are about conciliating the partners on the breakdown of a marriage, to ensure that arguments about property, money and the children are kept to a minimum. The two are entirely different. The conciliation services are not for repairing broken marriages, but for minimising the damage that may be caused.
Mrs. Currie: I take the hon. Lady's point entirely. I should not muddle them up; I should help them both. I should particularly help voluntary organisations that are working in the field—not just in marriage guidance. I was involved with the family service units in Birmingham. A Minister for the family should pay more attention to such an organisation.
The third job that such a Minister could do would be to take responsibility for all those bits of legislation that affect the family. I have counted seven different major statutes since 1975 that affect children and the family. One tiny little bit was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State — the triennial report under the Children Act 1975, which has to come to the House. There is more than enough for a Minister to do there.
The fourth job should be to create and promulgate a family perspective, which has been called for repeatedly over the past 10 years, to liaise with other Departments so that the effect of legislative or fiscal action on the family can be highlighted, and so that priorities can be urged to put the family first—for example, the reform of taxation of the family. We have been promised a Green Paper; we have been promised action to assist families where the mother chooses to stay at home and look after the children. We should ensure that that happens. With somebody actually pushing the family perspective, we should make a lot of progress.
We shall never avoid some kinds of child abuse. There will always have to be some statutory intervention when things go wrong. Ultimately, the child has to look to the House and all the delegated responsibilities that we hand down to protect him, but I believe that by strengthening the family and by the other changes that I have suggested we could make a far better job of it.
5.48 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am tempted to do so, but I shall not follow the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) too far down the line that she has been sketching out. When the hon. Lady described the range of issues with which a Minister for the family would deal and the breadth of responsibility which he would enjoy, it struck me just a little that we were hearing a delicate effort to sketch out a job description for herself. However, I leave it at that. The Minister is warned. There is a problem about proposing new Ministries. The Department of Employment tends to deal with rising unemployment, and the Minister responsible for housing tends to deal with an ever-more rapid decline in the quantity and quality of our housing stock, so if a Ministry responsible for the family were to follow the approach laid down by Ministers elsewhere, I hate to think what we would end up with. Beyond that, the hon. Lady raised a legitimate matter, in which she may have a legitimate interest.
Any discussion of children in care is clouded in the minds of the public by some of the horrific reports of child abuse last year. Yesterday, the Sunday Times said that after the enormous publicity following the horrific death of Jasmine Beckford and the subsequent public inquiry and report, there had been a significant increase in the reporting of child abuse. That was also reported in the social work magazine Community Care.
Whatever line we take on social policy in the broadest sense, I am sure that we all echo the approach adopted by the Minister when he said that, ultimately, the care of children cannot be a matter only for statutory or voluntary organisations, but must be a matter for us all. I do not want to go too far into the argument about the relationship between poverty, declining social opportunities, increasing social inequalities and the degree of incidence of care for children. However, when referring to that relationship the Select Committee report said:
"Studies have shown that the majority of children in care come either from one-parent families or from families with an unemployed head of household—or both … Social work can however be expected to ensure that the full range of services provided by the state and others reach those most at risk."
The thrust of that observation is self-evident. It shows that those most at risk are often those in the most deprived circumstances. I shall not indulge in a great political harangue about that, as I have no time for such an approach. However, it is an important point that is worth bearing in mind.
In the Government's continuing consideration of children in care, I hope that they will remember the effects of their social security revisions. The announcement this afternoon of the consultative paper to the Social Security Advisory Committee on the future of single payments, and what appears to be a fairly drastic reduction in both the scope and level of single payments to families, cannot be isolated from the subject that we are debating.
Child benefit has already been discussed. I believe it to be a detrimental and retrograde step that family credit will be paid through the wage packet. Some provision should be made for family credit to go direct to the caring parent. It cannot be beyond the wit of the DHSS and those involved in bringing tax and benefits closer together to leave some scope for the benefit for the child to go direct

721
to the caring parent, which, as we know, is the mother in nine out of ten cases. Obviously the social security reviews and the incidence of deprivation cannot be overlooked.
The Minister rightly said that emphasis must be given to prevention. There is general consensus in the Select Committee report that more should be done to advance prevention as part of the general strategy. The AMA, in paragraph 32, accepted that preventive work was all too often an early casualty of financial pressures. That is an important point. For example, all too often joint funding projects—especially those involving the voluntary sector—are the first to suffer when a local authority's rate support grant is threatened, penalised or cut by the Government because of overspending commitments. That is especially relevant to the taper effect, as most of the burden of joint funding lies with local authorities. Similarly, the preventive aspects emphasised by the Government and the Select Committee, which would command full support, will be an early casualty when there are excessive financial pressures.
I am in no way defending those local authorities which have tried—even if they have backed down at the last minute — to behave illegally by not setting a rate —[Interruption.] It is interesting to note the unholy alliance between the two Front Benches, which the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) was so willing to exemplify—
Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman said that he did not wish to indulge in a political harangue—a sentiment that I share—but he has entered into a typical Liberal facing-both-ways attitude. He suggested that he was with us in our approach to overspending authorities, but then demanded more expenditure. He cannot have it both ways, any more than he and his colleagues in the alliance can have it both ways on other matters. He must be clear about that.
The hon. Gentleman should also be clear about the impact of the social security reviews. He should recognise the switch of emphasis in all that we have proposed to give more aid to the families at the lower end of the income scale. I hope that he will have the good grace to acknowledge that.
Mr. Kennedy: In the context of political harangue, it would be tempting to enter into an argument on the Minister's last point about redistribution. The redistribution towards the working poor, if we can so define them, will be at the expense of the childless poor. The redistribution of finance within the family will be away from women and towards men. That is not an egalitarian redistribution.
I have made a common sense argument. It is that we need more emphasis in certain areas, but do not want the confrontation politics that lead to illegality to be the means to achieve that. It is ridiculous to suggest that that is somehow having one's cake and eating it. The Minister is likely to be summoned by the chairman of the Conservative party, beause he committed the unholy crime of referring to the alliance, when he should have referred to the SDP or the Liberal party.
Ms. Harman: The hon. Gentleman mentioned prevention with regard to children in care. May I take it from that that he is critical of the Liberal council on the Isle of Wight, which has not provided a single day nursery
722
place? Does he think that the council ought to make provision for day nursery places, or does he condone its complete failure to provide any nursery places?
Mr. Kennedy: My constituency could not be further away from the Isle of Wight. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has visited the area and gained first hand experience.
Ms. Harman: No.
Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Lady has not visited the area, but has looked at a set of figures—
Ms. Harman: There is nothing to look at.
Mr. Kennedy: If that is the contempt with which the hon. Lady holds the people of the Isle of Wight, this is a rather ridiculous issue. Before the hon. Lady makes this kind of—
Ms. Harman rose—
Mr. Kennedy: Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to respond to her question. I said that I did not want to get involved in a political harangue, but I am being goaded by the two Front Benches. If the hon. Lady makes such a point about the Isle of Wight, she should have the courtesy to go there to study the provisions that have been made. I am neither defending nor condemning. I have not visited the area, and I am not willing to speak through ignorance, but apparently the hon. Lady is willing to do that.
Ms. Harman: The hon. Gentleman has misconstrued my intervention. I meant that there is no child care day nursery provision to go to look at.
Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Lady has put that on the record. I would add, however, that the hon. Lady has studied the figures, but that she has not visited the area before pronouncing, tonight and on other occasions, on the level of provision on the Isle of Wight. Perhaps her mail bag is full of complaints. I have not received any complaints about my Liberal partners' dreadful behaviour in this respect. Perhaps the hon. Lady has had a different experience.
I have said enough about preventive aspects. 1 thought that would be the least controversial of the matters discussed.
The Minister referred to social worker training and to what I thought was a rather depressingly long consultative process. I am not pouring cold water on the idea of consultation. It is necessary, and it has to be practical, and realistic. However, I thought that there was a certain amount of "Sir Humphrey's" style as the Minister described what was involved in the consultative process—the interest, concern and almost watching brief which the Minister's Department was to adopt. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's response to the support which the four social services associations have given to the need for the three-year training of social workers. The three-year training would include modules in particular specialties of the type referred to by the Select Committee on Social Services.
It is clear that the family courts will be the subject of considerable discussion when the report is published after Easter. I acknowledge that north of the border we have a slightly different situation. If I may be so bold, I think that it is one which could be commended to other parts of Britain. In Scotland, emphasis is given to the principles that are discussed in the family courts, whatever shape or

723
form they may take. The children's panel system is important. The status of the child, the parents or the foster parents—indeed, the whole relationship which is built up within the Scottish system — would repay further attention. Once the report is published, perhaps we will have the opportunity to discuss some of these matters further.
I welcome the debate. The horrific incidents of last year have led to much discussion and public debate. It is important that in the course of this debate—I think the House has done this despite the odd difference of opinion—the matter is discussed in a calm and reasoned way. I hope that the results of these deliberations will be the right ones, especially for children, who are at the centre of our concern.
6.4 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I welcome this important debate. I am delighted to be one of the members of the Select Committee on Social Services which undertook this lengthy and full inquiry into a vital issue of growing concern to all British people.
I commend the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) who introduced the report of the Select Committee. It has been a pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of the hon. Lady for nearly 12 years, as she has provided considerable leadership to the Committee, not least in this report. I do not intend to follow the hon. Lady by giving a broad sketch of the conclusions and recommendations which are, as the Minister has said, 150 in number. I wish to concentrate on wardship and family courts and fostering.
First, I want to pay a tribute, as the hon. Lady has done, to our advisers. They have been immensely helpful to the Committee in a detailed and complicated area involving difficult legislation. I also wish to pay tribute—as I did perhaps in an intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)—to the National Association of Young People in Care. Before the association gave its evidence to the Committee I viewed its evidence somewhat dubiously. I wondered about the type of evidence it would give. We met members of the association on one of our visits and subsequently they came before our Committee to give formal evidence. I was highly impressed with their grasp of the problems that faced young people in care. They were not the eight to 10 year-olds, or babies in nappies, or young people who require feeding and the type of advice suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South. They were relatively mature young people, teenagers, who for one reason or another had got themselves into trouble and subsequently into care.
The representatives of NAYPIC were highly articulate and a responsible group of people. The Committee was impressed with the evidence they gave. I wish to emphasise to my hon. Friend that many of them were keen for residential care places to be available for the likes of themselves and those who come after them. These young people could not just be dealt with through fostering, adoption or the other facilities that are available through the social services. They believed that residential care homes were essential, though perhaps not in such large numbers as in the past. However, there remain some young people for whom this type of care is ideal.
724
I remind my hon. Friend that there has been a great restructuring of the procedures and structure in these homes. The young people do not have breakfast, luncheon and evening meal produced for them as in a hotel or hostel. The young people have to get the meal for themselves and they play an important part in the running of the home under the supervision of residential home care social workers. There is an important role for residential care in the future.
I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East and by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South. I believe that fostering can play a vital role in dealing with young people who get themselves into trouble, who are thrown out of their home, or who come under the responsibility of the social services. Will the Minister comment, if he is to respond to this debate, on the three main recommendations on fostering in the report? With regard to fostering contracts, the Committee recommended that guidance on written agreements on foster placements should be included in the guidelines accompanying the revised boarding-out regulations. It is important, not only for the young people who will be fostered but for prospective foster parents, and those who are existing foster parents but who are unsure of their future.
The Committee also recommended a pilot project for the use of voluntary organisations to recruit foster parents. I consider that the voluntary sector has a vital role to play in recruiting foster parents and I believe it will have an increasing part to play in dealing with young children in care in the future.
The Select Committee recommended that local authorities consider extending further support to local foster parent groups. My hon. Friend the Minister rightly talked about the real growth of 20 per cent. since 1978–79 in the allocation of expenditure to the personal social services. But I hope that he will not overlook the fact that the Association of Directors of Social Services, which is in the process of analysing outturn figures for 1985–86 and public expenditure trends, has said that they show that real expenditure in the shire counties is down by 1·07 per cent. on the 1984–85 figures, down by 0·23 per cent. in the metropolitan district councils, and up by 2·81 per cent. in the London boroughs.
I presume that my hon. Friend will say that some of the most deserving areas in inner London are getting the 2 per cent. built-in increase which has been carried forward from 1976, when it was decided that that sort of growth rate was required and it was set out in the Government publication "Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services in England". I hope that my hon. Friend will not take it for granted that every social service in London and the metropolitan districts and counties is benefiting from the substantial increase in real terms that has taken place under this Government.
I am most concerned about child care legislation and the family courts which have been touched upon, particularly by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East. Our Committee clearly recognised the unsatisfactory state of child care law in Britain. Legislation, as we all know, has developed piecemeal over the years in an attempt to reflect the changing needs and attitudes of society. Our Committee recommended that the DHSS set up a working party on child care law. All the members of the Committee

725
were impressed by the case put to them for a change in jurisdiction for children and the establishment of what we have come to describe as a family court.
The Government, as the Minister said, have now published as a consultative document their review of child care. I was pleased to learn that that had generated about 1,000 representations to the Department. That is a substantial number and I welcome it.
Mr. Whitney: I said 180.
Mr. Winterton: My hearing is obviously beginning to go as my age advances, but even that is a substantial number of representations and I hope that he will heed what they say.
The Lord Chancellor and the Home Office have established a separate working party to review the case for a united family court and they are planning to issue a consultative document shortly, perhaps in two months' time. I hope that that can be brought forward because it will be valuable in deciding exactly what is required for the establishment of a family court. I, like many members of the Committee, am already sold on the idea of a family court because they already exist and are working extremely well in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Minister may say that the law in Scotland is different. Indeed it is, but the example is there and the precedent is set and the sooner we have it established in England and Wales the better it will be for our dealings with young people.
Let me refer briefly to some of the horrific cases that have been highlighted in the press and media and which have been referred to during the debate. The Jasmine Beckford report refers to the gratuitous comments of the magistrates, which, as we all know, set the pattern for the subsequent handling of that case. In the Andrew Riley case, which relates to my constituency, the decision of the Chester Crown court to make a probation order effectively prevented any subsequent action by the local authority to remove young Andrew Riley from his mother's care, and what a tragedy that turned out to be.
Early in 1982 in Cheshire the social services brought a four-year-old child before the local magistrates court with an application for a care order. Sadly, the magistrates made a supervision order and within four months the child was dead. That mirrors the Wayne Brewer case in Somerset. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) will not take it amiss if I say that that perhaps casts some doubt on the efficacy of his private Member's Bill.
In 1983 two parents were prosecuted in the Chester Crown court for abusing their little girl. Surprisingly, they were found not guilty, and gratuitous comments by the judge that he entirely supported the jury's verdict and that the case should not have been brought before the court again made the subsequent management of that case difficult. In the event, the Cheshire county council social services department took wardship proceedings and the court was well satisfied with the submissions presented.
The main point that we can draw from the experiences in Cheshire and of the Select Committee is that the Crown court structure was not designed for and is not able to deal properly with the matter that we are discussing. The adult court is concerned wholly with offences and it is clear from the court transcript of the case of Sandra Riley that the need to ensure Andrew's proper protection was not satisfactorily or properly considered.
726
We all know that the juvenile court has been shown to be seriously deficient in its ability to deal with complex child care cases. I understand from the social services in Cheshire that it increasingly has to have recourse to wardship proceedings in the family division where the proceedings are non-adversarial. There, as some hon. Members know, the priority is overridingly the interest of the child and decisions are made on the basis of probability rather than proof. That is probably the situation nationally, but it is clear that the family division was never intended to deal with the generality of child care cases and as a consequence it is becoming overloaded.
The message to me from cases that have been drawn to my attention and from the Cheshire county council is that we clearly need something akin to the family courts. The director of social services for Islington, Mr. John. Rae-Price, would argue for the Lothian type of family courts which now operate in Scotland. From the investigations of the Select Committee and from representations made to me, I believe that in Lothian the reporter would have intervened in the tragic Andrew Riley case in my constituency at an early stage and ensured a proper consideration of that child's interests within the judicial process as it applied to the mother.
The experiences of the Select Committee suggest that there should be an integration of the legal process in all matters relating to children. I make one particularly forceful plea—where child abuse occurs the prime interest should always be that of the child and not of the parents. The child should always be considered first. The parents' interests are important but in no way should they be considered as the first priority. That is the plea which I make not only as a layman, but as a member of the Select Committee. If that position had prevailed in the Andrew Riley case, that young eight-year-old boy, who was drowned in a bath by his mother who had previously killed two of her children, would be alive today. His case would have been treated differently in a family court. I make that plea from the head as well as from the heart.
In arguing for integration of all matters relating to children, I am sure that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) would support me if I mention the Finer committee of 1974, which recommended a family court. The report states:
"An institution to which the whole business of family law now dealt with in the Family Division of the High Court, the County Courts and the Magistrates' Courts will be assigned."
The proposals of the Finer committee have not been adopted by any Government in the intervening 12 years, although the debate in professional circles has continued with varying interest.
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, who chaired the Select Committee, back in her place. The Committee believes that a family court could offer a better service to children and families, but in noting the lack of success under successive Governments does not suggest that family courts are likely to be established unless there is sustained political demand for them. I hope that our recommendation to the Government will be seriously considered and that there will be no procrastination.
In the unlikely event of an alliance Government, the position could be worse, because, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, the alliance is inclined to be a Janus looking in both directions at the same time, wanting more money spent and expenditure pegged to bring down inflation.

727
I look forward to the continued membership of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) on the Committee. He has come on to the Committee only recently by the decision of the House and he has already made a contribution. From the articulate way in which he dealt with the report rather than the political controversy in which he became involved, I am sure that he has a major contribution to make to the Committee.
I make the plea that the Government should seek to introduce in this House, or in another place if that is more appropriate to speed up the process, legislation to introduce family courts. That would be to the benefit of families and to those people about whom I am personally concerned—young people.
6.22 pm
Mr. Dennis Walters: My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) had a point when she said that the strictures of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) about the Government's lack of concern would have sounded more convincing if the hon. Lady had not been left so isolated, not only by the Front Bench, but by her Back Benchers. She did not seem to have much support.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), who chaired—
Mr. Frank Haynes: I do not believe that it is fair for Conservative Members to attack Labour Members for not being present. The position has been the same on both sides of the House. No more than six or seven Conservative Members have been in the Chamber since the beginning of the debate, so come off it.
Mr. Walters: I was perfectly cool, but the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) appears not to be cool. The position on attendance was about 15:1. We even had the Secretary of State present during the debate, and it was nice to see him. There would appear to have been a difference of emphasis in the interest shown.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East on her speech this evening and on having chaired the Committee, which presented such an impressive, massive and relevant report. The report runs to several volumes and I cannot pretend that I have read it word for word, but I have studied it carefully and been much impressed by its recommendations.
A few weeks ago I moved the Second Reading of the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill, which deals specifically with children in care under court orders. I do not feel that I should debate the Bill now with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), but I should point out that the Bill does not inhibit the argument about family courts. It aims to introduce in the immediate future reforms and safeguards, which its sponsors from both sides of the House believe would be helpful and relevant.
I had the opportunity on Second Reading to set out the Bill's objectives and to put forward several personal reflections and views on that important and emotive subject. I was able to do so at considerable length and I therefore intend to intervene only briefly tonight to make some observations, of which I hope that the Government will take note.
728
It is important that the DHSS should reassure social workers that the changes that may be required in child care law do not imply a diminution or loss of their status. Social workers should welcome provisions which reinforce judgments and conclusions reached by them and which, on occasions, might disagree with those conclusions. The speed at which cases are decided should not be significantly affected. As I said on Second Reading of the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill, I strongly believe that if one should err, one should err on the side of caution.
I was concerned about an article in The Sunday Times which said that social workers were worried about the possibility that cases would be held up by my Bill, because I do not believe that the proposed adjustments and changes in the law would have that effect.
Costs inevitably feature prominently in discussions of this type. The care of children separated from their parents is an expensive service. The DHSS told the Social Services Select Committee during the preparation of its report that about £370 million was being spent on services for children in care, mostly on residential homes, hostels and boarding houses. At any one time, 18,000 children are in local authority care under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 because they have been neglected or ill-treated. My Bill is, of course, specifically directed to the protection of those children who have been ill-treated and abused.
The Social Services Committee in its report refers to the fact that
"There is now"—
that is in 1982 and 1983—
"a far greater awareness than 10 years ago of the horrors of child abuse, and of the ways in which children can be protected from the worst of its effects. There are now fairly complex administrative arrangements for detecting and following up suspected abuse."
Prudently and sensibly the Committee went on to say:
"Any temptation to be complacent about arrangements for dealing with child abuse will always be checked by another appalling tragedy."
Sadly, we have witnessed how accurate that comment has proved to be, because not one, but several appalling tragedies have shown that it would be unwise, irresponsible and foolish to be in any way complacent about the level of safety for children under threat of cruelty and abuse.
That brings me back to the question of expenditure. It is inevitable that improvements and changes in this area will cost extra money. It is not invariably the case that improvements cost more. Indeed, there are occasions when streamlining an organisation can make it better, more efficient and, at the same time, less expensive. If we decide to implement some of the proposals of the DHSS review on child care, and some of the recommendations which were spelt out so effectively in the Blom-Cooper report, which include better training and greater resources, greater expense becomes inevitable.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the improvement in the court system that I suggested would also be valuable? He may be aware that the Sandra Riley case had nothing to do with incompetence or inefficiency of the social services. If anything, it was a breakdown in communication between the psychiatrist dealing with the case and the probation officer. A new court scenario could bring that kind of situation to an end.
Mr. Walters: I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, my Bill does not inhibit the debate on family courts. I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to some of the provisions of my private Member's Bill, which includes improvements in the present court structure, and which would meet some of his points. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's earlier comment that priority should always go to a child. Where a child has suffered abuse, the parents no longer have equal rights with the child, as they would have had if that had not been the case. The child's right must be pre-eminent.
To return to the question of expense, if some of the provisions in my Bill, which introduces new safeguards and better legal procedures to protect vulnerable children in care, are accepted, as I hope that they will be, extra expenditure will also be incurred. We are talking not about vast sums, but about more money. Although I am fully aware of the need to act responsibly over public expenditure, it would be most unwise for the Government to make the issue of cost fundamental to change, reform and progress when dealing with child protection. It is an extremely sensitive area, about which there is widespread and very deep and justified public anxiety. People rightly care profoundly about the matter, and not merely as a result of a few horrifying cases which have recently been brought to public attention. The Government should take heed of that feeling and act accordingly.
6.34 pm
Mr. Andy Stewart: Today's debate gives me the opportunity to raise a specific issue that is causing perplexing anxiety among an increasing number of parents. I have one such family in my constituency. Their nightmare began in August 1985 when Louise was admitted to hospital with a spiral fracture of the left femur. The local authority commenced public proceedings against her parents, and during those proceedings 15 witnesses gave evidence, five of whom were doctors. The medical opinion was divided, and at least one doctor, a leading expert on the subject, was convinced that there was no evidence of non-accidental injury. However, the weight of medical evidence was in favour of the other opinion, and on that basis the magistrates made a court order.
I accept that children must have the full protection of the courts, and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) explained why that must be so. But what about the rights of parents in cases where medical opinion is divided? Louise's parents have no right of appeal against the order, and, subsequently, the local authority can place the child for adoption, terminating nature's strongest bond—that between parents and child.
The terrible aspect of the case I have mentioned is that the child may suffer from a congenital bone disease known as osteogenesis imperfecta. The fracture was entirely typical of the disease, and the child shows at least one sign on clinical examination that she probably suffers from that fairly rare condition. It may be months or even years before another fracture occurs, if she has that condition, but meantime the family may be destroyed.
It seems wholly wrong that parents in such a position have no legal recourse, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to institute an inquiry into the injustices practised against such parents.
6.37 pm
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am glad to take part in the debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) because a similar case has occurred in my constituency.
The case continued for five months and included court cases. Although it has now been solved satisfactorily, to the extent that the child has been returned to the parents, both the child and parents went through a period of agony and nightmare. I wish to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to two points that arise from the case.
First, there is a need for more medical research to establish a diagnosis for the disease without dispute. In my constituents' case there were six medical opinions, two of which held that it was a case of brittle bone disease, but four felt that they could not rule out non-accidental injury. More research should be carried out to establish how we can diagnose this disease beyond doubt.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) are drawing into the debate an aspect that has not so far been part of our deliberations. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East believe that in the case to which he refers there was any reason why the social services and other expert bodies might have been worried? Had the social services been involved with the family earlier?
Mr. Thurnham: The family had a good background and there was no question about the care that they gave the child. In view of the divided medical opinion, I do not wish to criticise the social workers, who have to be particularly careful in these cases. The public concern that has arisen in other cases shows the need for such care, as does the fact that these decisions have to be made by a committee, which has to consider all the evidence before it. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to say that there should be more research into the medical causes so that we can have a diagnosis that establishes the matter beyond all doubt.
Secondly, we must have court procedures that do not lead to such long delays. In this case the child was separated from the parents over Christmas. That was a particularly harrowing experience. The court case could not be held earlier because, among other reasons, the court was full of licensing applications. This highlights the need for court proceedings that will enable such cases to be heard more quickly.
I speak from the point of view of my experience of constituency cases that have come to my attention and my personal interest, having adopted last December a severely handicapped child. The child had been in care for eight years, had been with our family as a foster child for two years, and had spent six years before that being shuffled about from pillar to post. Therefore, I have personal experience of the problems of children in care.
This evening, I wish to speak about the most deprived people in our society—handicapped children in Long-term institutional care, of whom there are some 3,000, some in NHS hospitals and some in local authority care. The Government's response to recommendation 93 rather misses the point. It calls for the recommendations of the Harvie report, which came out in 1974, to be implemented. However, in their response the Government concerned themselves only with children in voluntary and

731
other homes, whereas two thirds of such children in long-term institutional care are in statutory institutions, of which NHS hospitals are those that cause the greatest concern because the children may not be properly in care. They may have broken their contacts with their parents and be, to all intents and purposes, parentless, but also not in the care of the local authority from which they came. They may be hundreds of miles away, and not even known to the local authority. The group Exodus has drawn attention to the plight of these children, the number of whom has been substantially reduced. However, there are 500 in NHS hospitals in England and Wales and a further 500 in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Government should do more to help in such cases.
On the fostering and adoption of handicapped children, I once again ask my hon. Friend to consider the need for standard adoption allowances. Only last month, I had a surgery case of a family that had adopted one handicapped child and had a second handicapped child in foster care. The parents were unable to fund the costs that would be incurred if they adopted the child and thereby lost the fostering allowances. They were having difficulty in heating the house, because the children need to be kept in warm conditions because of their handicaps. They have had to move to a smaller house because they could not manage, and they have asked why more help could not be given to them in their task. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) said, such adoption relieves the state of enormous expense because fostering and adopting care is less expensive than institutional care. This family is providing care, but has been hindered in providing it in the way that it would like to do. It should be encouraged to do so rather than discouraged by the financial situation.
I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to the case made by the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering. It strongly feels that there should be standard adoption allowances and that the present scheme, which is sometimes defended as being experimental and providing variety, is nothing but a cause of great confusion. The problems vary from one part of the country to another as local authorities try to come to grips with them in different ways, and find that they cannot do so as they would wish because of the costs involved. I ask my hon. Friend to look at this carefully and come to a decision before he is forced to do so when the present arrangements lapse in 1989.
I have sufficiently covered the points about the brittle bones cases, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to work closely with his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science to see whether more provision can be made in the Budget to provide for research into this disease.
Mr. Archie Hamilton (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Bishops (Retirement) Measure
Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
6.44 pm
Sir William van Straubenzee (The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
That the Bishops (Retirement) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen), by Her Majesty's command, acquainted the House, That Her Majesty, having been impressed of the subject matter of the motion, gives her consent, as far as Her Majesty's interest is concerned, That the House may do therein as it shall think fit.
Sir William van Straubenzee: I know that the House expects whoever proposes these Measures to justify them—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I am sorry to intervene, but would it be convenient for the two Church Measures to be taken together?
Sir William van Straubenzee: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they should be taken separately. I have in mind your ruling about proposed private business, and I shall speak briefly.
The House expects whoever proposes these Measures to justify them. For this Measure, that can be done briefly. A large part of it is consolidation of minor amendments of the law concerning the resignation of a bishop due to incapacity because of physical or mental disability. The Measure sets out the new arrangements for that. Such arrangements were last set out in 1951. The Measure also brings within its ambit similar provisions, although with appropriate amendments, for the resignation for that purpose of archbishops.
It was felt that the arrangements for bishops suffragan and diocesan were unduly burdensome for them to have to be confirmed by Her Majesty in Council. Therefore, this Measure has a new provision which requires a bishop wishing to resign to consult the archbishop of the province and then tender his resignation for approval in a written instrument. The Order in Council will still be necessary for the resignation of an archbishop.
I have the voting figures for the Court of the Ecclesiastical Committee, which deemed the Measure to be expedient, and those for the General Synod. No votes were cast against the motion.
6.47 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: Church of England Measures come in a special category of parliamentary business and are normally passed on the nod, because there is a general convention that the Church should be self-governing. Since the famous 1928 Prayer Book case, the House has never decided to go against the advice of the Church of England. Therefore, the general principle that the House has adopted is that if the Church of England wants a Measure, it should have it. That is why the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) presented the Measure with commendable brevity, and without feeing it necessary to argue the details and the merits of the case.

733
However, this is a specially interesting Measure because we have an established Church. We are talking not just about the resignation of a bishop, but about the removal, under statutory provision, of a Member of the House of Lords. A bishop who sits in the House of Lords enjoys, in accordance with our normal parliamentary language, the status of a lord spiritual. If a bishop wishes to retire on the grounds that he is physically or mentally incapable, there is a proper provision for him so to do. There is no provision for a peer to resign, as I learnt to my cost some years ago. If a Member of Parliament wishes to resign, he or she must apply for an office of profit under the Crown.
I ask the House to consider what would happen if a bishop who is thought to be physically or mentally incapable is asked to resign but does not do so. Two of the senior bishops of the province in which he serves can go to the archbishop of the province and have the man removed from Parliament, not just from the episcopacy. If an archbishop who is mentally or physically handicapped is asked to resign but chooses not to do so, the procedure is slightly more complicated. Two bishops from his province go to the archbishop of another province and the archbiship is removed from Parliament.
I do not intend to oppose the Measure. If that is the way the Church wants to run its affairs, presumably that is the way the House wishes it to run them, but the question that arises is the implication of this Measure for the status of the established Church. I come from a radical background. For a long time I believed, and I still strongly believe, that the more we continue to nod through Measures such as this without examining the implications because we feel that we should not interfere, the more the question of establishment will need to be considered.
The Church of England was nationalised by Henry VIII because of his conflict with the Pope. In one sense it is our oldest nationalised industry. Henry VIII was not prepared to have a foreign potentate exercising great power in Britain. Therefore, the Act of Supremacy was designed to secure that the Church of England conformed to the wishes of the king of the day. The reasons for this have long since disappeared. There is a very wide diversity of faith in Britain. If one considers attendances at communion, other denominations appear to have a larger membership than the Church of England. However, we continue to preserve the fiction of an established Church whose bishops are appointed by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's powers are now limited to a choice between one or two names that are offered by the commission. But the Prime Minister does not have to be a Christian, let alone a member of the Church of England. The House retains a residual power to determine all sorts of questions, including that of the Prayer Book.
The Church-state link is also uneasy for contemporary reasons that have come to the fore in the last year or two. Bishops have properly found themselves compelled by their faith to make sharp criticisms of the state of which they are supposed to be a part. For example, the Archbishop of Canterbury was rebuked for his sermon after the Falklands war. There have been more recent examples. Bishops have made political comments that have led to counter comments against the bishops because of their theological opinions.
This measure provides a legitimate peg upon which to hang the question whether the link between the Church of England and the organs of the state should finally be
734
severed, notably the link between the Church of England and Parliament. There are many other Christian denominations. Other people call themselves humanists and atheists. People from other countries who come to live here have a range of different beliefs. I refer to the Hindus, the Sikhs and the big Jewish community.
The hon. Member for Wokingham performed his function with commendable parliamentary skill—[Interruption.] I am not making fun of him; he presented the Measure in exactly the way that this lingering residual link should be handled in Parliament. However, it is manifestly absurd that we should be asked to deal with the question theoretically by vote although actually on the nod. There are many people—I am one of them because of my radical, liberal background—who believe that it is absolutely wrong that the Church should be an agent of the state, even in the very limited way that this now operates.
I do not wish to oppose the Measure and I shall sit in my place when the vote is called, but I know, because I have spoken out against the Church-state link and in favour of disestablishment, that many churchmen believe that the time has come to negotiate a parting, with good will, between the Church of England and the British state. The implications of this retirement Measure for the membership of Parliament provide a suitable opportunity to raise this matter. It will not be long before the pressure for change is felt. When it is, I hope that the House will play a constructive role in making possible the disestablishment of the Church of England.
6.55 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I wish only to correct the record. In doing so, I welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to these debates. I have been a Member of Parliament since 1979, and I have attended every debate on ecclesiastical business, bar one. I do not remember having seen my right hon. Friend at any other debate on Church business. Had he attended our debates more assiduously, he would know that Church of England business does not go through on the nod. On 16 July 1985 we rejected the bishops Measure that was considered on that occasion.
6.56 pm
Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is absolutely right. He might have gone further. He might have corrected the history lesson of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and invited him to investigate the true catholicity of the Church of England. What he said was erroneous in many respects. I accept that he did not intend it, but it could cause great offence to many sincere, practising members of the Church of England.
Mr. Benn: When I made a major speech some years ago, I consulted a large number of people who held high positions in the Church. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) will be the first to admit that there is a large and growing body of opinion in the Church of England that it ought to be disestablished so that its freedom can be preserved and developed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In this debate we are not interested in whether the Church of England should be established or disestablished. The House must confine itself to the Measure that is before it.
Mr. Greenway: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield was allowed to dilate on that point for some time, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, that is not my point. The right hon. Gentleman challenged the ancient catholicity of the Church of England, which has something to do with the establishment of the Church of England, but that is not the point that I was trying to make. The autonomy of the Church of England is accepted by most hon. Members, and the function of the House has been described by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) to deal with this question when he replies to the debate. If it is thought that a bishop is physically or mentally incapable and that he should therefore be asked to resign from his see, the Measure does not make clear at what point the procedures will be set in train. People can be seriously physically ill or infirm, but can then recover. They can also be seriously mentally ill or infirm, but can then recover. The result of the Measure might therefore be that bishops are removed from their bishoprics.
I should like to be reassured that these procedures will not be put in hand lightly. A solid assurance ought to be given that a bishop must be immeasurably beyond recovery, either physically or mentally, before this Measure can be enacted, or it could be dangerous.
I should also like my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham to deal with the age at which bishops retire. Does he consider that the present age of retirement is worth having, or does he consider that there should be a retirement age? The Measure relates a little to the retirement age of bishops.
Many agree that bishops and archbishops make their best contributions in old age. I cite in particular Dr. Cyril Barbage, Archbishop of York, who died at 81 years of age, having said when he became bishop that he would retire at 65. He said that he would never allow himself to be called "My Lord" or any other fancy title. He went on well beyond the age at which archbishops and bishops are expected to retire. I hope—
It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking private business), further proceedings stood postponed.

British Railways (Stansted) Bill (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
7 pm
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have your guidance? I perceive that our appreciation of the Bill's precise effects, if we are to judge it right, is tied up with another measure—the Airports Bill which is now in Standing Committee. Will it be in order to refer to that Bill because it seems to be almost impossible to judge this Bill without reference to that other Bill?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): It will be in order to refer to that Bill incidentally. Hon. Members must not argue too wide a case, but it is in order to refer to it incidentally.
7.1 pm
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Students of British Railways legislation will know that this is the second time in seven days that I have proposed the Second Reading of a British Railways Bill. I make no apologies for that.
This Bill, in common with all its predecessors, relies upon the duties placed upon the board under the Transport Act 1962. The most important of those duties is as follows:
"It is the duty of the Board…to have due regard, as respect all those railway and other services and facilities, to efficiency, economy and safety of operation."
This Bill is designed to do precisely that.
I shall outline quickly the structure of the Bill. Part I defines the terms and incorporates the provisions of the general Act which is common to all such legislation. Part II deals with works for which authorisation is sought. Part III authorises the board to purchase land the rights over land. Part IV deals with the incorporation of protective provisions as they relate to the Crown, the police and the electricity, water and gas undertakings. Part V provides a limit, in clause 17, of up to 10 years from the passing of the Bill, the period of starting construction. The two schedules are self-explanatory.
The Bill states:
"By reason of the proposed development and the expansion of Stansted airport by the British Airports Authority it is expedient that the Board should be empowered to construct the works authorised by this Act and to purchase or use the land referred to in this Act so as to provide improved services and facilities for railway passengers travelling to or from the said airport".
It could be a matter for debate whether every airport should have a link with the main railway system. Many people believe that London airport should have had such a facility when it opened after the last war. This Bill is concerned not with other airports, but with Stansted. It reflects a prudent and sensible attitude on behalf of the board to ensure that powers exist to build the railway link, should the proper finance be available.
Work No. 1 relates to the principal work to be undertaken by the board—the Stansted spur road. That involves the construction of a new length of railway of 6,035 m, or just over 6 km, from a point on the London to Cambridge line a short distance north of Stansted station, into the enlarged airport site. The track will be

737
double as far as the tunnel under the airport runway, single track in the tunnel and be double once again into the airport station which will have two platforms.
Work No. 2 requires that a short length of additional railway shall be built between the London and Cambridge line and work No. 1 to allow direct trains from and to Cambridge. The railway building part of the Bill is substantial but extremely simple. I regard it as an imaginative response to the need to provide proper transport.
Works Nos. 3 and 6 relate to the diversion of certain watercourses necessary to complete works Nos. 1 and 2. Work No. 7 involves the construction of a new road to provide access to the site which, after the building is completed, will be left to provide access for maintenance work.
Work No. 6 gives powers to make and maintain the station under the proposed terminal which will give access directly above to the airport concourse. Clauses 7, 8 and 9 provide additional facilities to ensure that any surface water can be taken away.
The Bill is simple and straightforward, but it has aroused great interest among many hon. Members, who see it as an attempt by the board to favour Stansted over Manchester. I remind the House that in 1984 I moved the Second Reading of a similar Bill to give exactly the same powers to Manchester to enable it to provide exactly the same facilities for travellers to that airport. The board obtained works and land powers under the British Railways Act 1984 for the construction of a railway to Manchester international airport.
The powers were obtained by the board in the face of determined opposition from a property developer and in spite of difficult negotiations with local authorities—the Manchester council and Manchester city council. I hope that hon. Members will not deny the board a Second Reading of a Bill to do for Stansted precisely that which was done nearly two years ago for Manchester because there is no direct relationship between the two schemes. It would be like counting apples with pears to argue that Stansted should not enjoy these provisions because Manchester is being treated as a second-class case. That is not true. Manchester already has such provisions and Stansted is merely being brought into line with Manchester.
Other comments have been made to the effect that in the White Paper on airports assurances were given that there would be some direct linkage between the two schemes and that they would be considered contemporaneously. There is no evidence—certainly not in the White Paper—that there is any order of priority between Manchester and Stansted under the two rail link schemes. They are not in competition and never have been intended to compete.
There are other hon. Members who will, no doubt, wish to raise matters such as the additional traffic on the line to London and the effect it may have on services.
As in the past, I shall do as much as I can to deal with individual problems as they arise, but I can assure the House that the board sees no reason for believing that the new link to the airport will do anything to diminish the service—indeed it should enhance it.
This is a simple, straightforward Bill. It does to an airport in the east what was done to one in the north-west. I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The House will wish to know that Mr. Speaker has not selected either of the amendments on the Order Paper.
7.10 pm
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: This might seem at first sight a fairly straightforward proposition—that an airport which is about to be developed to a scale of some significance should, right from the start, be properly serviced by road and rail.
I am willing to be persuaded that the immediate institution of a rail link would be sensible for the community as a whole, as well as for the passengers who will use the airport. If it is a straightforward proposition that a rail link should be put in, it is extraordinary that London's premier airport, Heathrow, still does not have a surface rail link after 40 years. One cannot help musing about the priorities of British Rail or the Government that we should be asked tonight to approve a rail link for an airport which currently has a through-put of 500,000 passengers per annum when there is still no surface rail link to an airport that is running at 31 million passengers per annum.
I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister of State has to say on behalf of the Government. Because of the eagerness of British Rail and maybe of the Government, people who have been vitally concerned with the Stansted issue for some time are suspicious that the name of the game is to maximise the airport's attraction and to ensure that everything possible is done to assist its growth potential.
Let us consider what the effects of a rail link might be. First and foremost, one has to consider the environmental aspects. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) did not dwell on this, but I would imagine that British Rail has taken great care to ensure that the route of the spur from the main line into the airport avoids the greatest environmental difficulties.
There will, nevertheless, be a problem for the landowners concerned, and these things are never easy to cope with. I came to the Saffron Walden constituency when the shock waves were still being felt from the cutting through that constituency of the M11 motorway. The residual problems of dealing with compulsory purchase were felt for many years and I have no doubt there will be great distress if this Bill is approved and compulsory purchase orders have to be made. I suspect that there will be difficulties in the general environmental sense, but I hope that we may be assured that the route chosen for the rail link will do the least visual harm to an area which is extremely proud of its rural environment.
The second consideration is the effect that the establishment of a rail link, or its absence, will have on roads in the area. There would be some attraction in a rail link to Stansted airport if the result would be less road traffic in the area. We need some explanation of how the relationship is seen. What is the likely effect on road traffic of a rail link? Will it be beneficial to people in my area and in east Hertfordshire in that it will control the growth of traffic or even reduce it?
We are anxious that, so far, the Government have promised no more than £2 million to spend on roads in the area. Essex county council's shopping list is rather greater —£38 million. I do not necessarily wish to endorse that figure, but there is a suspicion that £2 million will be inadequate for our roads. We are understandably worried

739
about the effect on our roads of growth at the airport. We shall be interested to know whether establishing a rail link will be beneficial.
Mr. Bowen Wells: My hon. Friend will know that Hertfordshire's claim for additional expenditure on the roads exceeds that of Essex by £1 million. My hon. Friend must bear that in mind when advancing his argument.
Mr. Haselhurst: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Hertfordshire and Essex county councils are working closely on this matter. The invisible boundary between our two counties makes no difference to the problems of the area, which must be seen as a whole.
The question that exercises minds in my constituency and, I dare say, in neighbouring ones is whether the establishment of a rail link to Stansted will ensure that the airport is a runaway success. We are conscious that, when announcing his decision on airports policy, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attempted to achieve some form of compromise so that the growth required would be limited or staged. That is the best crumb of comfort on which my constituents, who have been suspicious of and worried about a large-scale airport at Stansted, can feed. They are prepared to make the best of the Government's decision. There is a compromise—we shall have investment in the airport, which will create jobs in the area. The airport will develop to a certain extent. That assurance would be somewhat damaged, however, if they felt that investment was being poured in in the form of a rail link, which would accelerate the pressures on the airport and render the limit set by the Government relatively meaningless in a short time.
My constituents do not regard the link simply from an amenity point of view. They are anxious about whether it will act as an accelerator on airport growth. Hon. Members should bear that in mind. My constituents are not trying to reverse the decision about the airport, but they would like to believe that there will be some reliance on the limitation which the Government set.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: I understand that, on St. Valentine's day, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport visited my hon. Friend's constituency and mine and that there was a discussion with various relevant bodies about infrastructure. Perhaps my hon. Friend could say what came of that meeting.
Mr. Haselhurst: I would be trespassing on the goodwill of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport if I went too far into that matter as it was a fact-finding visit essentially concerned with roads rather than rail. While I accept the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) that there is an interconnection between the road and rail infrastructure, and I have already referred to that, obviously my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State could not give commitments during his visit as to what the Government might subsequently do in relation to the roads infrastructure. Naturally, I hope that, since he has witnessed the situation, he will advise our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that more should be done than is presently planned.
Some of my constituents are worried that a rail link is simply a means of ensuring extra investment at Stansted
740
to promote the airport's growth and for no other reason. On the other hand, we must consider the possible effect on housing and urbanisation. I understand that a good rail link which would connect such stations as Tottenham Hale, Broxbourne and Harlow Town with the airport would ensure that people seeking employment at the airport from outside the immediate area would have a reliable service to satisfy their needs and curb the need to move into the area thus adding to the demand for new houses with the implications that has for the county structure plan.
That must be considered very carefully, and it is difficult to know whether such a proposition would work. Benefits may arise from a rail link if that link eases the pressure on general urbanisation in the area. It would be helpful to have further information on that point.
The other point to consider with regard to the effects of the rail link relates to the comfort and convenience of the passengers. Some of my hon. Friends will nod with understanding and sympathy when I say that the words "comfort" and "convenience" have not, in the past, been synonymous with Liverpool street station. There are grave anxieties as to whether any form of service could be comfortable and convenient if it runs out of that London terminus.
I am aware that British Rail is undertaking a major redevelopment of the station, which may considerably improve the service. It is worth noting, however, that a working party set up in 1980 to consider rail access to Stansted stated in a Department of Transport report in June 1981 that:
"Liverpool Street is not a good location for the London terminal. It is some distance away from the main tourist centres in the West End, the surrounding area contains few hotels and hotel expansion is unlikely. The road system around Liverpool Street is already congested throughout the day and the Inner Ring Road near Liverpool Street is of a low standard. The additional traffic generated by an in-town terminal would increase the problems considerably. As regards links with the Underground. the Metropolitan/Circle line provides good connections with some BR main line stations, but the Central line, which is the main access to the West End is already severely overcrowded in the peak hours. The 1974 London Rail Study, (Part 2, paragraph 10.4.1) recorded that the Leyton-Chancery Lane section of the Central line was the most severe example of peak hour overcrowding on the Underground: although conditions have improved somewhat since then, London Transport have stated that a very high level of standing continues to occur, and that for the future conditions would remain inappropriate to accommodate air passengers and their baggage."
Although Liverpool street station might be considerably enhanced to benefit regular passengers, its very location —not the quality of service it offers once one arrives there—may be a difficulty for air passengers whose destination we must assume is unlikely to be the City of London but rather the West End. We must find out more about that and if we are being invited to support the rail link we must recognise that it will ultimately terminate at Liverpool street and not at a more convenient station.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest who promoted the Bill, said very little about the costings it involves. I believe that the House is entitled to have more information about the project if we are to grant it approval. What is the overall cost of the proposal? My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest did not tell the House what that would be. I hope he will intervene if he does know what the figure is. I understand from answers given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the Government expect a 7 per cent. rate of return in real terms

741
on the project, on the capital employed. The Secretary of State will judge that on an equal basis with any other project put before him. We ought to be given some idea whether my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest is satisfied that that rate of return will be achieved.
A considerable sum will need to be yielded in the form of passenger fares if there is to be a 7 per cent. rate of return. I recall that the cost of the electrification of the Bishop's Stortford to Cambridge line was put in 1983 terms at the order of £11 million to £12 million. One assumes that the project under discussion, which involves laying down railway track, boring a tunnel and building a station, will cost somewhat more than that. That figure might presumably be three or four times £11 million or £12 million. One need only carry out some preliminary mathematics to discover that the rate of return may have to be between £2·5 million and £3 million. That is the actual margin—not the total revenue—that has to be found to achieve such a result. That has consequences for the number of passengers who will be required to achieve that result. We need to know more, therefore, about the figures. How many passengers will be using the line? What data did British Rail use to make its calculations to embolden them to bring the matter to the House?
When the working party considered the matter in 1980–81, and the cost of the option—one of four that were originally considered and which is identical to the scheme incorporated in the Bill—it stated that:
"The cost of this option, excluding any essential work at Liverpool Street that would be necessary and excluding any rolling stock requirements, would amount to about £50 million at 1980 prices. BR and BAA have estimated that the cost of the rail spur and associated works would be £47·7 million at 1980 prices but this does not include costs for signalling, electrification and land purchased by BR which have not been separately identified for the rail spur."
How many passengers will be needed to relate to such costs?
At that time, the British Airports Authority was talking in terms of a throughput of 15 million passengers per annum being achieved at Stansted by 1992. That was the other side of the equation when the working study report was made. In view of that evidence, we need precise information as to the present estimated costs and the projected number of passengers using the line. It is evident that a 15 million passenger target at Stansted will not be achieved by 1992 as the terminal is not due to open until at least 1990. In any case, the Secretary of State has said that it may be a facility for only 7 million to 8 million passengers per annum. It seems that the figures on the record will require radical readjustment in the light of what we now know. I should like to know how many passengers are expected to use the service, and I should like to have that information presented on the basis of year-by-year growth.
What proportion of the passengers going through the airport will want to reach it by rail? What proportion is it supposed will come from central London? To what extent will Stansted serve the needs of the population of a wider area embracing East Anglia, Colchester, Chelmsford and areas of Hertfordshire? It cannot be assumed that all the traffic will come on the north-south access. I assume that a major proportion will do so, but what figure is being ascribed in the calculations that lie behind the Bill?
What proportion of passengers will come by rail from Liverpool street to Stansted airport? I presume that such calculations will take into account that the high proportion
742
of passengers who use the refurbished line to Gatwick has started to decline. I understand that it rose at one stage to over 50 per cent. On evidence that I received recently from the British Airports Authority on a visit to Gatwick, it appears that the figure has declined to 40 per cent. What would be the figure for Stansted? Could it be a reliable figure, bearing in mind that there seems to be some fluctuation in rail usage to the only other London airport with a surface rail link?
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says that there must be a 7 per cent. rate of return on capital invested. If his test is to be satisfied, by what year does that return have to be achieved? Presumably a 7 per cent. rate of return will not be achieved by 1991. By that stage the terminal would be barely open. The latest estimate of the British Airports Authority is that by 1991 throughput at Stansted using the existing facilities, which will be in use until the new terminal is opened, will he about 2 million passengers per annum. At what stage does the 7 per cent. rate of return have to be achieved?
Cost calculations must take into account the number of trains that are to run. The House will have noted that the quotation that I used from the working party's report excluded such matters as rolling stock. I must ask for information about the frequency of the service that is to be provided. That is necessary if we are to arrive at any judgment on the calculations that lie behind the scheme.
Dr. John Marek: The line will extend to Stansted and it will be on a north-south access. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the usage projections are overestimated? Many passengers will not want to come into London only to travel out of the capital for such a long distance northwards. It is likely that fewer passengers will use the line than British Rail or the Department of Transport have estimated.
Mr. Haselhurst: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for amplifying what I said about the hinterland being a source of passengers. Passengers may well come from the north, using the Mll and the A604 connection to the Al. They will make the calculation to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and reach the judgment that to enter London and travel out of it so far is not an attractive way of making their journey.
One of the first publications that the BAA issued in my constituency prior to the public inquiry referred to Stansted attracting traffic from the midlands and the north. I am sure that that factor is behind British Rail's plans. I am confident that it envisages the link as a spur that will go to Cambridge as well as to London. We know that cross-country services on the British Rail network are not especially good, but British Rail might envisage electrified connections at some stage with the east coast main line, which will bring services through Cambridge into Stansted. That may be a gleam in its eye. That is mere speculation on my part because there is no evidence of that as we consider the Bill.
I am concerned about the costs that are involved in running the trains that will be put on the proposed service. Part of the attraction of the Gatwick service has been the quality of the rolling stock that has been applied to it, which is of superior British Rail standard. I do not believe from what I hear that a similar standard of provision will be made on the Stansted route. I have not had wind of any new rolling stock coming on to the Liverpool street sector

743
of British Rail, notwithstanding the present electrification project or the Stansted project. I have a nasty feeling that the rolling stock and the locomotives will be hand-me-downs from other regions. That may have a beneficial effect on costings, but we are entitled to know the quality of the rail link that we are being offered and being asked to approve.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) has said in seated interjections, we do not know the price that will be charged for using the service. That factor must have an effect on the rate of return and the speed with which the desired rate is achieved. Another factor is the competition that British Rail will face. It is likely that there will be fast coach services. Under the beneficent rule of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, coach travel has become easier and faster. The competition from coach operators might have a considerable effect on the number of passengers who want to travel by train to Stansted.
An even more difficult factor to evaluate is the way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will use the powers that are sought in the Airports Bill, which is now being considered in Standing Committee, to direct traffic to Stansted. That must be a crucial element in British Rail's calculations in putting forward the scheme that we are considering. What is in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? Will my hon. Friend the Minister of State tell us how the powers will be used? We have not heard anything about that during the Committee proceedings. How can we make a judgment on the efficacy and attractiveness of the scheme that is being put before us unless we know exactly what my right hon. Friend intends? Have there been conversations behind the scenes? Have there been nudges and winks to British Rail about the degree of traffic that will be diverted deliberately to Stansted under the powers that my right hon. Friend is taking? These are matters about which the House should know. They will obviously have a crucial bearing upon our consideration of the Bill.
If we are to make a judgment on the Bill, we are entitled to a great deal more information about the cost of the scheme and the calculations that are being made to arrive at it. If British Rail says in its defence that these are matters of commercial confidentiality, I understand that there may be aspects of its operations that it has good reason in all fairness to keep confidential, but it is a public corporation and it is seeking the permission of the House to expend moneys in a particular direction. Therefore, it behoves it to present the full facts so that we may ascertain whether they are worthy of our confideénce.
The railway line between Liverpool street and Cambridge is not good. I hope that I am not being disrespectful when I say that one's rank in life is no bar to experiencing major inconvenience on that line. When I was pleading with my hon. Friend's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre), in 1983 for the electrification of the Liverpool street-Cambridge line I had occasion to refer to the Lea valley line. I said it was
"the worst line running out of London under the auspices of British Rail. It suffers from what is known within British Rail as the cascade effect, in that someone in the imperfect world in which we live has to be at the bottom of the heap. That tends to
744
be the Liverpool Street operation of British Rail's Eastern region, and within that operation it is the Lea valley line that gets the oldest locomotives and the oldest rolling stock.
Over the years there has been a dreadful record of breakdown and delay, usually accompanied by rational explanation at the time. The journey from Audley End to Liverpool Street is at best 52 minutes. The main train of the morning, which is heavily used by commuters with business appointments to keep, is frequently delayed, sometimes by as much as half an hour on a 52-minute journey."—[Official Report, 13 May 1983; Vol. 42, c. 1012.]
That is the sort of standard we have been expected to tolerate in the past. The standard is intolerable. The whole thrust of British Rail's efforts to deal with that bad standard was to reduce the number of trains on the line. It is important to appreciate that. In order to get over the inherent difficulties British Rail has been reducing the number of trains. The Bill asks us to sanction a substantial increase in the number of trains.
I am indebted to the service group manager of the eastern region of British Rail, Mr. Trevor Hill, for supplying some statistics about performance. He tells me that in 1982 some 66 per cent. of morning peak trains and 59 per cent. of evening peak trains to and from Cambridge arrived within five minutes of the scheduled time. By 1985 this had improved to 72 per cent. and 63 per cent. respectively. That is not saying that 72 per cent. and 63 per cent. of morning and evening trains arrive on time. It presumably means that a percentage of those arrive late, but only up to a maximum of five minutes late. In other words, 28 per cent. of trains were clearly more than five minutes late in the morning and 37 per cent. of trains were more than five minutes late in the evening. This has improved by a further small percentage in the last six months, but at the rate of improvement that we have seen over the past three and a half years, it will be another 13 years before all the trains are on time—or shall we say within five minutes of being on time. In a candid sentence Mr. Hill admits:
"There is clearly some way to go before the standards can be seen to be satisfactory, but I hope that I have demonstrated that we are moving in the right direction."
Mr. Christopher Murphy: May I discourage my hon. Friend a little more? He talks about the ancient rolling stock he has to suffer. In my constituency we have the benefit of brand new rolling stock, but I am afraid that the trains run even less to time than was the case before.
Mr. Haselhurst: I visibly sag to hear that information from my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy). Perhaps I was naive enough to suppose that the grass was greener on the Great Eastern line, but clearly that is not so.
As British Rail is frank enough to admit, the standard of service on the Lea valley line is bad. Now we are told that it will be all right if British Rail is given permission to introduce a spur to the airport and put on extra trains and that it will manage somehow.
Mr. Peter Snape: Without straying too far from the provisions of the Bill, could the hon. Gentleman give the House some solutions to the problem of chronically bad timekeeping on the Lea valley line?
Mr. Haselhurst: I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) by some of the remarks I intend to direct to that before I conclude my speech. British Rail has to come forward and offer

745
some explanation about how on earth it is to achieve a better standard of service. If it does not come up with a solution, what we shall get in comparison to the Gatwick flier is the Stansted stutterer because most of the trains seem to stop a number of times between the starting point and the end of the journey.
The House is being asked to approve what is virtually an absolute minimum service to the airport. We are not even told what the costs of that are to be. The Bill does not provide for an increase in the number of tracks on the Lea valley line south of the point where the airport spur reaches that line and through to Liverpool street. It does not provide for extra signalling schemes which might be necessary to give effect to British Rail's hope that it will be able to run an effective railway with an extra airport service operating on it. It does not provide for a terminal at St. Pancras, which was also considered as a possible option.
We are being offered the bare minimum, a skimped project, that will squeeze into the requirements of the Secretary of State to achieve a 7 per cent. rate of return. If British Rail had to include the dualling of the track, extra signalling and a proper, convenient terminal at St. Pancras, I would find it difficult to believe that the amount of money expended could possibly bring about the rate of return that the Secretary of State requires in relation to the likely throughput at Stansted. On what is proposed I do not even know what the likely expenditure will be.
Dr. Marek: If the timekeeping is as bad as the hon. Gentleman says—and I quite believe that it is, because it seems similar to my experiences on the London-Midland line—would it not be better for British Rail to invest capital, if it has any capital to invest, in the existing infrastructure in order to get the existing trains running on time? British Rail would be better advised to do that before starting to construct any more lines.
Mr. Haselhurst: The hon. Member for Wrexham makes a fair and relevant point. In fairness to British Rail and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we are seeing electrification of the line. That will bring about an improvement. Electric rolling stock, even hand-me-downs from the north-west, will provide a better service and help improve punctuality, about which Mr. Hill supplied me with figures, to go on improving. It requires a great act of faith for us set our seal of approval on this Bill against that record of performance. We are being asked simply to accept the asssurance of British Rail that it can increase the number of trains on the line, although it has not said in the context of this Bill exactly how many. We are asked to accept that everything will be all right on the day. One begs leave to doubt that.
Whether or not this rail link is right and will be a success can only be seen by trying to relate what is proposed with what is contained in the Airports Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seeks powers to regulate the distribution of air traffic within the London airport system. That will have a crucial bearing on the viability and operational effectiveness of a Stansted link. We must consider the type of traffic that will come to Stansted airport when judging its effect on the rail link. Will my right hon. Friend use his powers to direct more scheduled traffic to Stansted or will he use them to direct more charter traffic to Stansted? Charter and scheduled traffic have different patterns of operation, and those
746
patterns will affect the time of day when passengers seek to get to the airport. We have not been given any evidence on the pattern of traffic using Stansted airport and, therefore, on the likely numbers to use the rail link to central London. Has British Rail been offered any such evidence?
What about the sheer volume of traffic which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will try to ensure uses Stansted airport? My right hon. Friend will not take a hands-off position, allowing traffic to determine its own level. He will be very much in the market place, but we do not know the criteria he will use in intervening. Those criteria are essential factors in assessing the effect of a rail link.
Mr. Bowen Wells: It has been rumoured that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends forcibly transferring all charter aircraft operations from Gatwick to Stansted. It is likely that many of the aircraft will come in late at night and early in the morning to reduce costs. Until now, British Rail has not operated during the small hours of the morning or late at night. I very much doubt that it would do so if it had the opportunity it seeks under the legislation.
Mr. Haselhurst: My hon. Friend has hit the point again. There is rumour and speculation about the Government's exact intentions. We do not know whether BR similarly has to guess about what is in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or whether my right hon. Friend has unburdened himself to BR in a way that he has not yet unburdened himself to the House.
Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it goes further than that? The major carriers using Gatwick airport have made it clear that they do not want the bucket and spade trade at Gatwick airport, but that they want it to go to Stansted airport.
Mr. Haselhurst: I am trying scrupulously, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to keep within the terms of the Bill and nothing but the Bill. I do not want to venture too far down that lane. If we enter the realm of speculation about the possibilities of other countries which have a tight grip on air transport refusing to play the game that the Government wish them to play with respect to destinations in the London system, we shall be in for fun, and a great deal of difficulty. A terrible situation will develop and it will be difficult to calculate the effects.
Even if one tries to put that thought from one's mind, I think that we are still in a guessing game. I have heard no evidence to convince me that British Rail is not involved in that same guessing game. We are being asked to approve a measure that lacks substance. It is difficult for us to make a considered judgment on it.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State owes it to the House to state clearly what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to do with the considerable powers he requires to regulate civil aviation. This will enable us to draw conclusions on the usage of the rail link. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, who has represented British Rail in presenting the Bill, or British Rail at his behest must give the House considerably more information so that we can satisfy ourselves about what they seek to do. If we have a clear record of the evidence that has led them to conclude that the rail link is necessary, we can decide whether that link is in the interests of our constituents and the nation as a whole.
7.54 pm
Mr. Peter Pike: I wish to oppose the Bill. I did not think that I would ever speak in opposition to a Bill that provided a basis on which British Rail could make investments, because I believe that investment by British Rail is important and I would normally wish to support such investment, but I must oppose this measure. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) posed a number of important questions that must be answered, but I do not think that the Minister of State will be able to answer them satisfactorily. I believe that we should consider costs, capital investment in the line and potential usage before we are asked to give the Bill a Second Reading.
My one connection with Stansted is the fact that I was born in the area, although I left it at a relatively young age. Last year I went to Stansted to speak at the ASTMS college. I used the railway link between Liverpool street and Stansted. Compared with many lines endured by the people in the north-west, this line is much better. British Rail's investment in the line, in meeting the Government's wish to develop Stansted as the third London airport—I do not believe that the Government have made a case for that—will be to the detriment of investment in other areas because of the financial restraints imposed on British Rail. I agree with the intervention forcefully made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) that money could be better used in other areas.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Which investment proposition from British Rail are the Government preventing from going forward?
Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman surprises me. Only recently, in the past month, he turned down the electrification proposal for the railway line from Manchester to Blackpool. The Government should have approved that plan for that important tourist line, which needed development. Lancashire county council and the Greater Manchester council submitted a joint proposal to support that project, but the Government rejected it.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman should know that British Rail did not put forward a proposition for the electrification of the line. It put forward a different proposition—to use sprinter trains on that route, which would run at approximately the same speed as trains on the electrified route, but at substantially better value for money. If British Rail did not put forward a proposition for electrification, how can the hon. Gentleman pretend that I have turned it down?
Mr. Pike: The Minister is not facing the facts. It may well have been that British Rail, knowing the financial constraints imposed by the Government, did not submit a proposal other than for sprinter trains. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that Lancashire county council and the Greater Manchester council submitted a case for electrification. If the Minister received a proposal from British Rail for electrification of that line, would he be prepared to support it?
Mr. Mitchell: If I were to receive a proposition for electrification from British Rail, I would look at it carefully and judge it on the normal criteria. In general,
748
the hon. General will know that I have not found it necessary to turn down investment applications from British Rail.
If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends on the councils concerned are prepared to finance the difference between British Rail's return on the cost of doing it with the fast sprinter and electrification, I am sure that British Rail would be interested to hear that proposition. I have not heard such a proposition. The hon. Gentleman is anxious to spend other people's money which they are not prepared to spend themselves.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now straying from the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will come back to the Bill.
Mr. Pike: I shall return to the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was saying that money should be used for those projects. I have no doubt that British Rail knows what financial constraints are placed upon it by the Government.
Dr. Marek: May I give one comparison between money that could be spent on the line that will be constructed for Stansted airport, if we pass the Bill, and on another project? I have in mind the singling of the Wrexham to Chester railway line. Money was not spent, and the line has been cut. Only last Thursday an inter-city train was over two hours late. I should have thought it would be far better, rather than spend the capital on the line to Stansted, to produce a proper service for a town with over 100,000 people. My hon. Friend knows that infrastructure cuts are about to be made in his locality. There must be countless examples up and down the United Kingdom. For example, a new bridge could be constructed on the line north of Inverness to Wick. There are many projects which are far more worthy for British Rail to undertake than this one.
Mr. Pike: I do not want to stray too far along that path, but it is true. The east Lancashire line from Burnley to its terminus at Colne or Chaffer's sidings in Nelson is also to be singled to save money under the financial restraints being placed on British Rail by the Government.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would speculate on the position between British Rail and the Minister. Is it possible, when it comes to spending money under a Bill such as this or on a project such as the electrification of the Blackpool to Manchester line, that there is a ministerial nod and wink before anything is done? Does my hon. Friend believe that the Minister had not made his views known on this Bill or on the electrification of the Blackpool to Manchester line before British Rail made the decision?
Mr. Pike: I am sure that my hon. Friend's comments are absolutely right. The crux of the Bill, and the reason why I and some of my hon. Friends will oppose it, is that we believe that if the Bill were to receive its Second Reading it would be another widening of the economic imbalance between the regions of this country. I have no doubt that British Rail is aware of the Government's views. The Channel tunnel is a good example. It will involve major rail investment in the south-east.
Dr. Marek: It is important that the House realises that this investment is a matter of "either, or". It is a question of the development of the line to Stansted or of

749
developments elsewhere. It all has to be financed out of British Rail's capital investment, and that is subject to limits set by the Government.
Mr. Pike: That puts the point finely. We all recognise that British Rail has only a certain amount of money available for capital investment. If it invests in the Stansted line, it will not be able to invest elsewhere.
I do not criticise Mr. Speaker for not having selected the amendment, but it is unfortunate, because it would have focused attention on the parallel situation where a rail link is so essential to Manchester airport. I used to live close to the airport and Heald Green where the railway line passes.
Mr. Stephen Ross: I fully support the hon. Gentleman's complaint that the rail link into Manchester has not been proceeded with, although permission has been granted for it. Will he consider that, at some unfortunate time in the future, when I am not in the House and he might be Secretary of State for Transport, it will make sense to have the link into the airport so that the line can be constructed? That is the terrible mistake that we made at Heathrow. Here is the chance not to make a similar mistake. Why does not the hon. Gentleman back it?
Mr. Pike: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) always makes valuable contributions on these matters. He has pointed out the difficulty with which we are faced tonight. It is with no pleasure that I oppose the Bill. I accept the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument that if the airport is to be developed—although I believe that that is the wrong decision—it is right to have the rail link connecting it.
I have to oppose the Bill because we know that the Government will not give British Rail the necessary capital to make the other important investments that we need in other parts of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham was right when he said that it was either this or something else. If we allow the Bill to pass, something else will be ruled out. I assure the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that it is on that basis alone that I feel that I have to oppose the Bill.
I should like to be in the position where the Government were telling British Rail to come forward with its plans for investment anywhere in the country and they would see that sufficient resources were made available to develop the rail network, whether it be new lines, new rolling stock or anything else. I believe that we should be making such investment, because it is time that the country took more traffic from the roads and encouraged it to use the railway. To do that we need positive decisions from the Government to encourage people to use the railway for long-distance freight traffic and long-distance passenger traffic. We need to encourage the growth of British Rail.
The hon. Member for Saffron Walden said that we do not know what this line would cost. He mentioned £50 million or £55 million at 1980 prices, if I have the figures correct. We all know that the figure will now be considerably higher.
We accept the hon. Gentleman's comment that this proposal is a minimum option because the line does not link up with what would perhaps be the more appropriate terminus in London, St. Pancras—it merely has the spur at the Stansted end of the line—but runs to Liverpool street station.
750
The Government have failed to answer the problem of dealing with the people in the central London area. We believe that developing Stansted in the way that is proposed will attract increasing numbers to the south-east of the country to make their travel arrangements. I say "attract", but perhaps that is an understatement. I believe that the Bill will force people to travel through London and through one of the three London airports. That would be regrettable. We wish to see more development of regional airports so that people can travel from the regions.
If I wish to go to Manchester airport, I have tremendous difficulty in doing so. It takes me two hours to travel 24 miles from the north of Manchester to the centre of Manchester, and I then have to catch a bus to the airport. I cannot go that short distance on a direct train. I have to change at Blackburn, and in the middle of the day it takes almost two hours to do that relatively short journey. Yet here we are talking about improving facilities and taking a line directly into Stansted airport. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that this is necessary if the airport is to grow. I do not dispute for one moment that that is so.
The point that I have to make repeatedly is not my opposition in principle to the proposal, but my opposition to the use of British Rail's capital investment. I believe that this is not the No. 1 priority. That is why I feel that I have to oppose the proposal. There are many more important projects for which British Rail could use that money. It would be more to the benefit of the country as a whole if British Rail could do that. Again, the Government have a key role to play. We need to see the Government giving British Rail the ability to meet the requirement to improve the rail network throughout the country.
We do not know what the final growth of Stansted will be. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden hinted at the ways in which the Government intend to get traffic to use that airport. We also know that when the White Paper was discussed the Government said that they would actively encourage the growth of charter traffic at Luton. That is different from the wording used for the regional airports. They were told, "You are on your own. We do not mind your growing, but it is up to you to do it yourself."
It is assumed that there will be large amounts of charter and scheduled traffic. We need to know exactly what type of traffic the airport will get. We must ask at what time of day people will want to use the railway. British Rail might have to run a 24-hour service to the airport for charter flights. We all know that many charter flights are at early hours in the morning, to make the maximum use of the planes, at the cheapest possible price.
Dr. Marek: If Stansted is to be developed as a charter airport, where many of the flights will come in at 2, 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, when those people get to London they will find that the first train out of Euston to Manchester is at 10 minutes to 7, for example. What will people do for two or three hours, in the early hours of the morning? I do not think that they will use that line.
Mr. Pike: As always, my hon. Friend makes a valid point. Those problems would have to be considered.
The Bill is premature. It has been too rushed and there needs to be a more detailed study of the implications. I hope that there will be second thoughts and that the Bill will be withdrawn to allow all those implications to be considered.

751
I believe in rail investment. Regrettably, I have to oppose the Bill on the basis that if money is available for investment now, other cases should come ahead of the improved rail link to Stansted. The case must be established much more clearly before we allow the Bill to be approved.
8.12 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: At the beginning of the Bill we read:
"It is the duty of the Board…to provide railway services in Great Britain and, in connection with the provision of railway services, to provide such other services and facilities as appear to the Board to be expedient, and to have due regard, as respect all those railway and other services and facilities, to efficiency, economy and safety of operation:"
I should like to construct my speech round the words:
"efficiency, economy and safety of operation:".
I start with efficiency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) said, the original proposal was considered by the commission of inquiry set up by the Government to investigate the possibility of establishing an airport at Stansted, under Mr. Eyre QC, the chairman. The proposal put to the commission was a double track rail link, in other words, double the size of the track between Stansted and St. Pancras. That proposal contains no improvements whatsoever to the railway line between Bishop's Stortford and Liverpool street. Therefore, in the proposal we have substituted four lines for two and St. Pancras for Liverpool street.
It was conceivable that with four tracks one could run an efficient service from Stansted airport to St. Pancras without interfering with and making worse the line between Bishop's Stortford and London, which many of my constituents use daily to get to work. My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden described some of the indignities to which my constituents are subjected, through the appalling inefficiency and method of operation over which British Rail presides. I should have liked to invite you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to read my postbag on the subject. The letters come continually. I know that you have your own to look after, but I am sure that you would not like to read this postbag. My predecessor in the constituency, Lord Broxbourne, has had a similar experience over the years.
I understand that on the two-track line it is proposed to run four services an hour into Liverpool street from Stansted, in addition to the current load on the track which, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden, now has a low standard of efficiency.
We are asked to believe that we can run four more trains on the track from Stansted—so-called express trains, probably stopping at Tottenham Hale to connect with the London Regional Transport underground service on the Victoria line, and then going on into Liverpool street. I should like hon. Members to consider the possibility of doing that in view of British Rail's current performance. The service is not only inefficient but filthy, dirty and a disgrace to this country. On to the railway line, where we can expect services to be upwards of 10 minutes to half an hour late into Liverpool street, we shall put one of our most valued imports or exports, whichever way one looks at it—our important tourist traffic. We shall subject the tourists to the things that we have to put up with daily —the filth, dirt, inefficiency and unpunctuality.
752
In the proposal there is no provision for extra rolling stock, although we have been assured that rolling stock will be refurbished, which is presently running to the north-west and up the east coast main line. That will be fine for the airport passengers if the rolling stock is refurbished properly, but our experience on the line is that refurbished rolling stock and engines have a great propensity to break down.
If we need an example of that, I refer the House to the experience of Her Majesty the Queen on a recent voyage of exploration—certainly an adventure—from her home in Sandringham to Liverpool street. There is a catalogue of events. It was impossible to open the doors between the car where people were preparing her breakfast and the car in which she was sitting, so the train had to be stopped to let the person serving her get out on to the platform, go along it carrying the breakfast and then go into the Queen's dining car. That was the first stop. That train broke down five times on its journey from Sandringham to London and arrived two hours late at Liverpool street, having had two engine replacements. That illustrates the reliability of the stock that we are likely to have on the line. It will not be a good advertisement for tourists arriving at Stansted.
Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend gave a good example of what happened to Her Majesty the Queen. Is he aware of the experience of another prominent member of the royal family, whom I shall not name, who sometimes uses that line, as I do? One evening she complained of noises in the next compartment—banging, scraping, grunts and groans. The ticket inspector went to the next compartment and found that the blinds were closed. He opened the door and found a naked couple, their bodies clothed only with a first-class ticket. It is disgraceful that members of the royal family should have to put up with that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that it is not in order to call in aid members of the royal family. Hon. Members are sailing close to the wind.
Mr. Wells: I thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) illustrated the serious condition of the service.
Mr. Snape: I want to make two brief points. If matters on that line are as bad as the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) imply, should they not turn up more often at Question Time and demand greater investment from their Government?
Secondly, and without going too far out of order, can the hon. Gentleman tell me what would be the necessary level of investment to prevent naked couples cavorting on the line? That appears to be less a job for British Rail and the Government and more a figment of the imagination of the hon. Member for Harlow.
Mr. Wells: I do not think that we should pursue figments. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we have been pursuing the question of investment with my hon. Friend the Minister, and have had some success. We have persuaded the Government to electrify the line to Cambridge, which I trust will lead to an improvement in service. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden said, there will be hand-downs from the western region, which have deteriorated in reliability because the engines are so old. However, there has been investment on that line, due in part—not to put too high a value on it—to our representations and lobbying.
Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman cannot have done too well in view of the chapter of misery that he is describing.
Mr. Wells: I do not accept that criticism. We have been describing the existing service—
Mr. Snape: The Government have been in power for seven years.
Mr. Wells: Unfortunately, I cannot follow all the remarks made from a sedentary position.
Mr. Snape: Sit down then, and I shall make them from the Dispatch Box. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is singing a familiar, albeit boring, song? His Government have been in power for seven years. If they are ever to do anything about the deterioration in the railway service in his constituency and many other constituencies, they must cough up some money. The hon. Gentleman should turn up at Question Time—as he failed to do today—and demand that they do just that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We may have a fairly wide debate, but we cannot have a general discussion about investment.
Mr. Wells: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to put the record straight. I was here during transport questions today, as I often am, because overseas development questions immediately follow.
I want to discuss British Rail investment because, presumably, it will invest in the line and the rolling stock on it. We have been successful in persuading the Government to invest in British Rail, which has resulted in electrification of the line to Cambridge and to Norwich and of the east coast main line.
I must add a cautionary word about new rolling stock, such as that which we have experienced at Hertford north, and which is relevant to the debate. We must have new rolling stock to accommodate the tourists who will be laden with luggage and therefore requiring special facilities. I have great distrust of British Rail Engineering Ltd. and its capacity to produce a reliable train. The new rolling stock on the line in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) and my constituency is very welcome compared with what we had had hitherto, which was a variety of diesel-hauled trains of pre-war vintage that blew steam into the air, broke down and were dirty. However, having put in new stock we found that the brakes and compressors were inadequate, the doors and the air conditioning did not work, the motor was too small to provide a reliable service and the carriages could not be coupled and decoupled according to design. It is thoroughly unsatisfactory new rolling stock that has seriously inconvenienced the constituents of my hon. Friend and myself.
Mr. Murphy: Does my hon. Friend accept that whereas previously, with old rolling stock, the trains arrived late, with new rolling stock they simply do not arrive?
Mr. Wells: That is right. Indeed, the whole service was suspended for a number of weeks because of the dispute with the National Union of Railwaymen about single manning. That was caused by the inefficiency of British Rail and its inability to control its staff.
The question of staff relates to efficiency, and unless BR can recruit staff that is proud of their work, wear their uniforms properly, are polite to their passengers and are
754
properly concerned about efficiency, reliability arid the safety of their passengers, we will not be able to offer a service to tourists of which we can be proud. Unless the line is improved, we shall drive away tourists.
I have said a great deal about the current appalling service and the sort of service to which we look forward if BR is allowed to go ahead. The figures that BR has presented to the Minister have been seriously rigged. ]hey were designed to persuade him that the rail link could be efficient, providing a 7 per cent. return on assets. Already the service has been reduced by going into Liverpool street rather than St. Pancras, and from four lines to continuing on the existing two lines. Although there will be improvements at Liverpool street, such as the lengthening of the station, the type of service anticipated will be minimal if it is to be within the forecast 7 per cent. return on assets.
We do not have any figures for rolling stock, and I understand that BR is not proposing to provide any. That means that it intends to put our tourists into trains quite unsuited to passengers with a considerable amount of luggage, who will have to suffer the filthy trains that I and my constituents suffer. That does not appear to be in the calculation, as other matters are also not in the calculation.
There are many manually operated level crossings, such as Sawbridgeworth, Stansted Abbots, Roydon and others down the line. These level crossings are a great danger to pedestrians and they hold up enormous amounts of traffic especially at Stansted Abbots and Sawbridgeworth. If the service goes ahead the level crossings will be down more than they are up to provide passengers with the additional trains from Stansted. There are no proposals to increase the efficiency of those level crossings or to build bridges over them. That is a matter of great concern for the people of Sawbridgeworth where British Rail had recently—as it calls it—modernised the line and the type of level crossing. The result is that blind people can blunder across arid get mown down by a British Rail train as there is no physical barrier to stop them. This is a serious matter and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow did assist me in getting a hooter installed which would sound and this has helped the problem. Nonetheless, it is a danger which will be exacerbated if the frequency of trains is increased.
British Rail has said that it will merely increase the frequency of the service to the level which existed before it reduced the service. It reduced the service to my constituents because it could not sustain railway efficiency and the reliability of the service. To increase reliability—not to a great extent, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden—it reduced the number of trains on the track. If we are to return to the frequency of the past we can obviously look forward to a further serious deterioration in the reliability of the service to Liverpool street.
This line is not signalled centrally from any one station. There are several different signal boxes up the line. The system could be modernised between London and Cambridge with the installation of one signal box at Liverpool street. This would require large investment. However, if this service is to have any possibility of running on time such a signalling system must be installed. If the same tracks are to be used for the increased frequency of trains, such a signalling system must be adopted. My hon. Friend the Minister must include the cost of signalling when he looks at the return on assets. If

755
the Minister does not do this, he will subject my constituents and the tourists from the airport to an extremely inefficient line.
The railway stations down the line are in a terrible state of deterioration. They are unpainted and filthy. The waiting rooms are full of graffiti and unheated. They are depressing and even dangerous places for women to find themselves in late at night because of the lack of staff care at the stations. The booking clerk at Hertford east station is absent most of the time and passengers are in danger of falling through the timber floors which are now full of dry rot. The beautiful prestige arches of the entrance are often totally deserted and from time to time bricks and tiles fall off the roof. The station at Ware has been improved after several years of lobbying—we were criticised for not lobbying by the Opposition. Ware station will be rebuilt and the same is true of Stansted Abbots. The railway station at Broxbourne, which is used by many of my constituents, is an absolute disgrace. It has a dangerous car park-full of heaps of coal. It is a draughty station at which the indicators do not work. The whole of the indicator system is totally outmoded and inefficient. The new indicator system installed on the Hertford north line does not work—British Rail has to get a new computer to make it work. Even with the installation of such modern equipment, one does not have much faith that British Rail will maintain it and that people will know which train they should get on. This will be especially difficult for tourists who cannot speak the language. Indeed my own constituents, who speak the language, still get on the wrong train because of the faulty indicators.
Dr. Marek: I really cannot allow the hon. Gentleman's comments to pass without saying that the answer to all this is to increase the number of staff of British Rail so that they could be present on the platform to give personal service and to ensure that tourists and strangers know exactly what is going on. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman but there is an easy remedy.
Mr. Wells: I am not sure that British Rail is in control of its staff at railway stations. There are plenty of staff but at Hertford north most are found in the pub next door. If one manages to get the staff out of the pub and if they are coherent, they may be able to say what is happening on the line, that is if they know what is happening on the line. If one gets an answer one is lucky. It is not a question of additional staff but it is a question of motivation. The staff must be willing to give a proper service, keep the station clean and look after passengers.
I would like to sum up by considering the question of the return on assets.
Mr. David Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has chronicled a sad story in relation to his local line. Can he tell me whether he has taken the matter up with British Rail and what answers he has received?
Mr. Wells: I have been continuously—indeed before I was elected—haunting those filthy, paint-peeling offices in Liverpool street and the offices at Kings Cross on these matters for the past 10 years. I am afraid I have achieved little. We got new rolling stock that did not work as well as the other incidents I have chronicled. I have
756
been in touch with every area manager. I have arranged for speakers from British Rail to speak to the Rail User's Club to explain why the services are so bad. I did not bother with this this autumn because the rail service had totally finished on the Hertford north line. I thought it would be too embarrassing to ask British Rail officials to come to meet a number of my enraged constituents. I have been continuously in touch with British Rail but there is little it can do unless it has control of its staff, is more efficient and is determined to succeed. All of these ingredients are absent from the present line.
My hon. Friend the Minister knows Liverpool street station. I think it is one of the filthiest railway terminals in London, if not in the whole country. The toilets on that station are indescribable. This is the place in which we will land a large number of tourists. I direct the Minister's attention to Tottenham Hale, the station at which the train from Stansted will stop. Can one imagine carrying heavy baggage down the endless steps at that station into the underground? It is ludicrous and this rail link will not work in the way that British Rail has proposed to the Minister.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to accept an invitation from me to come on this line and travel from Liverpool street perhaps at 5.30 pm one evening. He can then experience the delays and listen to the remarks of my constituents about the line and the way it operates. I hope that the Minister will be fortified because my constituents have reached the stage of enragement, when they are not polite about the matter.
Mr. David Mitchell: I would be very happy to do so. It is always my intention and part of my work to keep in touch with the service that is provided. I and the management would like to know more about the conditions my hon. Friend has talked about.
Mr. Wells: My hon. Friend is being sold a pup. The line cannot operate efficiently without taking into account the cost of new signalling and rolling stock, the repair of stations, indicators and track, and the traction engines. At present there are at least three forms of traction engine on that line, all running at different speeds. One of them is designed to be an express train. When they are stopped, as they are, they overheat and have to be taken out of service. That problem is quite apart from that caused by the breakdown of the diesel motors, which the Queen experienced and to which I have referred, and will quickly pass over in view of your direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I have spoken of the inefficiency of the service and I need say no more beyond hoping that I will have the opportunity to show my hon. Friend how appalling it is. Instead, let me deal with Manchester, Heathrow and Gatwick. Before I am ruled out of order, let me say that it is relevant because the rail link will encourage passengers to use Stansted instead of Manchester. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) will be able to enlighten the House still further on this. That is what the British Airports Authority has in mind, as does British Rail.
The Gatwick to Victoria line has made British Rail a lot of money and it has encouraged it to go in for the Stansted link. However, I cannot understand why British Rail is so enthusiastic about building a railway line to Stansted which will probably have fewer than 8 million passengers per annum by 1995 and yet it refuses to put proposals before my hon. Friend the Minister to build a

757
line to Heathrow, which is seriously needed because of the congestion on the roads in west London, which all hon. Members will have had the misfortune to experience.
For some extraordinary reason British Rail refuses to put forward the proposal for a rail link to Heathrow, yet it is essential for our tourist traffic and the efficient running of London. Nor do we have such a proposal for Manchester. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) has obtained the planning permission but British Rail will not put forward the proposal. The reason is that the Department of Transport is determined, as it always has been, to develop a huge and unnecessary airport at Stansted. I shall not go into the pros and cons of that because we have had a debate on it and opposition to that has been defeated. None the less, this is a clear attempt to try to divert traffic from Gatwick, Manchester and other northern airports into Stansted in order to build up its throughput quickly so that the BAA can get a return on its investment as quickly as possible and conform with what have been described as transparent transactions between the London airports, which will probably be so transparent as to be invisible to the naked eye or to anybody else who is curious about how Stansted will be made to pay. I shall leave my hon. Friend the Member for Withington to elaborate on the inequities of the problem of Manchester.
Then there is the problem of the agricultural viability of the land which will be bifurcated by the two lines, one from Cambridge into Stansted and one from Stansted on to the main line. There are serious environmental consequences for my constituents who enjoy using the footpaths and the beautiful countryside which will be destroyed. Woodland and the Tye Green Brook valley will be destroyed by the line.
The line is destined to be a disgrace to Britain unless we make the investment necessary to make it run properly and efficiently. That means efficient rolling stock, the cleaning up of the railway stations, the cleaning up and greater efficiency of Liverpool street and proper modern signalling. If those are provided we might have an efficient service for the commuter, which is desperately needed, and for the additional tourist traffic that will be generated. On British Rail's present proposal there is no way in which that will be achieved. My hon. Friend will live to regret the day that he ever approved the line because of the stream of complaints from tourists and their consequent decline in numbers on this miserable, dirty and inefficient railway line.
8.45 pm
Mr. Robert Litherland: The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) discussed filthy toilets, naked people cavorting, drunken staff and so on, and I was a little surprised to hear him mention Manchester in passing. It is the real fear of what could happen not only to Manchester but to other regional airports that brings me here to oppose the Bill tonight. As has been said, it is regrettable that we have to do that.
The hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) tried to say that the Bill would not be unfair to Manchester, but he failed to allay our fears that it could have repercussions for the regional airports. The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head and we have had the same argument in the past.
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman heard me, but I said that in 1984 we
758
had an exactly comparable Bill which provided the same facilities for a link with Manchester. Such Bills are not designed suddenly to sanction the building; they are taking powers to enable the board to build when the finance is available. Manchester already has that facility.
Mr. Litherland: We might ask when, because to us it does not seem to be forthcoming. That does not allay our fears or convince us that the effect on Manchester or the regional airports will not be disastrous. We do have doubts and reservations.
Dr. Marek: If the Bill is enacted, British Rail will have the possibility of doing both or neither. In practice it will do one because it wants to build the line to Stansted, not to Manchester. That is why many hon. Members are opposing the Bill tonight. ft is a question of either/or, and if we allow this one, Manchester will not get its rail link.
Mr. Litherland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is what we are arguing about. We are going into uncharted waters. Those of us who live north of Watford know the depression in the north-west and in the north of England and cannot take any chances. It is regrettable but we must oppose the Bill because we still have doubts and reservations. The Bill is a sign that Stansted is to be developed to the detriment of Manchester and other airports, and we cannot get away from that.
The Standing Committee debating the Airports Bill has a consistent theme—Stansted. That is our greatest worry. That theme has continued since Second Reading. We fear that Stansted could: be extended and developed at the expense of regional airports, especially Manchester international airport. This Bill fans the flames of our fear that the development at Stansted will proceed by stealth. On the Manchester proposal for a rail link we were informed in the White Paper:
"The Government will consider the project on the same terms as the rail link to Stansted and will be glad to approve the investment if it is justified."
Therefore, Manchester believes that the Secretary of State should publish the Stansted submission, so that the House can be satisfied about the viability of the proposals The Secretary of State should receive and publish the submission on the Manchester link, so that the House can be satisfied that both submissions will be determined on equal terms. All that we have been asking is that we should be able to compete with other airports on the same terms. We believe that the rail link and the infrastructure around Stansted will be detrimental to the north of England.
The viability of such investment is suspect. It has been assumed that Stansted could accommodate about 4 million passengers in the year 1988 and up to 15 million passengers in 1992. It took Gatwick 22 years to reach 9 million passengers. It has been assumed that the rail share of the airport traffic will be 40 per cent., and that a high proportion of passengers using the link will originate in the regions outside the south-east. On the original, dedicated link we discussed an estimated cost of £166 million and whether that cost could be financially justified. British Rail has confirmed that subsidy would be required for some considerable time and that is our worry. We believe that it would be an unfair and hidden subsidy.
Following the Government's decision to limit grant at Stansted to about 7 million to 8 million passengers per annum, it took British Rail and the BAA only a few months to submit proposals to the Government—details

759
of which the Secretary of State has refused to make public. However, it is understood that the link relates solely to the rail spur and that the dedicated link will not be pursued for the time being.
British Rail and the BAA lost no time in submitting their proposals for investment and the Secretary of State has played his cards—as many Conservative Members have said—very close to his chest in providing details of the proposals. We believe that the cost of those proposals would be about £45 million to £50 million. It is also understood that British rail is satisfied that the project is viable, but that has not been proved during the debate. The assessment is made on the basis of traffic figures compiled by the BAA and a "modal split" produced by British Rail. Traffic build-up figures are unknown. It is clear that much traffic will be required and that the BAA must have made assumptions about that, which we believe are likely to be optimistic.
It has been assumed that all American charter traffic will be transferred to Stansted. There has been a failure to recognise the fact that Manchester will be competing for that traffic. Yet it is supposed to be Government policy to disperse tourist activities to the regions. If Manchester airport is to cater successfully, it is important that access of all modes of transport is improved. The rail link is the natural step for the development of Manchester airport, given its international gateway status. It is important that the airport can exploit the potential of its catchment area of Scotland, Yorkshire and the midlands and that the airport can compete effectively for incoming tourist traffic, especially long-haul traffic.
British Rail's work on the viability of the Manchester link is proceeding, but progress is slow. British Rail is assessing the link not on the basis that Manchester is a gateway airport, but on the basis that it is a regional airport. That is a misnomer and a fallacy that arises in all the arguments about regional airports compared with London airports. Manchester is a hub airport and is recognised by the Government as being a gateway airport.
In 1981 in the town hall in Manchester we set up a northern consortium, because of our fear—it has been called a paranoic fear—regarding the north of England and the south-east of England. Different complexions of political input were expressed by the trade unions, local authorities, north-west authorities, northern authorities, north-east authorities, chambers of commerce, chambers of trade and by other regional airports that are complementary to Manchester. The tourist organisations contributed to our claims that Stansted will affect Manchester. There was tremendous enthusiasm at the meeting and the single thread was the importance of regional airports to the north. We are frightened about the great divide between the north and south, the predominance of the south-east and the fact that we are becoming a country of two nations, which has been expressed time and again.
We recognise that any growth of Stansted will widen the gap of the social and economic differences that prevail between the north and the south-east of England. Nothing that has been said tonight has allayed the real fear of the further extension by stealth. The full extension and development of Stansted would be catastrophic to the
760
region. Everything appears to be going the way of the south-east of England, including the new road infrastructure.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he would publish the list that he had received of highway improvement schemes from Hertfordshire and Essex county councils relating to the expansion of Stansted airport, together with the estimated cost, when they were available to him, and if he would indicate his response to the request that those schemes would be funded by additional capital allocations to the councils concerned. The Secretary of State replied that Hertfordshire and Essex councils were proposing roads and infrastructure to the tune of £38 million. The Minister referred to a sum of £2 million. The Secretary of State then stated that he was willing to meet representatives of both councils to discuss those and other proposals. He said that he would not speculate on the outcome and continued:
"We shall take into account any proposals for capital expenditure on local roads when the Councils submit their Transport Policies and Programmes for future years." —[Official Report, 10 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 313–4.]
Once again the Secretary of State is playing his cards close to his chest.
With the investment in new roads, new towns, the Channel tunnel and the progressive extension of Stansted, there is a rosy future for the south-east, but not for the north and north-west, especially the construction industry there. The north has seen a massive decline in its manufacturing industry, ports and coalfields. It has little going for it. In my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) male unemployment stands at about 60 per cent. Manchester airport is not a panacea to all those ills, but if it declines our area will be dramatically affected.
As manufacturing has declined, we have tried to promote tourism, but the Bill will affect tourism in the north-west. As Manchester airport continues to develop as an alternative hub airport with a wide range of frequent services, it will compete increasingly with the London airports for a large proportion of regional traffic. It is already relevant that the London airports compete fairly with Manchester airport, but it will become more significant in future. We are merely asking for fair competition. The hidden heavy subsidy for Stansted will certainly affect Manchester
A point which is often ignored in aviation debates is that about 10 million incoming foreign passengers are forced to use London airports. That element of demand is forecast to increase significantly in the years ahead, and will represent an increasingly high proportion of future London traffic. At present London accounts for more than 90 per cent. of incoming tourists who travel to the United Kingdom by air. In future the figure will at least remain static. Many of those tourists have no choice but to travel to London. They do not all want to travel to London and, indeed, 40 per cent. of all their nights are spent outside the south-east. That is because it is Government policy to promote solely London's interests abroad. A further reason is the Government's failure to realise that the structure of the nation's tourist industry is unsuitable for the job in hand.
All the tourist attractions advertised abroad are centred on London. The heritage trail starts in London and the south-east, goes to the Cotswolds, and then to Stratford

761
to experience Shakespeare. Tourism should be spread to the north-west which has a great deal to offer. There is the beauty of the lake district, the Yorkshire dales, Derbyshire and Cheshire. Moreover, Scotland, Wales and the north of England are becoming increasingly attractive to tourists. Local authorities and other agencies are making considerable efforts to capitalise on existing attractions and to develop new ones. Manchester is sending our representatives to do a public relations job abroad, in America in particular, to tell people that the north-west has much to offer, whether it be the Beamish open air museum, the Maryport Harbour development, the north Pennines tourism growth point, the Merseyside maritime—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying now. He was in order when he was talking about the provisions in the Bill. He must relate his remarks to the Bill.
Mr. Litherland: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to make comparisons between what we have to offer and how the Bill will affect us, whether in tourism, hotel occupancy or anything else.
The former chairman of the British Tourist Association, Sir Henry Marking, said:
"If, as the people of London and of many places in the South of England will readily affirm, London is already full, perhaps overfull, with tourists for most of the year, and if tourism earnings are to grow, visitors must be encouraged to visit increasingly the splendidly attractive places in England, Wales and Scotland. Use of a Northern Gateway would help to ensure this and would spread more evenly throughout Britain the tourist traffic and prosperity and employment which tourist traffic brings in its wake."
This is our argument. Any extension of the infrastructure, whether in road, rail links or airports, will have an effect on what we see as the saving grace in the north-west, the service industry, which is standing in in place of the massive decline in manufacturing. We shall raise our voices against anything that might have repercussions against our tourism sector.
What is required is a change of direction in Government policy of the kind clearly identified in the recent report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, "Promotion of the Regions Abroad". It recommends a simplified structure for promoting tourism. The development of what we described as an open jaws policy, whereby one end of the journey is through the London airport system, is not acceptable to the north-west. We see the rail link as apart of that system. We shall oppose the Bill because it will be detrimental to Manchester airport and the regions.
9.8 pm
Mr. Fred Silvester: I should this evening have been joining some colleagues in Hong Kong, where the opening of the new British Airways scheduled service between Manchester and Hong Kong is being celebrated. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who have continued on the journey, wish to be associated with what I shall say.
I feel that it is important to be here to speak against the Bill, not because I think that it should not eventually receive a Second Reading, but because I think that it should not receive a Second Reading tonight. It is important that we should understand why. The process of
762
a private Bill—I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) to this —involves negotiation between those who object to the Bill and the promoters. In this instance, British Rail has not pursued that process with anything like the vigour that it should have done.
There are two essential ingredients to the problem in the north-east for those who speak on the Manchester beat. First, we are asked to approve a rail development in the south-east for which there is inadequate information and the calculations for which have been withheld from public view. The first demand was for the information upon which the Bill is based to be made public. That has not happened. Secondly, the Bill is based on a clear statement of Government policy, which was that the two rail links should be considered on an equal basis and that they should be analysed and presented to the Government for a decision on an equal basis. That has not happened, either.
British Rail has produced figures which show that it regards the extension to Stansted as a business opportunity and that it is based upon greatly optimistic interpretations of Government policy. However, British Rail has been dragging its feet in Manchester. It has put forward a number of obstacles and has not managed to get even to the starting gate. British Rail ought to be asked why the Secretary of State for Transport has had its proposals for Stansted on his desk since November 1985, although he will be lucky if he receives its proposals for Manchester by May 1986.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Reference has been made to the White Paper, "Airports Policy", Cmnd. 9542. There is also the Government's undertaking about Heathrow. The White Paper says:
"The Government has therefore decided to commission urgently a study of the options for improving surface access to Heathrow: by easing the capacity problems of the A4–M4 corridor; the possibility of a BR link to Heathrow; and the scope for improvements to the Piccadilly line underground service."
None of those proposals is yet before the Minister, yet the Stansted proposal is in front of him.
Mr. Silvester: Yes. I understand that that is even further down the track. Equality seems to be a very malleable substance. British Rail does not deserve the Bill, and I hope that it will not get it. Whether British Rail gets it later depends on how it proceeds. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), who has now left the Chamber, passionately asked the House to back the Bill. However, we should not back it tonight because the basis for backing it does not exist, although it may be provided at a later stage.
The basis of the Government's policy is clear. An agreement was reached last year. It was understood that there would be equality of treatment in respect of the rail link, that there would be no subsidy for the operation at Stansted and that there would be no direction of traffic to Stansted. Without that agreement there is no basis for putting at risk all the people who will be affected by the Bill. The British Railways Act 1984 was passed on the basis of everybody, apart from one major objector, being willing to accept it. They were anxious for a rail link. Local resistance to the development of the link was minimal. The Stansted Bill involves substantial powers of compulsory purchase. It is not greeted with universal applause. Therefore, to quote one Bill as justification for another is absurd.
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: It is obvious that my hon. Friend has but slight knowledge of private Bills. All private Bills have petitions against them, and all of them are considered in detail. I assure him that the 1984 Bill was considered in detail, too.
Mr. Silvester: My hon. Friend is undoubtedly right that all Bills of this kind attract petitions against them. One has to make a judgment about the importance of the local opposition. However, I doubt whether he would find it tenable to express the view either in Manchester or in the Stansted area that the opposition in Manchester is not very much weaker than that which he will find in the Stansted area. An interesting feature of the Bill is that it involves a rail spur from the main line into the airport, continuing otherwise with the existing infrastructure. This was option B presented to the Eyre report which had some rude things to say about it.
Chapter 16, paragraph 5.20 of that report said:
"The BRB made it plain that Options A, B and D were opposed. BRB went so far as to indicate that the mere construction of a rail link without additional infrastructure as contemplated by Option B would be worse in operational terms than no spur at all.…Other users of the existing services to and from Liverpool Street could be adversely affected if Option B were adopted."
Suddenly all that is gone. Suddenly this horror of option B has disappeared. The reason is clear. British Rail and the British Airports Authority were faced with the decision that they were able to get out of the House—the development to 8 million passengers per year and not to 15 million, rising to 25 million, as originally contemplated.
So British Rail now proposes to include in the proposals for the Stansted link generous assumptions—for example, that the proportion likely to use the line to travel to Stansted will be 30 per cent. of airport traffic or more. The equivalent figure for the Manchester link is said to be about 6 per cent. No one suggests that we would reach the 30 or 40 per cent. figure—which comes from Gatwick —but Manchester will certainly reach between 10 and 12 per cent.
The differences in calculation show a remarkable dragging of the feet. I have a summary or preliminary appraisal of the proposed link with Manchester international airport in which a number of possible options are considered. One says that there should be no action, but that which is most favoured says that the link will produce a negative value of £14 million and a discounted infrastructure cost of £22 million. That is based upon the assumption that the rail link to Manchester would go from Piccadilly and not involve the original loop. I shall not go into detail, because we are talking about Stansted. The route would go from Manchester to Wilmslow and utilise only the Blackpool and Liverpool services.
What British Rail has to say about another option is interesting because it would carry the trans-Pennine trains through to Manchester airport—the obvious thing to do. However, British Rail says that it must take into account "the diversion revenue penalties". In other words, because of its plans for the trans-Pennine link between Yorkshire and Liverpool, it is deducting the benefits to the airport because it says that it would lose revenue from traffic that would otherwise go on to Liverpool.
We are faced with a simple proposition on which the honour of the Government and the integrity of British Rail are at stake. I make no bones about it. Whatever is said
764
in public, there is no doubt in my mind that we were clearly to understand, both here and in Manchester, that the link to Manchester airport and the link to Stansted would be considered simultaneously with the same vigour and determination and on the same basis, with the same commercial criteria being applied. That promise has not been fulfilled. The indications are that that promise is not to be fulfilled. The Minister is a kind man and he shakes his head, but until he can assure me that a British Rail proposal is on his desk I shall take a lot of convincing.
The costing is quite awry. The latest proposals, which have been worked out by the Manchester airports authority, show that, including the trans-Pennine interchange, which BR leaves out, the revenue estimate is close to the original estimate put out by BR's consultants. Those consultants have shown the Manchester link to be a viable proposition, but BR has nibbled away at it like rats in the hay to ensure that it is not.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State shakes his head. I am glad to see that, but I should be much happier if, when he stops shaking his head and rises to reply, he could give me a clear assurance that the proposal is on its way and that the basis of calculation includes a realistic appraisal of bringing traffic into Manchester airport from the whole of the north of England. That is the essential ingredient on which the whole of this agreement was based. I urge him to take the matter extremely seriously.
9.26 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: I do not intend to detain the House for more than a few minutes as the debate has illustrated opposed private business with a vengeance. With the exception of the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), every right hon. and hon. Member has been hostile to the Bill, to say the least. The reason is not hard to find.
The hon. Member for New Forest said that there is no connection between the railway line that the Bill proposes for Stansted and that approved in 1984, when he and I were present, for the railway line to Manchester airport. I accept that the hon. Gentleman believes that there is no connection but, regrettably from his point of view and, perhaps, from British Rail's point of view, nobody else does. Certainly no hon. Member who has participated today believes it. There is a strong feeling that there is an imbalance of treatment as between Stansted and Manchester. Stansted is presumably being made more attractive in the run-up to the privatisation of the British Airports Authority, and other airports are being left to fend for themselves.
The official BR view is that the two projects should be considered on exactly the same terms and that, presumably, decisions will be made accordingly. The same view was expressed in the White Paper. The Government have not exactly come clean, however. In reply to a written question from me and in reply to questions asked by other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Secretary of State has covered himself with the cloak of commercial confidentiality in regard to the rail link to Stansted airport. None of us understand that. The criteria for such projects have always been fairly widely published previously. It has always been clear on which criteria such schemes have been judged. That is not so here—there is evidently some commercial confidentiality.

765
The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) talked about the necessary 7 per cent. rate of return. He understandably asked about such costs as the tunnel under the runway, signalling and station buildings. He made a plea, which was echoed by some of his hon. Friends, that if and when the Bill goes through, if and when the line is built and if and when the trains are introduced, they will, unlike most trains on the line, run to time. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden said that the Secretary of State would intervene to make the airport a success. One can understand the unwillingness of all hon. Members to believe the Government when they say that they will operate the same hands-off approach on this project as they have operated on others.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) said, the criteria for not putting forward the Blackpool electrification was rather confusing. I understand my hon. Friend's confusion, which was mirrored throughout the north-west. I saw newspaper reports which said that the Department of Transport had rejected British Rail's application.
Mr. David Mitchell: No, it did not.
Mr. Snape: I accept what the Minister of State says, but I must tell him that the Manchester Evening News reported that the Department of Transport had rejected the application. Whether or not it was rejected—and if the Minister of State says that it was never put to him, then we must accept that—the Opposition would doubt whether the same criteria would apply to that scheme as applied to the railway line into Stansted.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) had some harsh words to say about the line and the way that it is operated at present. Filthy, dirty and inefficient were just three of the epithets he awarded to the present system. He criticised virtually everybody. He criticised British Rail Engineering Limited for what he said was faulty train design. British Rail Engineering Limited has been building these trains for many years. It normally builds them to the specification of the region placing the order. Presumably it did that in connection with the eastern region rolling stock which is used on the line which the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford mentioned.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford and some of his hon. Friends complained about the frequency of service in the existing system and questioned whether the line would be able to cope. The hon. Gentleman said the line could not cope now, and that is before any additional trains enter service. It is not for me to defend British Rail's senior management. I must confess that, having spent some years working in the industry, I have no great faith in it. In my customary attempt to be fair, however, I must point out that the management proposes to redevelop Liverpool street station and I presume that that redevelopment will include some degree of re-signalling which might go some way to easing some of the problems that the hon. Gentleman complained about.
If it is true, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford suggested, that staff were conspicuous by their absence—and he referred, without providing a shred of evidence, to people spending their time in pubs and not therefore being around to run the existing service—I must tell the hon. Gentleman that as one who is sponsored by the major railway union I hold no brief for that conduct. If that happens, that is a direct failure of management.
766
Whether or not the rail link is built, and although I disagree with much of what the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford said, I must admit that I travel on the railway frequently, as the hon. Gentleman no doubt does. I must say that railway management is conspicious by its absence after six o'clock in the evening, particularly at weekends. So long as uniformed supervisory staff is withdrawn and replaced by administrators in tower blocks at major administrative centres, the decline in railway services to which the hon. Gentleman referred is likely to continue. Indeed, whether or not the rail link is built, we may well not see any great improvement in service standards unless the change to which the hon. Gentleman and I would be committed takes place.
Mr. Bowen Wells: The hon. Gentleman claimed that I have made certain statements without a shred of evidence to support them. I am not accustomed to doing that, especially when some of my constituents are railway employees. I would not want to cast aspersions on them unnecessarily. The fact is that I know that what I have said takes place. I happened to go to the bar at which railway staff were imbibing at a time when trains were not arriving at the station. It seemed a pleasant way to pass the time but it was not one which was consistent with their duties, as the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Snape: I shall not be especially impressed by the hon. Gentleman's assertions unless he proves to be more of an expert on railway uniforms than he has proved to be on rolling stock and locomotives. Does he know whether those who he saw in the bar were on duty? Does he know their grades, and has he knowledge of what they are doing at any one time? If that which he describes takes place, I do not condone it. If it does, the railway management should take steps to prevent it happening. It seems from the questions of the Minister of State that the hon. Gentleman has not complained to Ministers, whoever else he has complained to over the years. Ministers are nominally responsible. That is evidenced by the Minister asking the hon. Gentleman what complaints he had made locally and regionally about the line.
I do not envy the task of the hon. Member for New Forest. Although he has not convinced anyone so far, he must seek to convince a majority of the House, even at this late hour, to support the Bill. I would find it a matter of personal regret if the House rejected any proposal to build a railway line. Far too many lines have been closed over the years. However, British Rail and the Government have failed palpably to make a reasonable case for any degree of investment priority to be given to the project that is set out in the Bill, especially if that priority were to be at the expense of more worthy projects in other parts of the country.
9.33 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): It may be helpful if at this stage I intervene to give a brief indication of the Government's view of the Bill. Before I go any further, I take up part of the speech of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). The hon. Gentleman spoke about the electrification of the line from Manchester to Blackpool and said that local newspapers carried a report that it had been rejected by the Government. If they did so, I hope that they will recognise that that report was a considerable

767
distortion. I trust that they will print corrections and give them the same prominence as the original articles. British Rail is able to provide a service virtually as fast and as efficient, with its new sprinter rolling stock—and at lower cost—than that which has been provided by electrification. British Rail did not propose that the line should be electrified.
The Government have considered the contents of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers sought by the British Railways Board. Only one minor point has been raised in correspondence with the promoters and I have no reason to doubt that this will be cleared up satisfactorily.
The airports policy White Paper, Cmnd. 9542, which was debated and approved by the House last June, announced the Government's decisions on the case for developing Stansted airport. The BAA has been given outline planning permission for expansion of the airport to 15 million passengers per annum, but the first phase of the development is to be restricted to 7 million to 8 million passengers per annum. Expansion, if any, beyond that level will be subject to parliamentary approval.
Against that background, British Rail was invited to study, in consultation with the BAA, what rail link to Stansted would be financially justified in the light of the traffic forecasts and phasing proposals discussed in the White Paper. The White Paper made clear the Government's willingness to approve investment in a rail link to Stansted if it can be financially justified.
In response to the Government's invitation the railways board put forward an investment submission in November last year for a spur from the Liverpool street-Cambridge main line to a new railway station beneath the proposed new airport terminal building.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is at present considering the board's investment proposal. He is also considering proposals from the BAA for the first phase of the expansion of the airport submitted to him last October. He hopes to be able to announce decisions on both BAA and BR proposals before very long.
The Bill would give the railways board power to proceed with the construction of the link. If investment approval is given, its intention is that the link will be operational by the financial year 1990–91.
My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) asked me whether I am willing to be persuaded that a rail link would be for the general benefit of users. He then asked why there was nothing similar for Heathrow. The same issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). The Government undertook in the White Paper to commission a study of the options for improving surface access to Heathrow, including the possibility of a BR rail link to the airport. A shortlist of consultants is being interviewed and an announcement about a commission can be expected shortly. I hope that will satisfy my hon. Friend.
Mr. Bowen Wells: May I ask my hon. Friend why it has taken so long to get to the stage of appointing a consultant when, as he says, British Rail had a proposition on his desk in November 1985? That is surely a quite unacceptable delay on the part of I do not know who.
Mr. Mitchell: There are considerable problems about Heathrow where one is dealing with the M4–M3 corridor.
768
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford knows that there is a long history of considering such opportunities in the past and then having them rejected. We are anxious to ensure that there is a full assessment of the wider opportunities to improve traffic within that corridor. My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden asked whether the provision of the railway would have an accelerating effect on the growth of passenger traffic at Stansted. I am advised that growth in demand at Stansted will result from facilities at Heathrow and Gatwick reaching capacity. It is generally recognised that that is the largest single factor. My hon. Friend also raised the financial case and I shall come back to that.
I should like to deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) about the possibility of a rail link to Manchester airport. It has been suggested that before legislation is passed giving British Rail powers to construct a rail link to Stansted, further progress should be made over the Manchester airport link. The British Railways Board already has the necessary statutory powers under the British Railways Act 1984 to construct a rail link to Manchester airport. Following last year's airport policy White Paper, the local authorities, the airport authority and British Rail were invited to analyse the case for providing a direct link to Manchester airport.
The White Paper made it clear that the Government will consider the Manchester project on the same terms as the rail link to Stansted airport. In the case of Stansted, we have an investment submission. In the case of Manchester, as yet no submission has come forward but I can assure the House that the Manchester rail link scheme will be considered in no less favourable terms than the Stansted one. The criteria will be no less favourable for the consideration of the Manchester investment project.
Mr. Silvester: Will my hon. Friend explain why it is that, although the submission for Stansted was on his right hon. Friend's desk in November, I am told by British Rail that the earliest we can expect a submission about Manchester is in May this year? Why is that regarded as equal treatment?
Mr. Mitchell: There are a number of additional complexities in the Manchester submission. In the case of Stansted there is one direct line from the airport to one major town destination. At Manchester there is a diversity of destinations, and work has to be done on assessing the destinations to which passengers go from Manchester airport, because they do not all go to Manchester. It is for that reason and for none of the reasons about which my hon. Friend has dark suspicions that there has been a delay in coming forward with the proposition.
My hon. Friend suggested that the House is being asked to approve a British Rail investment without sufficient information. He also said that the Stansted investment proposition will be considered on a more favourable basis than the proposed Manchester link. I assure my hon. Friend that the House is not being asked to consider a BR investment. That is a job for Ministers. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall consider no less favourably the criteria for Manchester than we consider those for Stansted. Naturally, I shall look carefully at his trans-Pennine point when we come to deal with it.
I am as anxious as my hon. Friend the Member for Withington, if a financially sound case exists for

769
Manchester, for it to he brought forward as quickly as possible, but the initiative lies with the local authorities and BR, and I can only urge them to press on together with their analyses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden raised questions about the financial case and the suspicion that the link will be justified only if it carried more than 8 million passengers. The Bill provides statutory powers to undertake the scheme. Investment approval will be needed for the powers to be implemented. It is usual to obtain statutory approval first. The White Paper makes it clear that the link must be financially justified with the phasing set down in the White Paper—with 7 million to 8 million passengers. British Rail has submitted an investment proposal which we are considering.
My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden then raised a series of questions on the viability of BR's proposed investment. This is a BR investment which the Government have called in for careful examination. This proposition has been with officials since November. They have sought clarification on a number of details. The proposition has just arrived on my desk, and I shall need to ask a number of further questions. I shall seek to deal with this in as businesslike a manner as I can, but I cannot say how soon I shall be able to recommend a decision to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Haselhurst: Will my hon. Friend offer some further guidance? Does he recall that consideration at departmental level of the proposal to electrify the line from Bishop's Stortford to Cambridge took several years? Will this rather more expensive scheme take a similar period?
Mr. Mitchell: If my hon. Friend refers to any investment proposition that has come from British Rail since I have had responsibility in this matter, I can only say that none of those proposals has been kept waiting for years. Indeed, some have been turned round in as short a time as three weeks. I would hesitate to think that I could turn this one round within that time scale.
I have been asked why it has not been possible for the Government to announce a decision on the British Railways Board's investment so far. A number of details have to be discussed with BR, and I have already referred to that point. The board will not be able to proceed with construction of the rail link without approval of the investment proposal but, as with any major scheme for new infrastructure, statutory powers are needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford referred to services on his line. I repeat the assurance that I would accept an invitation from him to see them. My hon. Friend has raised this matter with BR management. The Government have given BR objectives, which include running attractive, clean and punctual services. My hon. Friend went on to say that he believed that the attraction of using this line may add to the attraction of using Stansted. I think that there is a certain incompatibility between those two parts of his speech.
The hon. Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike) claimed that BR should spend its resources on other railway lines. That is a matter for the management of BR. In the case of Stansted, we shall not expect to subsidise the service. We shall expect BR to make a 7 per cent. return on its investment. If the hon. Members for Wrexham and for Burnley know of other
770
investments that BR can make with a similar return. I hope that they will let the board know as soon as possible and copy their letters to me.
There are three petitions against the Bill and the petitioners will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. I therefore recommend to the House that the Bill be given a Second Reading and be allowed to proceed in the usual way to Committee for detailed consideration. It is quite clear from what some hon. Members have said that there will be a great deal of detailed consideration and I believe that the House should allow the Bill to go forward in that way.
9.45 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: This has been a long and, for the most part, interesting debate. Obviously the overwhelming view of the House is that the Bill should not go ahead. Nothing that the Minister said has allayed the fears of those who have spoken. We are caught by a twin difficulty. One is British Rail's apparent near paranoia in refusing to develop a rail link to Manchester airport. Its refusal to develop that link rests on the fact that it is greatly concerned about the potential loss of traffic on the Manchester to London route. I and my hon. Friends feel that that fear is grossly misguided. The second difficulty is the desire of the Government to push ahead with the rail link to Stansted in order to make that airport viable far ahead of its time. That is part of their global airport policy, which is almost independent of the need for a direct rail link to Stansted.
I do not think that it is fanciful to suggest that at least partly in the Government's mind is the view that British Rail should fund the link to Stansted and that the link should be well on its way when the Government wish to flog off Stansted, thus increasing the airport's capital value. That is a significant point to which the House should address itself. Is it right that public money—the money British Rail spends is provided by the taxpayer —should be spent to develop and increase the asset base of the British Airports Authority so as to increase the price that the Government will obtain on privatisation? It would be unacceptable to hon. Members from northern constituencies if, in so doing, the Government directly jeopardised the future of Manchester airport and of a national airports policy.
It would also be unacceptable for the Government again to invest in infrastructure in one region when British Rail is constrained by the external financing limit imposed upon it by central Government. It is a simple fact that the money could not be spent on other schemes. For example, the Minister has commented about the charge in connection with the electrification of the Blackpool to Manchester line. I do not believe that there is no discussion between the Department of Transport and British Rail. I know that it was the Department of Transport, not BR, which sent out letters announcing the decision to Members of Parliament who were concerned about the issue. The Department of Transport was intimately concerned in that decision. This is not the time to explain the need for a fully electrified railway system in the north-west, linking it to the national railway system, for reasons of the local economy as well as for an efficient transportation system. However, because of a Government decision, one area of the north-west is being denied infrastructure investment while the south-east seems to have no problem persuading the Government to develop any scheme, whether it be the

771
Channel tunnel, Stansted airport or rail links. The Government are persuaded that the development should go ahead in the region which is already the most prosperous and successful. That would be grossly unacceptable in the present circumstances.
The regional dimension is important. It is massively important that the nation should be brought together. The decision to develop a rail link to Stansted and enhance the capacity of that airport shows the Government's favour of Stansted airport at the expense of the rest of the airport system in Britain.
If Stansted is to develop, it will develop more quickly than any other airport in the history of the airports system. Were it to be developed, that would be directly at the expense of Manchester airport, but not just Manchester. Occasionally it is convenient for the Government to paint a picture showing that only Manchester would be affected. All the regional airports would be affected, such as Newcastle, Bristol and Birmingham and the Scottish airports, which want to develop, particularly in their charter traffic. Stansted would be looking for the charter traffic were it to move towards a throughput of 7 million or 8 million passengers each year. The charter traffic could make that possible. That traffic could come only if it were diverted from the other regional airports. The Government are saying to people from the regions that rather than having access to an airport system that serves the regions, they would have to travel via the south-east. They are doing that through their decision to develop Stansted.
The debate has touched on all the issues that affect the area round Manchester, but the fundamental issue that is at stake for Manchester and other areas is simply whether we are prepared, as a Parliament, to say to the Government, "We trust you to get ahead with the assessment of the scheme without reference to the House of Commons or the public." The Minister has made play of the fact that we already have a scheme, which has been discussed, not just for a year or two, but for many years, to link Manchester airport to the British Rail system. That scheme can be based not on provisional or estimated passenger throughputs, as is the case with Stansted, but on existing passenger traffic. We know the exact amount of traffic that Manchester now carries. Under that scheme, British Rail could put its estimates before the House of Commons and make that information available. We could easily come to our own assessments of the likelihood of the scheme's success or failure.
With Stansted, it is different. The scheme is much more fanciful. It depends greatly on projected traffic growth at Stansted, and that in turn depends greatly on Government decisions, such as to which airports they will allocate air traffic. Therefore, any decisions made by British Rail about Stansted are not decisions that it is capable of making independently of other actors in the drama. As British Rail, in its assessments, depends critically on decisions by the British Airports Authority and by the Government, it cannot seriously expect us to accept its own assessments of the viability of the Stansted scheme.
The minimum pre-condition, before Members of Parliament from the Manchester area can accept that the Bill should go forward, is that the calculation of the financing of Stansted and the passenger throughput that it involves is laid before us. Is the passenger throughput the 7 million or 8 million that the Government talk of? Is it
772
at a cost of £45 million or £50 million, as we are led to believe? Is it different? We do not know. Without that information, it would be unacceptable for the House to allow British Rail to go ahead, when that would be at the expense of every other scheme in every other part of the country. It would be a decision in favour of that one successful region at the expense of all the other regions.
For those reasons, I hope that the Bill will not be passed. The time may come when we can support it, but the pre-condition of support will be that we see the development of other schemes, such as the rail link to Manchester.
9.54 pm
Mr. Christopher Murphy: This proposal to construct a new railway will result in encouragement of the use of Stansted, which I cannot condone, given my constituency concerns. The proposal to construct the new railway may also result in less finance being available to overcome commuting problems in mid-Hertfordshire, including the building of a new railway station in Welham Green where—I declare an interest—I have my constituency home, in North Mymms.
Although I recognise the value and importance of the introduction of one-man operated trains, the words of the old BR advertising campaign, "Let the train take the strain" are no longer appropriate; it appears that it is the commuter who now takes the strain.
I am sure that BR would be the first to recognise that it has not been tremendously successful in its level of service in recent months. Its attention might be better directed to overcoming that before embarking upon the new railway envisaged in the Bill.
When quoting the new advertising campaign, "We're getting there" my constituents might be forgiven for asking, "Where?" Is it to Stansted, which will increase the noise and disruption in neighbouring Hertfordshire? A more acceptable answer would be, "To London and home again." If the Bill were entitled the British Railways (Welwyn Hatfield Commuters) Bill, a far more positive response might have been forthcoming from me as a local Member of Parliament.
In our discussions tonight, no mention has been made of privatisation. The need for a railway to link London and Stansted might be an opportunity for privatisation. The Government have an excellent record on privatisation, especially in transport. I hope that they will consider privatisation for the Stansted link if there must be one.
9.56 pm
Dr. John Marek (Wrexham): I wish to express my reservations about the Bill. I do not think that Stansted should be extended, and the fact that the proposal to do so has been passed by this House does not mean that I cannot still oppose it at every possible opportunity. British Rail is limited in its funds and so cannot construct railways here, there and everywhere. Indeed, BR often tears up tracks, with a consequent loss of service, which means fewer people using the railways.
I have been impressed with Conservative Members who have graphically described serious problems with BR operations on lines between Liverpool street and Cambridge. I always thought that the line between Euston, Crewe, Chester and the west coast main line was rather bad, but some of the stories tonight beat anything that I have ever heard or experienced.

773
The crucial problem is that unlimited money is not available. The Government control the amount of money that BR can spend. The question is whether BR should be allowed to spend its money on the line to Stansted—which I oppose—or whether it should be spent on some other project. The Minister asked my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and myself whether we had any ideas for other projects that would mean a 7 per cent. return on capital invested, and said that we should write to British Rail with our suggestions. I do not look at economics in that way. I have a different view of how we should run the economy of this country, and it is not the compartmentalised view taken by the Minister.
If I had to guess about a line with a potential 7 per cent. return, I would suggest a connection to Heathrow. A fast train between Heathrow and the centre of London would mint money for BR day in and day out, and would provide a return of well over 7 per cent. Yet BR has not put forward any proposal for such a link. Indeed, it has not put forward a proposal to construct a link to Manchester.
We have been told that on a previous occasion the House has considered a Bill to allow BR to put forward proposals for a link to Manchester and to give it the power to construct that link. Nevertheless, nothing has happened. I fear that if the Bill is passed, and with money being so limited, it is likely that BR will favour the link to Stansted rather than the link to Manchester.
Of course, Manchester has always been done down as an airport. Yet people in the midlands, especially the west midlands, would find it as easy to go to Manchester airport as to go to London—
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 66, Noes 37.

Division No. 84]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Durant, Tony

Alton, David

Fallon, Michael

Baldry, Tony

Farr, Sir John

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Fookes, Miss Janet

Bevan, David Gilroy

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Franks, Cecil

Bottomley, Peter

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Bruinvels, Peter

Galley, Roy

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Colvin, Michael

Gower, Sir Raymond

Cope, John

Greenway, Harry

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Gregory, Conal

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Dunn, Robert

Ground, Patrick

774

Holt, Richard

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Jones, Robert (Herts W)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Speed, Keith

Key, Robert

Steel, Rt Hon David

Kirkwood, Archy

Stern, Michael

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Lang, Ian

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Lilley, Peter

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Marland, Paul

Wainwright, R.

Mather, Carol

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Maude, Hon Francis

Wallace, James

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Waller, Gary

Mellor, David

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Yeo, Tim

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Neale, Gerrard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Neubert, Michael

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson and

Proctor, K. Harvey

Mr. Vivian Bendall.

NOES

Boyes, Roland

Madden, Max

Bright, Graham

Marek, Dr John

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Clay, Robert

Maxton, John

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

Murphy, Christopher

Corbyn, Jeremy

Pike, Peter

Craigen, J. M.

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Dover, Den

Silvester, Fred

Eastham, Ken

Skinner, Dennis

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Snape, Peter

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Thurnham, Peter

Godman, Dr Norman

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Golding, John

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Harvey, Robert

Winterton, Nicholas

Haselhurst, Alan

Hayes, J.

Tellers for the Noes:

Haynes, Frank

Mr. Tony Lloyd and

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Mr. Robert Litherland.

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Whereupon MR. SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 32 (Majority for closure).
It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Wednesday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Agricultural Holdings Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Neubert.]

Bishops (Retirement) Measure
Question again proposed,
That the Bishops (Retirement) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
10.12 pm
Mr. Greenway: As I was saying before the interruption, the second central question that I want to put to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) relates to the possible age at which the Measure might be put with particular force in the direction of any bishop or archibishop. I had asked that the Measure be applied on the lenient side rather than with any severity and I had given my reason for that, pointing out that bishops can become ill physically and mentally, like anybody else, but they can also recover. I hope that when he replies my hon. Friend will be able to assure me that some allowance for that possible contingency will be made.
Will my hon. Friend say what will happen to the widows and young families of any bishop retired under the Measure? If one looks at what happens to the wife or widow of a clergyman, there is plenty of room for worry and dissatisfaction. Could a bishop be retired with his family into penury and without a home, as happens all too often with the widows of clergymen or clergy who fall by the wayside? I should be grateful for a response to that most important question.
10.14 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is unfortunate that we have to resume the debate in the absence of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who made such a characteristic contribution at an earlier stage. However, we must do the best that we can without the assistance of his lights. The right hon. Gentleman regarded the established status of the Church of England as a self-evident absurdity, but he was characteristically kind enough to show that he arrived at that conclusion not by any process of reasoning, but as a matter of prejudice. He repeated several times that that was a consequence of the liberal, radical and free-thinking background from which he sprang.
It is no bad thing to recognise that there are institutions which are valuable and durable but which express massive and widespread prejudice and may not necessarily be accessible to demonstration, either from history or contemporary logic, of their necessity or value. Such I believe to be the establishment of the Church of England.
Apart from that larger matter raised by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, a misunderstanding was implicit in his remarks, which perhaps the Second Commissioner may be able to clarify before the end of the debate. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to believe that when the retirement Measure was put into effect a Member of the House of Lords was removed by the process, whether by the decision of an archbishop or the decision of the Crown. I believe that to have been mistaken. I understand that a bishop who is retired under the Measure remains a bishop. The see that he occupied is vacated and it is the see which is represented by an automatic permanent or rotating seat in the House of Lords.
Historically, the Lords spiritual are present in the upper House not by virtue of their spiritual character or the
776
spiritualities with which they are endowed, but because they hold by barony the temporalities of their see of which they are seized as long as they remain a bishop. Consequently, the apprehension of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield that we are providing ourselves with the means of removing individuals from the service in another place is unfounded. The see will continue to be represented in the House of Lords either invariably or under law in rotation. I believe that it would be worthwhile for the Second Commissioner to clear up that matter if he comes to intervene.
Mr. Frank Field: The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has said that we must continue our debate without the considerable skills of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). However, he is not making too bad a job of it. Before the right hon. Gentleman completes his contribution, will he comment on another aspect of my right hon. Friend's contribution? He mentioned that we were presented with the Church of England as being the first nationalised body in Britain. My right hon. Friend also called for disestablishment. Is that not calling for its privatisation by turning over the national church to the sect?
Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has certainly illustrated some of the quandaries into which those who argue from prejudice but purport to be guided by principle may from time to time fall. I hope that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield may have the leisure at some future date to take note of the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
10.19 pm
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I am pleased that we have an established Church, and the unique relationship between the Church and state is to be commended. Obviously, it is sometimes tempestuous, but at the best of times it is an excellent working relationship. That is why the Measure is to be welcomed.
I declare an interest as a member of the General Synod. I could not vote on the Measure when it came before the previous Synod in November 1983 and when it received final approval in July 1984, but if I had been a member then I would have supported it with the utmost vigour because it will enable diocesan and suffragan bishops to retire or resign with the minimum of fuss. We are asking for minimal requirements. It is correct that such a bishop can consult the archbishop of the same province and tender his resignaation to him in a written instrument.
I am worried about the age limit. It is strange that anyone can become a bishop at the age of 30 and can continue until he is 70, according to the Ecclesiastical Offices (Age Limit) Measure 1975. Why should all bishops remain in post until a certain age? Why cannot they retire earlier if they wish? Why should some elderly diocesan and suffragan bishops who are extremely good not be allowed to stay on for longer? Why must they retire at a set age?
I do not think that some of our young bishops are the very best. Why cannot they retire earlier? Indeed, they can. It is regrettable that we lose some of our best bishops in the prime of their life when their theological views are welcome to the state and encourage us. I hope that a special provision can be found so that they can continue to represent their see for a further period. Those with the

777
Christian faith and values are essential ingredients in the House of Lords, where there are 24 bishops and two archbishops. It is a loss to Parliament when they retire at retirement age.
I am worried about the six-month notice period. While I accept that some people may say that that is plenty of time to prepare the vacancy-in-see committee to advertise the bishopric, it takes a special person to become a bishop, and sometimes takes longer than six months to prepare for that appointment.
Similarly, while the vacancy-in-see committee looks after the affairs of a diocese, it is a serious matter when a suffragan bishop is not in situ. Obviously, when a bishop decides to retire, one hopes that there will be proper liaison with the archbishop and suffragan bishop to ensure that they can handle the trying business, and the additional responsibilities, including the spiritual help necessary.
Clause 1(1) enables a bishop to retire early. It may take a long time to find a suitable candidate. I wish that we were not discussing Crown appointments, and that a suitable list were hanging around from which to choose the right people—
Mr. Robert B. Jones: Christian people.
Mr. Bruinvels: Indeed—a list from which to choose Christian people.
Clause 3(1)(2) deals with illness and incapacity, which I hope is an isolated problem. I hope that few bishops appear either incapable or ill. However, I must deal with the judgment of the two senior diocesan bishops who are required to give advice, and to assist the archbishop in deeming whether a bishop is incapacitated by physical or mental disability, and unable to perform his episcopal duties. I am worried that the senior bishops coming from the same province as the bishop who is rumoured to be unwell will know that bishop extremely well. They might be overforgiving and say that he is all right when he is not, or the situation may be reversed. Perhaps consideration can be given to bringing senior diocesan bishops from the other province to make that judgment, together with the archbishop.
I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) will have additional responsibilities, as the cost of the medical examination is to be paid by the Church Commissioners' funds and naturally we shall be looking to that with interest.
It is sad when any bishop finds it necessary to retire. The responsibilities of a senior bishop are onerous. I look forward to seeing some bishops retire earlier than we would have expected and others—the excellent bishops who have given the best guidance to the Anglican community — being allowed to stay on past the maximum age of 70.
10.25 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) suggested that bishops reach the prime of their life at the age of 70, but if I remember my Bible correctly, it is normally at 70, or three score years and 10, that one is meant to pass on rather than be at one's best performing age.
This Measure was passed by the Synod with no opposition in any of the three houses, and I hope that this
778
House, although it has the constitutional duty of overseeing such Measures, will, as always, be mindful of the view taken by the Synod. I hope that we shall not interfere, other than in matters of substantial controversy, with what the Synod has done when it has considered the matter in detail. Although we are a long-stop under the constitution for what the Synod does, increasingly the Synod is responsible for, and able to make, its own decision. I hope that we shall allow that ever more impressive body to do just that.
My second point may have been touched on in the opening speech of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee), who spoke on behalf of the Church Commissioners. If so, I apologise for not having heard what he said, but the debate came on slightly earlier than we thought it would. I am concerned that this matter has taken from July 1984 to February 1986 to come from the Synod to the House. It is not excusable that it takes nearly two years for legislation approved by the Synod to come here for its final debate and approval.
I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Wokingham would explain why that has happened, and for some assurances that methods will be found, through the members of the Ecclesiastical Committee and those who are working to expedite business on behalf of the Synod, to ensure that we do not have such a delay again. It is in nobody's interest that the House gives a final assent to a Measure two years after it has been debated in the General Synod. On occasion such matters may have substantially changed in such a long period, and it serves neither of us well if there are such substantial delays. I hope that they will not be repeated.
10.27 pm
Mr. David Crouch: I apologise to those who proceeded me for the fact that I was not here to hear their speeches. I had another engagement which kept me out of the Chamber.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was wrong to say that requests to the House to consider Measures coming from the General Synod go through on the nod. That was pointed out to him by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and it must be emphasised. These Measures should not go through on the nod. They should be considered seriously by the House, and I am glad that they are not being considered at as late an hour of night, or as early in the morning, as they sometimes are. This is a reasonable hour for us to consider a Measure.
I am not altogether out of touch with the Church in my Canterbury constituency, and this Measure disturbs me a little. I do not intend to oppose it, but it was decided some years ago—I think in 1975—that bishops should retire at the age of 65. That seems to be a little early, although not quite so early as the retirement age of civil servants. They retire at 60. However, their contribution to public life does not end at 60. Permanent secretaries continue to make a great contribution to public life, based upon their long experience in the Civil Service.
The suggestion that bishops should have to retire at 65 worries me, but that is not the subject of this debate. We are debating whether they should be allowed to retire before the age of 65. This Measure makes provision for retirement on that basis. If, however, a bishop is thought to be unfit either in body or in mind before he reaches the age of 65, the Measure provides for his removal from his post. I do not dispute that this power should be provided,

779
but it is a formidable power to place in the hands of the Church. We ought to consider what would happen if hon. Members were subject to such a formidable power that they could be removed.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: We are.
Mr. Crouch: Some are, but not my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels). He maintains a position that allows nobody to get at him, I am sure. He is not quite all things to all men, but he is all things to the right men. I notice that the hon. Member for Birkenhead is nodding in agreement. We know that this is a political fact of life. We can be deposed if we are thought to be not fit politically for our appointment, but we cannot be deposed if we are thought to be unwell. We might be unwell for two or three months, or for six months or a year. Should we then be deposed? Certainly not. A Member of Parliament is not thrown out because people say, "He is not doing his job because physically he is a sick man." A Member of Parliament is not thrown out because somebody says, "He seems, because of his views, to be a sick man." How terrifying a prospect that would be.
If it is Parliament's responsibility to consider what is done in that other realm of the state, the Church, it is important for Parliament to pause and consider this formidable power of archbishops and bishops to remove somebody who they think might be unfit for the job.
I have perhaps over-exaggerated the implications of this small Measure, but it is the duty of the House of Commons sometimes to look behind the written word and ensure that it is not passing something that is wrong or over-emphasised and which we might later regret.
I rest my case in the hands of the Church. I am sure that it will take guidance about its decisions, not by coming to us, but by going to another place. I hope that it will do that. On this occasion, and at this hour, I am a little disturbed at the formidable power that it has given itself.
10.35 pm
Mr. Robert Key: I warmly welcome the Measure and I shall support it. When my late father was consecrated Bishop of Sherborne in 1946 he was the youngest bishop in the Church of England. He spent a long time as bishop, and within a year of his consecration the diocesan bishop died and my father therefore had to assume his responsibilities for a year. If I have one regret about today's synodical government, it is in the time that it takes to put measures through the Synod.
In those days there was one suffragan bishop in the diocese whereas today there are two—who do less work because of the bureaucracy which has taken over. I am interested in this because, being a member of the Standing Committee on the Gas Bill, I am interested to note that the Church Commissioners have bought the freeholds of local gas and electricity showrooms. Perhaps that means that they know more about Sunday trading than we do.
This measure shows how interested the Synod and the Church Commissioners are in the well-being of the bishops who are often given responsibility and social positions which are impossible to maintain without the full support of the Church.
780
I regret the attacks sometimes made on diocesan bishops because they happen to live in houses which have been in the Church's ownership for many generations. Such attacks are unwarranted and unjustifiable.
Over the years I have watched with admiration the care in which the Church has for its bishops and for their widows. I am delighted that this is a further step forward.
When my father was diocesan bishop of Truro he fought long and hard to reduce the retirement age for bishops to 68. This measure will give a little more freedom and a little more reality. It will help to avoid some of the appalling conditions which our bishops have suffered over many years. In the days when my father first became a bishop his salary was paid out of diocesan fees. This led to many extraordinary ambiguities, not least of which was that we lived in six different houses in Salisbury close, always taking on the tail end leases of others when they were about to fall. Indeed, one of the houses designated to become the house of the Bishop of Sherborne is now occupied by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). However, I warmly welcome the measure and I commend it to the House.
10.39 pm
Sir William van Straubenzee: By leave of the House, I shall reply briefly. I am obliged to the House for the care which properly is being taken about the Measure. It is a care which I am certain that the General Synod and the Church of England not only do not resent but of which they are appreciative.
I do not want to go into the wide matters raised by the right hon. Members for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and for South Down (Mr. Powell) about the establishment of the Church. They are both far more learned than I. I was at school with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield who converted me at about 14½years to being a member of the Labour party. I matured earlier than he. On these matters, I accept what the right hon. Member for South Down said and believed to be the correct statement. This Measure does not create any history. There was a retirement Measure in 1951. In so far as Members of another place are "retired", it started in 1951. This Measure consolidates and perhaps gives greater rights to the person concerned. Enforced retirement has been mentioned in several speeches, but it is not mentioned in the Measure, and it is of much older provenance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) spoke with his usual care and was anxious—I quite see why—about the steps that have to be taken. I hope that he will study clause 3 closely. The archibishop of the province has to be concerned, two senior diocesans have to be brought in, their concurrence has to be obtained and there is a medical inspection, the cost of which is properly not met by the diocesan concerned. The medical inspection might reveal possibilities of recovery. That is the point of such a careful inspection. My hon. Friend questioned the age of retirement.
Mr. Greenway: My point was that the process should not be started if there is any possibility of recovery, although I accept the value of the inspection as a fall back.
Sir William van Straubenzee: With any Measure or Bill, we have to consider the cold print. I hope and believe that, in application, if there is any hope whatever of recovery, the process will not be started. The House is

781
used to looking at the cold print of legislation. Neither Ministers nor anyone else can rely on good faith. We have to safeguard people's rights by cold print. Written into the Measure are rights which will be of enormous benefit, especially in the type of case that my hon. Friend has in mind, assuming that it ever arises. I believe that the safeguards will ensure that the matter is handled with the greatest sympathy and care.
The Measure does not deal with the age of retirement. My hon. Friend's study of these matters is far more erudite than mine, but when he gave the example of the great Archbishop Barbage, I thought that he gave one of the best examples of the need for a compulsory retirement age. As a boy, I sat enraptured by some of the magnificent sermons that he gave as Bishop of Winchester. Like many others, I hold in immense esteem his work for Church and state. The saddest section of the beautiful biography of Archbishop Barbage was the account of his chaplains having to go to him as an old man and tell him that he was past his work. He asked to be left alone so that he might ponder their advice. He then asked them back and, great and marvellous man that he was, thanked them for their courage in telling him. I want to tell my hon. Friend that he is a long way from retirement, but I am much closer to it. Sadly, one of my reasons for leaving the House—not sadly for everyone else but sadly for me—at the end of this Parliament, is that I have seen too many hon. Members of this honourable House stay on just a little too long. It is far better to go while people are still able, as in my case, to grate out the words "What a pity" about one, than "When is the old goat going to realise that he is past it?"
Mr. Greenway: I would point out to my hon. Friend that there was another biography of Dr. Cyril Barbage which did not take the kind of line that my hon. Friend has described. Indeed, it took the opposite line. Does my hon. Friend know about Bishop Winnington-Ingram who is still playing first-class hockey at the age of 72?
Sir William van Straubenzee: I have listened to Bishop Winnington-Ingram literally preaching with his hands. I doubt whether my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North will remember, but he preached with his hands and was the most expressive of preachers.
Obviously, there are exceptions to the general rule, but the general rule is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) raised this point and I must emphasise that the general rule is not retirement at 65; that is when the pension is payable. The age is 70. I hope that that will assist my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury. In so far as one can measure these matters in human terms
782
on the number of years a man, and perhaps in future a woman, spends on the earth, 70 is about right. I know, as all hon. Members will know, that there are some hon. Members who have been dead since they took their seats. On the whole, these things must be measured carefully.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked a reasonable question about the delay. If the hon. Gentleman notices the rather special date of the re-examination of this matter, he will see that it was at the time when the previous bishop's appointment Measure was turned down by the House. That was a traumatic moment for the Church of England and the hon. Gentleman will know that, as he follows these matters very closely.
It was not unreasonable to look at the matter closely and to consider how it ought to be handled in relation to the next Measure which I hope to speak on shortly. That may not be a good answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, but we are both politicians and we therefore understand the realities of these matters.
I was grateful for the quick and personal comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) as he speaks from experience of the care of bishop's widows. I trust and believe that such care is extended to other clergy. Only today I signed a letter to an Opposition Member in relation to the death of a young clergyman in the hon. Gentleman's diocese. I know that money and housing cannot bring back a young husband who was killed in an accident. However, in so far as those caring things can help, they have been provided in that case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) made the interesting suggestion that the panel of bishops should come from another province. Is this not a case where men who have worked with somebody ought to play a role? Apart from anything else, it might be a safeguard against — though heaven forbid that this should happen—some kind of witch hunt. These men would know each other, would have worked together and would know each other's eccentricities. That is the reason for drawing the senior diocesans from the same province.
I trust that I have, in accordance with the traditions of the House, dealt with each speech, however inadequately and briefly. I sense that the mood of the House is, I hope, to give assent to the Measure and certainly that would be appreciated. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Bishops (Retirement) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Ecclesiastical Fees Measure
10.50 pm
Sir William van Straubenzee (The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
That the Ecclesiastical Fees Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
This is a Measure that is designed to change the method by which draft orders that are connected with ecclesiastical fees are brought, first, before the General Synod and secondly, if necessary, before the House. They deal with peripheral fees with which we are all concerned in various ways. These are fees that may be charged in the parishes for weddings and burials, for example. Secondly, the orders relate to ecclesiastical judges and legal officers' fees and the fees charged by ecclesiastical courts. Thirdly, there are the legal officers' annual fees relating to the annual retainers that are paid to provincial and diocesan registrars.
During the latter half of the century we have, unfortunately, had to deal with inflation and it has been necessary from time to time to increase the fees by way of adjustment to take account of inflation. The General Synod has come to the conclusion that to do this by way of an affirmative order every time, when it is often not a matter of controversy, is not a very proper use of the House's time.
The Measure that is before the House proposes that the Standing Committee of the General Synod can determine that an affirmative resolution is not necessary. However, I want to make it abundantly clear that any one member of the General Synod can have that decision overturned if he or she wishes a debate to take place. If any one member wants that to happen, there has to be an affirmative resolution from the General Synod. Members of the General Synod will be given the right, in accordance with the standing orders of the Synod, which require 25 members to be in support, to propose amendments, a right which they do not have currently.
There was a change made as a result of discussion of the Ecclesiastical Committee, to which I express my appreciation and gratitude. As first presented, the Measure did not provide that there must be a negative procedure, as we know it in this place, and annulment by the House and by another place. The Ecclesiastical Committee doubted that that was proper. It was rightly careful, quite correctly in my respectful view, of the rights of Her Majesty's subjects. That is exactly what it is there for. After careful reconsideration, the negative procedure has been inserted. Hon. Members will find that in each of the appropriate clauses it is provided that the House has the right, if it so wishes, at any time to raise a matter by the negative procedure. There were two votes against in the House of Clergy, eight votes against in the House of Laity and no votes against in the Houses of Bishops, and the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament has found this procedure to be expedient.
10.54 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Ecclesiastical Committee has served the House well in securing that both classes of order which can be made under this Measure will be subject to parliamentary
784
negative procedure. It is right and proper that we should not entirely relinquish parliamentary control over the content of these Measures. I think that it was in the original Measure that only one type of order was subject to negative procedure. It was right that the provision was extended to both, and that has resulted from the work of the Ecclesiastical Committee and the reconsideration that was given by the General Synod.
I hope that I am not straying too far when I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the General Synod may have come up with the solution to a problem which has vexed Procedure Committees and other Committees dealing with the procedures of the House. One of our difficulties in this place is our inability, when an order comes before us, to do other than approve or reject it. Even this House has found no means so far of being able, however desperately it might desire it, to discuss an amendment to an order. Perhaps a trail has been blazed for us by the General Synod by making it possible for an individual member to secure a debate—for an individual member of the Synod if supported by 25 others to secure that an amendment to an order can be debated. It is not often that, in our superior pride, we find ourselves looking to the Synod for guidance or enlightment in matters of our own procedure, but here the Synod may have hit upon something which is worthy of the attention of a procedural Committee of this House.
10.56 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: One of the three short points I wanted to make has been made by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I hope that it will fall upon willing and listening ears because the procedural device that this Measure will bring to the Synod could with advantage be adopted here. The reason given for it by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) was that in some measure it had to do with the work load of the Synod. During the short time I spent in the last Synod after I was co-opted to it, as was the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), one of the things that became apparent to me was that the time of the Synod was severely pressed.
It is important, while retaining safeguards, as this does, to make sure that routine matters, though important, can be disposed of in the most effective and efficient way. Quite properly, the Synod has an enormous amount of work to do and if Parliament or the Church or the country expects it to do its job properly, we should allow it to have procedures that permit that to happen.
My last point is perhaps slightly more topical. I hope that the fees set out for the different types of activity, parochial and ecclesiastical, and legal officers' fees, will be examined. Sometimes different rates may be more appropriate in inner city areas, for example than elsewhere. We politicians sometimes come up against the problem of recruiting members at a standard rate in the more affluent shires and in the less affluent inner cities. I hope that in the debate on the commission's report, bearing in mind the welcome that it was given by the Synod when it met some weeks ago and remembering especially the task that is ahead of the Church Commissioners over funding for the projects and priorities set out in that report—especially the urban priority areas —some thought will be given to the way in which the fee is charged.

785
I hope that the fee charged and therefore the income received may be adjusted so that standard rates do not necessarily apply. Once a system and a structure have been organised and have gained assent, it may be possible to do things that, even in a small way, could bring about what the Archbishop's commission has proposed. I hope that the Measure will provide safeguards for steps of that sort as it will for the standard rate fees for the normal activities of the Church.
10.59 pm
Sir William van Straubenzee: I should like to thank the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I am delighted to think that we at Church house may have found an answer to one of Parliament's problems. However, that is not a matter for me tonight. I shall draw to the attention of the appropriate authorities the interesting suggestion made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. My immediate reaction, not rejecting his suggestion but thinking of it while I speak, is that I doubt whether we have the legal right and ability to make a difference in the fees as between one part of the country and another. As I say, that is my immediate reaction and the matter must be looked at. We are talking about the fees that may be charged in the parishes. I know, having chaired one of the commissions, that the clergy strongly wish that variable fees should, as far as possible, reflect the enormous pastoral opportunities of the clergy and the heavy expenses which fall upon families at a time of bereavement. Therefore, the fees are not uniform, imposed on a mathematical basis, but are geared to meet the pastoral duties of the Church. I hope that the House will accept the Measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Ecclesiastical Fees Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Agricultural Holdings Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
11.1 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a consolidation measure, which incorporates Law Commission recommendations. The law which it consolidates is that contained in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 and various other enactments passed since then. The Bill has been referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills which has reported upon it in terms with which the House is, no doubt, well familiar. I hope that, in the light of that report, the House will be able to proceed to approve the Bill without delay. The fact that we are able to do so is the result of the expertise and diligence of the members of the Joint Committee am sure that the House will wish to join me in once again expressing our thanks for their efforts.
11.2 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I thank the Solicitor-General for those remarks. Our approval of the Bill is not a formality — it is right that not just Government but Parliament should satisfy itself that what is intended is pure consolidation. I am so satisfied. I should like to endorse the Solicitor-General's remarks about the excellent job that the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills has done.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House— [Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Mr. Dennis Foskett
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
11.3 pm
Mr. Vivian Bendall: This matter is worrying and causing considerable problems for some of my constituents. It concerns Dennis Foskett, who last November was committed for trial at the Old Bailey, having committed a double murder in May 1985.
In many respects this is a tragic case, as the two people killed were the man's doctor and the man's wife, who tried to intervene. The real and urgent problem that is causing my constituents and myself concern is that the court recommended that Mr. Foskett be put in an open hospital — Goodmayes hospital — which is an open mental hospital in my constituency. Obviously my constituents are concerned that this person, having committed a double murder, should be in a hospital which is generally open. It means that he has fairly easy access to the grounds of the hospital and to areas outside the grounds.
I accept that much of the problem relates to the Mental Health Act 1983, but I feel, as do many of my constituents, that a period of six months between May 1985 and November 1985, when he came to trial, is rather a short time in which to assess an individual who has committed two horrific crimes, one against his doctor and the other against his wife. Therefore, I understand the concern of my constituents. I have many letters written by my constituents concerning this matter.
One of the other concerns is that the grounds of the hospital and the gates to the grounds are open, as are the buildings of the hospital. Therefore, anybody can walk freely from the hospital building or the grounds in virtually any part of the day or night. It means that there is an element of risk to children at an adjacent primary school. Can anyone with any certainty and with any guarantee say sincerely, even with the best professional experience and advice available, that an individual who has committed such crimes may not on another occasion take it upon himself to find a way out of the mental institution, which is completely open, and commit a further crime? That is the essence of the problem which faces my constituents. I have some sympathy with them.
Others have also expressed concern about the placing of Mr. Foskett in this mental hospital. The Confederation of Health Service employees has lodged complaints with the local hospital management committee. I have also received verbal complaints from members of staff at the hospital.
I have been in correspondence with the Department of Health and Social Security and the Home Office. I am a little perturbed at the time that it has taken to receive certain answers. I originally wrote to the DHSS on 30 December and received an acknowledgement on 9 January. I then heard nothing from the DHSS or the Home Office, the DHSS having informed me that the matter was the responsibility of the Home Office. I wrote to the Home Office again on 20 January, and did not receive a reply until 5 February. This matter has caused a great deal of local concern. It has been well reported in local newspapers and on Essex Radio. There has been much local concern.
788
I shall give an example to the House of how easy it is to gain access to Goodmayes hospital. A reporter of a national Sunday newspaper was able to go to Goodmayes hospital quite openly. He went to the reception desk and asked which ward Dennis Foskett was in. He was directed to the ward concerned, and when he arrived at the ward he asked a doctor or nurse where Mr. Foskett was. He was pointed out to him at the end of the ward. The reporter then took a photograph and left the building. I do not condone such an attitude or such irresponsibility by a national newspaper, but it emphasises how easy it is to enter some of these mental hospitals and, therefore, how easy it would be for a patient to get out of such a hospital.
I understand the problems of my hon. Friend the Minister with regard to the 1983 Act, but I challenge that Act. I do not doubt that sooner or later someone will walk out of a free hospital and commit another such offence. Society generally wants to avoid that, and it is right that society is concerned about this issue.
I firmly believe that a period of six months is not long enough to assess someone who has committed such a crime. That person should be kept in an establishment for rather longer, so that a fuller assessment can be made. Perhaps, after a period of time, if the person is seen to be of stable nature, it might be appropriate to consider moving him to a place with more freedom.
I understand the concern felt by my constituents. I thank the House for the opportunity to bring the matter before it tonight. I hope that my hon. Friend will give some assurance that such cases in open hospitals will be closely monitored, and also that he receives regular reports from the local hospital management committee or other responsible bodies about the progress of individuals put into those institutions for the sort of offence committed by Mr. Foskett.
11.11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) has spoken eloquently of his constituents' anxieties in this matter. Let me say at once that I think it perfectly understandable that this matter should have given rise to genuine concern. I want to set out the facts of the case as I understand them, and hope that there will be some reassurance for my hon. Friend.
Prior to the tragic events of 17 May 1985, Dennis Foskett had lived peacefully with his wife for more than 20 years. Statements before the court describe him and his wife as a devoted couple. He had no convictions but did have a history of depression which started after a bout of influenza in 1970. The depression recurred periodically over the intervening years, and his most recent illness began in April 1985, following another attack of influenza. It was so severe that he was forced to give up work because he suffered from anxiety to such an extent that he spontaneously broke down in tears.
A few days before the tragedy he consulted his family doctor, Dr. Glickman. She prescribed some drugs, which he thought made him worse, and on Friday 17 May Mrs. Foskett asked Dr. Glickman to visit her husband at home because his condition had deteriorated. Dr. Glickman agreed to visit him on her way home after she finished surgery.
At 7.12 pm the same evening neighbours saw Mr. Foskett run out of his front door shouting for help. He had

789
a hammer in his hand which he put on a dustbin lid and he kept repeating that he had killed his wife. The police and an ambulance were called and several passers by went to his assistance. He returned to the house to fetch a glass of water and some tablets which he immediately took. Mrs. Foskett was found to be already dead and Dr. Glickman died shortly afterwards in hospital, the cause of death in both cases being a fractured skull. Mr. Foskett was also taken to hospital for a stomach washout. He made a second suicide attempt three days later, which was also unsuccessful.
When Mr. Foskett appeared at the Central Criminal Court on 22 November 1985—six months later—he was convicted of two offences of manslaughter, both by reason of diminished responsibility. The court had before it three medical reports—one from Dr. Paul Bowden in his capacity as consultant forensic psychiatrist to Her Majesty's prison, Brixton, where Mr. Foskett had been held on remand, one from Dr. Patrick Galloway, consultant forensic psychiatrist at St. George's hospital and one from Dr. Hirst, consultant psychiatrist at Goodmayes hospital. All three doctors agreed that Mr. Foskett was suffering from a severe depressive illness at the time of the offence and that he continued to need treatment for his depression. However, they also agreed that in the six months since his offence, during which time he had received appropriate treatment for his condition, there had been a marked improvement in his mental state. In their view, so long as Mr. Foskett continued to receive the appropriate treatment for his illness, he was unlikely to pose a significant danger to other people and did not require conditions of security. It was their unanimous recommendation that treatment could safety be administered at Goodmayes hospital.
The court accepted the psychiatrists' recommendations, making a hospital order under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 placing Mr. Foskett in Goodmayes hospital, together with a restriction order under section 41 of the Act. The latter order ensures that Mr. Foskett cannot be set at liberty without the consent of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or a decision by a mental health review tribunal.
Mr. Bendall: Will my hon. Friend say where Mr. Foskett received his treatment while he was in custody before trial?
Mr. Mellor: He was treated in Brixton prison while on remand. All that followed flowed from the judge's order, which directed that Mr. Foskett be placed at a specific hospital. It was not a special hospital order that provided for any form of security. The evidence before the judge was that Mr. Foskett did not require any security. I stress that, because many of the powers that might have flowed from a special hospital order do not arise in this case.
As my hon. Friend realises, I cannot comment on the court's decision. it is fundamental that the Government do not seek to interfere in the decisions of the judiciary or to question the exercise of its discretion. Parliament provides the courts with powers to deal appropriately with all types of offender, but it is for the court to decide in an individual case what the appropriate sentence should be. I can say, however, that judges at the Central Criminal Court are very experienced in dealing with cases like this one.
It is, of course, essential that courts should have full information on which to base their decisions, and that was
790
so in this case. The court had the three reports from psychiatrists, which I have mentioned, which were able to take account of the period Mr. Foskett had spent on remand, not just the few horrifying moments in which the dreadful killings took place. It also had a full description of the facilities and accommodation available at Goodmayes hospital, so that it knew precisely in what circumstances Mr. Foskett would be held and how he would be treated. If the court had been dissatisfied or worried, it could have called for further reports or made a different disposal, but it did not do so. I am sure the court thought very carefully about these matters and took the decision which seemed proper on the evidence before it.
It is normal practice for my Department, when receiving a court order, to call for copies of any medical reports which may have been made and to confirm that the placement is an appropriate one. If there seems to be any reason to think that the placement is inappropriate—for example, if we are not sure that it is sufficiently secure —we consult the responsible medical officer, but —I stress this point, as it is relevant to my hon. Friend's anxiety—the Home Secretary has no power in such circumstances to direct that a particular patient should be transferred. Accordingly, if the patient's responsible medical officer And the hospital managers are satisfied that the placement is appropriate, there is no action which the Home Secretary—or the Secretary of State for Social Services—can take to effect that patient's transfer to a different hospital. That is the rub of my hon. Friend's anxiety.
My hon. Friend has been punctilious in carrying out his obligations on behalf of his constituents, and he wrote a letter expressing his worry. That letter reached the Home Office before Goodmayes had sent details of Mr. Foskett's reception. I immediately arranged for Dr. Knapman, Mr. Foskett's responsible medical officer, to be consulted urgently on the suitability of Mr. Foskett's placement at Goodmayes hospital. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security similarly arranged for my hon. Friend's concern to be drawn to the attention of the health authority.
I am sorry that as a result of those steps being taken there was a longer delay in replying to my hon. Friend's letter than I should have wished. I hope he understands that inquiries needed to be made. I regret that that time elapsed. I sought to explain the position in my letter of 5 February, and further on 17 February, when I was able to tell my hon. Friend that Dr. Knapman has confirmed that in his opinion Mr. Foskett remains free of any symptoms of mental disorder and poses no risk of any sort to anyone at present and that there is no case for transferring him from Goodmayes hospital. That being the responsible medical officer's view, there is nothing that I can do about the matter. It is for the responsible medical officer to make his decision.
That is the case at the moment, but I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance which he seeks, which is that I shall ensure that Mr. Foskett's case is kept under close scrutiny, and if there is any evidence of any deterioration in his mental state or general behaviour I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall not hesitate to take up with the responsible medical officer once again the question of Mr. Foskett's placement at Goodmayes hospital.
Although, as I have explained, the Home Secretary has no power to order the transfer of a restricted patient from one hospital to another against the advice of the

791
responsible medical officer, such a patient cannot be given permission to leave the hospital, even for a short period, without my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's consent. I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend's consent would not be given unless he was
792
satisfied that the patient could re-enter the community without danger to the public. I very much hope that my hon. Friend and his constituents will have been reassured by what I have been able to tell him this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Eleven o' clock.

WALES
  Paediatric Services
  Paediatric Services
  Perinatal Mortality
  Perinatal Mortality
  Paediatricians and Obstetricians
  Paediatricians and Obstetricians
ENERGY
  Oil Extraction
  Oil Extraction
  Coal Boiler Conversion Scheme
  Coal Boiler Conversion Scheme
  Miners (Free Coal)
  Miners (Free Coal)
  Nuclear Power
  Nuclear Power
  Renewable Energy
  Renewable Energy
  Radiation
  Radiation
  NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.
  NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Kagan Textiles Ltd.
  Kagan Textiles Ltd.
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
PRIME MINISTER
  Government Achievements
  Government Achievements
  Management and Efficiency
  Management and Efficiency
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Forestry Commission (Scotland)
  Forestry Commission (Scotland)
  Lower Paid (Fiscal and Social Policy)
  Lower Paid (Fiscal and Social Policy)
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Westland plc
  Westland plc
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  Turkey
  Turkey
  Sellafield
  Sellafield
THE ARTS
  Tax Incentives
  Tax Incentives
  Libraries (Newspapers)
  Libraries (Newspapers)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Banned Drivers
  Banned Drivers
  Criminal Attempts Act 1981
  Criminal Attempts Act 1981
  Drug Addiction
  Drug Addiction
  Special Constables
  Special Constables
  Ulster Defence Association
  Ulster Defence Association
  Air Pistols
  Air Pistols
  Witchcraft
  Witchcraft
  Police Officers (Racial Discrimination)
  Police Officers (Racial Discrimination)
  News International, Wapping
  News International, Wapping
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Action on Smoking and Health
  Action on Smoking and Health
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Peter William Jones
  Mr. Peter William Jones
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Sunday Trading
  Sunday Trading
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Parliamentary Constituencies
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Riding Hats
  Riding Hats
  Tractors
  Tractors
  Barrow and Birkenhead Shipyards (Privatisation)
  Barrow and Birkenhead Shipyards (Privatisation)
  Company Accounts
  Company Accounts
  Investments (United States)
  Investments (United States)
  Wine
  Wine
  Trade Statistics
  Trade Statistics
  BL (Privatisation)
  BL (Privatisation)
  EC (Internal Market)
  EC (Internal Market)
  Jade Pot Plant
  Jade Pot Plant
  National Accreditation Mark
  National Accreditation Mark
  Paraquat
  Paraquat
  Turkey
  Turkey
ENVIRONMENT
  Thames Water Authority
  Thames Water Authority
  Sellafield
  Sellafield
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Action on Smoking and Health
  Action on Smoking and Health
  Grants (Wolverhampton)
  Grants (Wolverhampton)
  Inner City Areas (Grants)
  Inner City Areas (Grants)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Butter
  Butter
  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Fishery Protection
  Fishery Protection
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  The Gambia
  The Gambia
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Debt
  Debt
  Drought (Sub-Saharan Countries)
  Drought (Sub-Saharan Countries)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Grant
  Student Grant
  Religious Education
  Religious Education
  GCSE Examination
  GCSE Examination
  Donations
  Donations
  National Union of Students
  National Union of Students
  Schools (Independence)
  Schools (Independence)
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Royal College of Music
  Royal College of Music
  Physics Teaching
  Physics Teaching
  Falling Rolls
  Falling Rolls
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Russian Language Teaching
  Russian Language Teaching
  Scientific Research
  Scientific Research
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Politically Controversial Issues
  Politically Controversial Issues
  Midday Supervision (Wolverhampton)
  Midday Supervision (Wolverhampton)
  Engineering and Technology
  Engineering and Technology
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Anglo-Irish Co-operative Action
  Anglo-Irish Co-operative Action
  Local Authorities and Public Bodies
  Local Authorities and Public Bodies
  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference
  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Police Complaints Procedure
  Police Complaints Procedure
  Gaelic Street Names
  Gaelic Street Names
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Harland and Wolff
  Harland and Wolff
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Bank of England
  Bank of England
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Takeaway Food (VAT)
  Takeaway Food (VAT)
  Unemployment (Costs)
  Unemployment (Costs)
  Companies (Employee Ownership)
  Companies (Employee Ownership)
  Public Spending
  Public Spending
  Living Standards
  Living Standards
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Superannuation (Reckonable Service)
  Superannuation (Reckonable Service)
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Turkey
  Turkey
  Badreddine Children
  Badreddine Children
  Cambodian Embassy
  Cambodian Embassy
  Departmental Policies
  Departmental Policies
  Commercial Counsellors
  Commercial Counsellors
  Ministerial Visits
  Ministerial Visits
  Geneva Convention
  Geneva Convention
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Haiti
  Haiti
  Foreign Nationals (Representations)
  Foreign Nationals (Representations)
  Iran-lraq War
  Iran-lraq War
  Iran
  Iran
  South Atlantic Islands Development Corporation Ltd
  South Atlantic Islands Development Corporation Ltd
  Table Bay Marine
  Table Bay Marine
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Philippines
  Philippines
EMPLOYMENT
  News International (Work Permits)
  News International (Work Permits)
  News International Printing Plant, Wapping
  News International Printing Plant, Wapping
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Health and Safety (Letters)
  Health and Safety (Letters)
  Accidents (Power Stations)
  Accidents (Power Stations)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Pensions
  Members' Pensions
  Medical Facilities
  Medical Facilities
SCOTLAND
  Dementia
  Dementia
  Test Drilling
  Test Drilling
  Colleges of Education
  Colleges of Education
  Leukaemia
  Leukaemia
  Radioactive Discharges
  Radioactive Discharges
  Sellafield
  Sellafield
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Scottish Adult Basic Education Unit
  Scottish Adult Basic Education Unit
  Corpach Sawmill
  Corpach Sawmill
  Consultative Committee on the Curriculum
  Consultative Committee on the Curriculum
TRANSPORT
  National Bus Company
  National Bus Company
  M25 (Service Areas)
  M25 (Service Areas)
  Civil Aircraft (Safety)
  Civil Aircraft (Safety)
  Concrete Safety Barriers
  Concrete Safety Barriers
  London Regional Transport (Mercedes Order)
  London Regional Transport (Mercedes Order)
  London Country Buses
  London Country Buses
  Cyclists (Radio Cassette Players)
  Cyclists (Radio Cassette Players)
  Eastleigh Railway Workshop
  Eastleigh Railway Workshop
  Al27 (Safety Barriers)
  Al27 (Safety Barriers)
  Rail Services (Bradford)
  Rail Services (Bradford)
  Dockland Light Railway
  Dockland Light Railway
  Transport Companies (Denationalisation)
  Transport Companies (Denationalisation)
  Airlines (State Subsidies)
  Airlines (State Subsidies)
  Aviation (Liberalisation)
  Aviation (Liberalisation)
  Motor Cycle Couriers
  Motor Cycle Couriers
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  London Transport (Passenger Statistics)
  London Transport (Passenger Statistics)
  British Rail (Investment)
  British Rail (Investment)
  North Wales Main Line
  North Wales Main Line
  Chemicals (Conveyance)
  Chemicals (Conveyance)
  Public Service Vehicles
  Public Service Vehicles
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
  Oil Pollution (North-East Coast)
  Oil Pollution (North-East Coast)
  Bus Companies (Redundancies)
  Bus Companies (Redundancies)
  Lorries (Anti-spray Devices)
  Lorries (Anti-spray Devices)
  Passenger Train Mileage
  Passenger Train Mileage
DEFENCE
  Sharp-Hansford Report
  Sharp-Hansford Report
  Trident
  Trident
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Space Shuttle
  Space Shuttle
  Military Critical Technologies
  Military Critical Technologies
  Anti-ballistic Missiles
  Anti-ballistic Missiles
  Metereological Office
  Metereological Office
  Helicopter Search and Rescue Services
  Helicopter Search and Rescue Services
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Benefits (Claimants)
  Benefits (Claimants)
  Paediatricians
  Paediatricians
  Residential Homes
  Residential Homes
  Board and Lodging Payments
  Board and Lodging Payments
  Income Statistics
  Income Statistics
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Conductive Education Project
  Conductive Education Project
  Disabled People (Representations)
  Disabled People (Representations)
  Claimants
  Claimants
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Cervical Screening
  Cervical Screening
  Supplementary Benefit Regulations
  Supplementary Benefit Regulations
    PROPOSED CHANGES IN SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT SINGLE PAYMENTS REGULATIONS
    PROPOSED CHANGES IN SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT SINGLE PAYMENTS REGULATIONS

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

Road Safety: Driving Standards
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to improve the driving standards of all road users in European Road Safety Year, and whether they will consider sending to all drivers a copy of the Highway Code through the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre to remind drivers of their responsibilities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we shall continue throughout European Road Safety Year and beyond to take every opportunity to remind road users of the need for better driving standards and behaviour. The Highway Code provides full information and is sent by the DVLC free of charge to all motorists at the start of their driving or riding career.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree with me that many drivers seem to forget what the Highway Code is? Does he agree that during European Road Safety Year greater effort should be made to improve driving standards? In this respect will my noble friend consider sending a reminder, as announced by his noble friend last week, showing the Ten Commandments in this excellent handbook called Roadcraft?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the publication Roadcraft, to which he has referred, is an excellent publication. It is the police driving manual and it is aimed at those who have good driving experience. The department publishes a book called Driving which is the definitive document and covers all stages of driving from the commencement.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as this is European Road Safety Year and the Minister has said that every opportunity will be taken to impress upon motorists the importance of this matter, does he recall that last Tuesday the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, asked a Question about driving in winter conditions? I asked a question about the use of television and radio. Is this not an excellent opportunity to use television and to make a series demonstrating to all motorists the proper way of driving?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, unfortunately, I was not here last Tuesday, but I have read the Question in the Official Report. Television is an excellent medium and although we can provide
816
information to the television channels, it is up to them whether they use it.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not true that we as a generation are much better drivers than our fathers and our grandfathers? Is my noble friend aware that the number of people killed on the roads in the 1930s was more than are killed now? We should keep this matter well in proportion.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. I confirm that since 1980 the accident rate has decreased.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not the case that the sort of complacency that has been exhibited by the noble Lord opposite is precisely why books such as Roadcraft should be drawn to the attention of experienced drivers? Is it not the case that it is experienced drivers who get into bad habits over a long period of years and need them corrected? A book such as Roadcraft would bring us all up short and realise that we often need to relearn our craft.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not think that there is any complacency either from my noble friend or from myself. It is a statement of fact that accidents have decreased. I totally agree with the noble Lord that it is up to every individual to drive more safely. Any fool can drive badly enough to be dangerous.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he knows how many people per year take and pass the advanced driving test? If that number proves to be few, will he encourage more motorists to take it?
The Earl of Caithness: I do not know the answer, my Lords; I shall write to my noble friend on it. Whether we can encourage people to take the advanced driving test, which is an excellent test, is something that the department can do in a limited way. It is up to the individual to be responsible and to take these things into his own hands.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us whether the new Highway Code includes any information about what "bus lane" means? The old one did not. Does "bus lane" mean anything more than "Careful chaps, you might meet a bus there"?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think the noble Lord's point is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, I shall write to him.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that some parts of the Highway Code make no sense unless drivers are deterred from driving at 40, 50 and 60 miles an hour in cities?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that all drivers drive within the speed limits. I know, according to a recent survey that we have undertaken, that some do not do so. But I hope that discussions such as today's Question Time will serve to reinforce the point.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that when the Institute of Advanced Motorists was formed—I believe I am one of the few founders left—there was a representative of the department on its executive committee? Can the noble Earl say whether there is a member of the department there now? If not, will he look at that?
The Earl of Caithness: I shall indeed look at it, my Lords.
Lord Edmund-Davies: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us whether the information to be forwarded from the driving centre at Swansea will include the pamphlet which (to my consternation) informed me:
"Remember: on motorways there is no slow lane."?
If it will, can we be informed of the statutory basis of such a restriction?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall have to look into that particular question.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, when the Highway Code is circulated, can a note be added to it or with it warning motorists not to change gear very noisily when they have to pass somebody who is riding a horse?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think there is quite a lot of information concerning changing gear. I do not think it is in the Highway Code but in the department's driving manual to which I have referred.

Road Safety: Tyre Tread Depth
2.43 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in the light of their support for European Road Safety Year they will introduce regulations to make the minimum tyre tread depth in the United Kingdom 1mm across the whole width of the tyre, which is the minimum prescribed standard in most EEC countries.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Department of Transport is conducting a review of the tyre regulations and tomorrow my honourable friend the Minister responsible for roads and traffic is meeting the various organisations concerned with this subject.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his Answer. I think I had better wait and see what his honourable friend has to say.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, since our safety record is so much better than that of our Continental friends, would it not be a better idea to suggest that they adjust their regulations to conform with ours?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can inform the House that there are not European regulations as such. Each individual country has different regulations. I think that, until there is harmonisation, there seems to be no demand in Europe for bringing their regulations to the standard of ours or ours to theirs.

The Arts: Business Sponsorship
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how business sponsorship of the arts is being encouraged.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government's Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme offers matching grants for new sponsorship. This has already brought £6·7 million of new money into the arts since it was set up in October 1984, including £5 million worth of new sponsorship from industry and commerce. In addition, my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts takes every opportunity, as he visits different parts of the country, to publicise the benefits of arts sponsorship to both parties.
The Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts works full time promoting business sponsorship nationwide.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Government very much on this policy. It seems to be working extremely well. I wonder whether the Minister can say whether it covers Scotland and Wales, and what other ideas the Government have for spreading it out so as to get more money from business.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. I can tell my noble friend that to the best of my knowledge and belief this is a countrywide scheme. In regard to new ideas, we are continually keeping the system under review. The Government have already done all kinds of things on the tax front to make it more sensible for businesses and individuals to give money to all charities, not only to the arts, and to make that more likely.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is it not the case that, while providing means to encourage business sponsorship, which the Minister has mentioned, the Government's own inadequate arts subsidy discourages a climate of comprehensive support for the arts? Without larger sums from the public sector being made available, the arts will continue to retain their low priority and remain susceptible to the whims of patronage instead of developing their huge revenue earnings and employment potential, which they are unable to do at the moment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think I disagree with the noble Baroness. The public subsidy for the arts is extremely generous as a basic level and the

819
Government's intention, through the business sponsorship schemes, has been to top this up. The arts as a whole are benefiting very greatly from this.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend's use of the expression "already" in connection with tax treatment of this matter give reasonable grounds for hope for 18th March?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I too have read recent speculation in the press. I do not think it would be right for me to comment on it beyond saying that my right honourable friend receives all kinds of advice, good, bad and plain lunatic, in forming his Budget. I myself have even been known to contribute.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does not the emphasis on business sponsorship mean, in the case of music, that popular music, or music which appeals to the largest number of people, will tend to be played ad nauseam, whereas music which appeals to smaller numbers will tend to be neglected? Will the noble Lord ask the Arts Council whether it finds that, with the gradual shift of emphasis towards business sponsorship, the minority interests in music are tending to be neglected?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, perhaps I may say, as a regular visitor to Glyndebourne, which to the best of my knowledge and belief is entirely subsidised by private finance and has no government money at all, that on many occasions they produce opera which I think would not otherwise see the light of day. Thus I do not see that the minority interest is always being neglected.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, although this is a very attractive scheme in principle, in practice it is extremely difficult to get if off the ground? Is he aware that in my local town of Guildford, which is not unprosperous, we have had no response whatsoever? My noble friend Lord Bessborough, who also is president of his theatre in Chichester, has been successful but in only a very limited way. Can we do something to advise theatres such as ours, which now have no help from the Arts Council, what technique should be followed to attract local business sponsorship so that we might have the benefit of this scheme? At present we try and try but have no result.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes. I should advise my noble friend and others in his position to get in touch with the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts, which has three full-time regional people—I was going to call them "salesmen" but "directors" might be a more appropriate term—who have been very successful in the past year and who I have no doubt would like to help my noble friend.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, would the Minister agree that, unlike Glyndebourne, most of the clients of the Arts Council are of no interest whatever to rich corporations or rich individuals for the purpose of advertising or of status, and that that applies particularly to those enterprises which at the moment are struggling for survival after April 1st? Can
820
the Minister tell the House how much private money he has managed to raise for the Empire, Sunderland, for the Theatre Royal at Liverpool, for the Philharmonic Hall at Liverpool or, indeed, for Sadler's Wells?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, not without notice; and certainly not at Question Time can I go into detailed answers on such an exhaustive list as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, has just produced. However, what I will say as far as successor bodies and abolition are concerned is that they have been given 100 per cent. of the rate support grant that the senior bodies would have had in the coming year, and therefore the fact that the money was spent in the past is no reason to suppose that it will not be spent in the future.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, on that point, is the Minister not aware that the Arts Council's estimate was for £35 million to make up for the effects of abolition and that, in fact, they have got £25 million; so that, for starters, they are £10 million short?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am well aware of the Arts Council's estimate—in fact, we had a mini-debate on it not very long ago—and I am well aware of the provision my right honourable friend has made. But this, of course, is extra to the 100 per cent. rate support grant figure that I mentioned just now to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the Government should say a word of thanks to our noble friend Lord Boardman, who has provided us with that wonderful Reynolds Exhibition at the Royal Academy?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I most certainly agree with the noble Lord. I welcome all sponsorship wherever it occurs and from whomsoever it comes.

Official Secrets Legislation: Prosecution
2.52 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what authorisations are required to protect civil servants from prosecution under Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 in the event of publication by them in whole or in part of classified documents to unauthorised persons.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, the relevant offence under Section 2 of the 1911 Act consists of the communication by a person who posseses information or a document by virtue of his official position to a person to whom he is not authorised to communicate it. If he is so authorised, no question of protecting him from prosecution arises: he has committed no offence. What constitutes authorisation in any particular case depends on the circumstances of that case.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that that Answer confuses the issue more than ever, and that it is now totally perplexing? Is the noble and learned Lord further aware that, because this matter was brought to the forefront in the Westland issue, masses of ordinary people up and down the country, including lawyers and skilled parliamentarians, cannot understand why it is possible for someone to leak a letter from the Solicitor-General without him knowing it and be given a private assurance by another Minister that if they committed this act, which seems to be an offence, they would be covered for it? Would he not agree that this is disturbing right through the ranks of Parliament and the country in general?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I would not accept the suggestion which is made by the noble Lord. The section is quite clear, and I have given an explanation about it. So far as the question of immunity is concerned, my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General made quite clear what the position was about that, and, indeed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made the matter even clearer in her Statement of 23rd January in another place. I should have thought that that would have been quite sufficient to allay any such fears as those suggested by the noble Lord just now.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in the debate on the Official Secrets Act last March the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said—and I think I quote his words accurately—that Section 2 is imperfect. In view of that and of the general public concern about this section of the Act, can the noble and learned Lord say what the Government have done in the meantime to introduce an amendment or new legislation to deal with a matter which is of acute public concern?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I think that what the noble Lord opposite has said was a matter of concern which was placed before Parliament in the Session of 1979–80. The difficulty has always been to find another broadly acceptable measure which defines the information which genuinely needs protection from disclosure. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, when questioned about this matter on 14th January in another place, made clear that an attempt had been made to amend the Act. There had been considerable debate on the matter, and although many people wanted change there was no agreement on what those changes should be.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord saying that it is not possible whatsoever to tell a Cabinet Minister or any other Minister about shielding civil servants who wish, at his or her desire, to leak information to the public press? Does that also apply under the Official Secrets Act to a highly sensitive defensive issue which could be of use to a foreign power—that, provided that civil servant is guarded by a Minister, all will be well and there is nothing to worry about? That is what the general public are asking.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I do not think that the general public are asking that question.
822
So far as concerns the issue which the noble Lord raised earlier, my noble friend the Leader of the House made quite clear to your Lordships in a Statement which was being delivered in another place by the Prime Minister that the Attorney-General had authorised the Prime Minister to say that, after consultation with and the full agreement of the Director of Public Prosecutions and senior Treasury counsel, he had decided that there was no justification for the institution of proceedings under the Official Secrets Act in respect of any of the persons concerned in the matter.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord tell the House whether in this Administration press secretaries who are journalists have the power to authorise breaches of the Official Secrets Act? In the Westland matter, the civil servants in the DTI told Sir Robert Armstrong that they sought, and thought that they had, the authority of the Prime Minister's press secretary to breach the Official Secrets Act. If they do have this power, will he tell the House where it comes from and' how it can be reconciled with the constitutional principle of ministerial accountability?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, with due respect, that seems to be going beyond the scope of this particular Question. I merely say that my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General said in another place on 3rd February in relation to the issue of prosecution of Mr. Bernard Ingham that, after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions and senior Treasury counsel, he took the view that his published guidelines would not be fulfilled by any prosecution.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord explain more fully to the House and clarify his use of the word "authorisation"? Is he saying that a Minister may order his civil servants to break the law and that in that case neither the civil servants nor the Minister have breached Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act? What is the force of this word "authorisation"? Is it authorisation to break the law; and, if so, is it not the Minister who should be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I make it quite clear—and I thought that I had done so in the opening response which I made to the Question—that what constitutes authorisation in any particular case depends upon the circumstances of that case. I cannot go beyond that matter. That is a matter which any lawyer would fully understand.

Business
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 which is to be given in another place to a Private Notice Question on the sale of VSEL/Cammell Laird Group. This will be followed by my noble friend Lady Trumpington who,

823
again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on Social Security Benefits (Up-rating).
My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour, and that during this adjournment the Report stages of the Incest and Related Offences (Scotland) Bill and the Marriage Bill will be taken.

Blyth Harbour Bill [H.L.]
3 p.m.
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Outer Space Bill [H.L.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
3.2 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Codes or recommended practice as regards publicity]:
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 25, at end insert ("for the guidance of local authorities in determining whether to incur expenditure on publicity.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, which is to insert at the end of Clause 4(1) the
824
words which appear on the Marshalled List. This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 17, which is an alternative to No. 16, and also with Amendment No. 19. This set of amendments, to which by leave I would wish to speak, is designed to ensure that the codes issued by the Secretary of State under Clause 4 shall be advisory only, being for the guidance of the local authority, and this only for the purpose of determining whether to incur expenditure on publicity—a purpose which Amendment No. 16 has subsumed from part of Clause 4(6). If the purpose is intended by the Government to be wider than is stated in Clause 4(6), then Amendment No. 17 serves as an alternative to Amendment No. 16; but if I interpret correctly certain correspondence which I have only just received, it would appear that Amendment No. 17 may not arise.
Amendment No. 19, which is common to both alternatives, proposes the excision of "shall have regard to" from Clause 4(6) as otiose. The intervening amendments which relate to Clause 4—that is, Nos. 17A, 17B, 18A and 19A—do not in any way affect the substance of this set of grouped amendments and these amendments are in no way governed by the intervening amendments.
These grouped amendments, which are concerned with status of the codes, as distinct from content, bring the drafting of Clause 4, which has to be construed as a whole, into line with the intention expressed by my noble friend the Minister on Second Reading. The Official Report is not admissible as an aid to construction in any court of law and so it is essential to the revisory role that the status of any code (whatever that status may be) should be plain on the words of the clause in the Bill which authorise the introduction of the code. In this Bill, which is overtly interventionist, it is of singular importance that the purely advisory status of these codes should be established. That is, if indeed codes of practice are needed at all, a question which only arises on the Question whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill.
On the assumption that codes are requisite—an assumption made for the purpose of the amendments to which I speak—these codes to be issued by the Secretary of State under Clause 4 are advisory codes of guidance as to recommended practice for the local authority. The functions affected by these recommendations lie within the realm where the local authority are the sole judges of fact and of the manner in which they exercise their discretion. Such indeed is the judicial approach, according to the reasoning of three decisions of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House in 1985 and 1986, unfortunately which followed the vintage era of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the last of which was Puhlhofer v. London Borough of Hillingdon. That decision was handed down on 6th February.
From the reasoning of all these decisions, it is all too plain that the words "shall have regard to" in Clause 4(6) have no legal effect whatever and afford no legal sanction if the recommendations in the code are not followed by the local authority—this is because resort to judicial review may not be had to challenge or monitor such functions of the local authority as are affected by the codes, save in the wholly rare and exceptional case in which, as I mentioned on Second

825
Reading, the retention of Clause 4(6) is wholly irrelevant.
The rare and exceptional cases—where no reasonable authority mindful of its duties could have made the decision, which in fact verges upon the point of absurdity, bad faith, abuse of power and error of law—arise under the inherent jurisdiction of the court as interpreted by case law decisions and regulated by the rules of court and as a matter of public administrative law. That is a jurisdiction which is in no way affected by the inclusion or excision of Clause 4(6). In such proceedings, the extent to which the codes afford assistance to the point at issue (beyond that afforded by the Act itself) the codes are admissible for what they are worth.
Therefore if the enjoinder to the local authority in Clause 4(6) to have regard to the code lacks legal efficacy and if breach of such is not justiciable, and if the intention is that the status should be advisory, then why dress up words of mere exhortation in the garb of mumbo-jumbo mandatory statutory duty, which gives a semblance of legal efficacy but affords none?
If breach of the code is not to afford some extrajudicial sanction available to central Government, such as withholding rate support—and I understand from the recent correspondence I have just received that such assuredly is not the intention of the Government—then it is not understood what conceivable purpose the words "shall have regard to" in Clause 4(6) are intended to serve.
The intention of my noble friend the Minister, which this set of amendments is designed to reflect, was stated on Second Reading at col. 1018 of the Official Report and may be restated, I hope accurately, as follows. First, these codes will contain recommendations affecting political and other publicity, and will be drafted in consultation with the local authorities as to the matter of content, with which we are not concerned today. Secondly, as to status, they are for the guidance of the local authority and not for the court. Thirdly—
Lord Elton: Will my noble friend forgive me for intervening? I may have misheard him, but he appeared to be starting to read something recorded at col. 1018 of the Official Report of the Second Reading debate. I am not sure whether he is reading words in that column or that I have uttered. Can he just tell me what the quotation is?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have to take up the time of the Committee. It may be col. 1078 because I transposed my notes. It is where my noble friend was dealing, in his opening speech, with the intention of the codes of practice.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to my noble friend. My point was that col. 1018, if my noble friend will permit me to say so, was the heart of my own speech and I did not recognise the words he was uttering. But if he attributes them to somebody else, I have no objection.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: These are the intentions of my noble friend the Minister from his own speech.
826
If my noble friend looks at Hansard, he will see that I used the words as I understood them, and as I restated them. The restatement, certainly in the first part, deals with his information that the codes will contain recommendations affecting both political and other publicity. Secondly, in that context he said that they would be drafted in consultation with the local authority. Then as to status, which is the second point, he said that they were for the guidance of the local authority; and, as I understand that and restate it, they are not for the guidance of the court.
Thirdly, he said in terms—I hope my notes are correct—that they have no statutory force, which, restated, means that failure to observe the codes is not justiciable. Lastly, my noble friend the Minister said that they may not be taken into account in Clause 2 proceedings to enhance the words of Clause 2, and will therefore not, as I restate the proposition, be admissible in Clause 2 proceedings.
The words "shall have regard to" in Clause 4(6), which Amendment No. 19 seeks to excise, are not at all apt when used in context with a purely advisory code. They are, however, appropriate for a legally binding purpose, such as defining the scope of the prohibition in Clause 2. In this context, Amendment No. 6 cast a spotlight upon the curious and inexplicable drafting distinction between "particular regard shall be had" in Clause 2(2)(a) and "regard shall be had" in Clause 2(2)(b). So now in the statute we have three expressions: "shall have regard to", "particular regard shall be had" and "regard shall be had".
The use of any of the three versions, which in plain English have much the same meaning, in one and the same short Bill, but dependent wholly upon contextual distinction either to import or to negate statutory effect—because with the codes of practice there is no statutory effect; with the Clause 2 prohibition there is statutory effect—to achieve both purposes, introduces a woeful want of clarity. It is of importance to avoid any semblance of confusion from cross-pollination in this regard, and the excision of Clause 4(6) would also serve this end.
3.15 p.m.
Although it is of importance to know whether such codes are for the guidance of local authorities, as your Lordships will see from Clause 4(1), as to content, style, distribution and other related but unspecified matters, or only for the guidance of the local authority in a determination to incur expenditure on publicity, it is also important to know because thereby hangs the alternative between Amendment No. 16 and Amendment No. 17. But again, if I interpret aright the letter which I have just received, Amendment No. 16 which I am moving is the appropriate amendment.
The hope is that my noble friend will accept either Amendment No. 16 or Amendment No. 17, having clarified his position and that, in any event, he will accept Amendment No. 19 and excise Clause 4(6) when moved in due course. On the basis that Amendment No. 16, in so far as it subsumes part of Clause 4(6), reflects the intention of the Government that the codes should only afford guidance to the local authority in a determination to incur expenditure on publicity, as I understand the recent correspondence, I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he could help me. He has quoted an extremely recent case which I have just identified, Puhlhofer v. London Borough of Hillingdon, of which I have The Times report here. On a quick glance, the judgment does not seem to say what the noble Lord has led me to suppose it would say. Therefore I want to make sure that I have the right case, because it does not say anything at all about the status of the code. The warnings given are against using judicial review to challenge the merits of a local authority's decision, and I understand that the judgments stress that judicial review is not about the merits, but is about whether the decision has been taken properly. If my noble friend can tell me that I have got that right, it may make things easier later on.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to my noble friend. He has the case right. I have the transcript from the Judicial Office. I do not know what my noble friend has found in The Times report. The official judgment, on page 9, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the express affirmation by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, on page 1, wholly support the reasoning which I have put before your Lordships, wholly support the concept that in a situation such as this the functions of a local authority are not open to monitoring or challenge by way of judicial review, because they lie within the realm of fact and discretion, which is for the local authority, and that it is only in the wholly exceptional case that judicial review could operate. Indeed, in those circumstances, according to the reasoning of this judgment, read in context with the reasoning of the judgment in the Nottinghamshire County Council case—I do not want to turn the Committee into a tutorial—and the case of In re W v. Hertfordshire County Council (the three decisions which took place in 1985 and 1986) I am relieved to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in his place because he more than anyone could convince your Lordships, or otherwise, if it were right, that my proposition as to the legal situation is correct.
Lord Underhill: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him to enlighten the Committee as to what is the letter, to which he has twice referred, which he received this morning?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The letter which I received as I sat in my place—a letter of 21st February—is a private letter from my noble friend to myself. I do not wish to have to read out a private letter.
Lord Elton: By leave of the Committee, I should say that there is nothing I wish the noble Lord to conceal from the Committee. The letter was private only in the sense that it was an answer to a letter which I had received the night before on a point about this debate. This is not a tutorial on the procedures of the Committee or upon the state of the law. I merely wanted to say that there is nothing, as it were, clandestine about the letter. The point on which I intervened earlier was to establish the relevance of the judgment about which I still have doubts, but I shall return to
828
those matters when I properly make my own speech in my own time.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in everything that he has said. He has been most thorough and extensive in what he has had to say and I can therefore be relatively brief. I should like to start by referring to subsection (6) (because that is the most important subsection) which is the subject of Amendment No. 19. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has said, Amendment No. 16 is by way of being consequential to Amendment No. 19.
As I see it, subsection (6) is without any legal effect, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said on Second Reading. But I regard it as not merely having no legal effect, not merely as being "otiose"—the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell—but as being positively misleading. It is misleading to the common reader because it gives the impression that it does have some force. The uninstructed, ordinary citizen or Member of either House of Parliament is likely to think that the imperative words used, "shall have regard", must be enforceable or justiciable, as otherwise they would not have been included in the Bill. "Goodness", the uninstructed reader is likely to say, "the local authorities will have to watch out. They will have to watch their step. This is a tough measure. If they don't jolly well 'have regard' as they are told to, they can be forced to do so by one means or another".
We have heard from the noble Lord the Minister that the Government are not proposing to bring force majeure to bear on the local authorities by means of the rate support grant. We have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that these words have no force. Why, I therefore ask, are they in the Bill? Should they not, as these amendments propose, be deleted? I cannot remember the adjective used by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I think he said that they were mere "mumbo-jumbo". The word that I was going to use, and I am inclined to use it, is mere "flummery". They are either one or the other, or both.
If they are removed, Amendment No. 16 is required. This is purely consequential, and we shall then know that the codes are,
"for the guidance of local authorities in determining"
—then we go on with the words of the amendment. That is calling a spade a spade. It is telling the truth. I do not think that Clause 6 is telling the truth. It is positively misleading. If the codes of practice have no force I myself have no objection to this clause; but if they are to have the force of law, I think it would be only right for drafts of the codes of practice to be made available to Parliament before we proceed to any further stage of the Bill.
I shall refer only very briefly to the very interesting debate that we had on codes of practice initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and to the reply given to that debate by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. He rightly said that no problem arises with non-statutory codes, but where they have a statutory

829
basis, as in this case, it really is necessary for Parliament to know clearly what is to be enacted and what legislative effect it will have. I do not want to be mistaken; I am not in the least against codes of practice as such—far from it, I am very much in favour of them. It has been a welcome development over the past 10 years or so in the interests of not cluttering up the statute book with detail and in the interests of providing flexibility. They can be altered and revised, whereas it is very difficult to alter the parent statute.
My objection is to this type of clause. It has been misleadingly called a trigger clause, but it triggers nothing. You pull the trigger and there is no bang. I am quite happy if the purpose of the clause is merely to give a statutory basis to what the Government call good practice in the relevant area and if, to use the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, the code is nothing more than what it appears to be. If these amendments are passed, that is the effect of them. For that reason alone, I beg to support what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has said.
I was going to refer to the case of Puhlhofer, but as it has been so extensively quoted I think there is no reason for me to do so. But it is very recent authority—6th February—and if we have been so sternly enjoined by two noble and learned Lords sitting judicially that it is in the highest degree undesirable for local authorities to be taken to court except where they have been acting perversely, I think one could say that to all intents and purposes subsection (6) of this clause as drafted is of no effect and should be deleted.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: On the question of codes, we have made some progress. The rather ridiculous draft code published with the Bill has been withdrawn, but I should prefer, as would the National Union of Journalists, which is my own union, and the local authority associations, to have no statutory code at all, but self-regulation. Only the Government, for unclear reasons, persist with a code backed by a statute. If there is to be a code, however, it is essential that its status is clear to all and not merely to the Government Front Bench. I shall be moving Amendment No. 17, which would simply add
"for the guidance of local authorities"
to the clause that empowers the Minister to issue codes of recommended practice.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has argued, with a learned skill that I cannot emulate, the object is simply to clarify the status of the codes. The fact that the codes are created under the authority of an Act of Parliament may seem to confer a legal status upon them that they do not possess. It seems that they would impose no legal obligation upon local authorities; they are simply advisory. Why not say so?
Can it be that the Government are hoping to intimidate or to bamboozle local authorities? Can it be that the Government are hoping that timorous local authorities will consider themselves bound by the letter of the code rather than by its spirit? Can it be that the Government hope that the defence of a local authority would be a weakened by its failure to observe
830
the letter of some clause in the code? If not, why not accept one of the two amendments that clairify the Bill?
For a similar set of reasons, I support the noble Lord, Lord Cambell of Alloway, in his proposal to delete subsection (6). If the proposal is accepted then I shall support his Amendment No. 16, which neatly brings guidance and expenditure together.
Lord Kilmarnock: From these Benches, we should be happy with either of the two amendments. The council's duty to inform the public on local government issues is threatened by the whole of Clause 4. Ideally, we should prefer to see the clause removed altogether. However, the Committee has before it two proposals that go a long way to solving our difficulties.
The draft code that was published and placed in the Library in December 1985 has now been withdrawn after the strong criticism it drew from the many interests involved, especially the officers of the local authorities, who would have been required to carry it out. In that connection, it is worth quoting what the chief executives had to say:
"The overlaying of a code of practice by the Secretary of State, as provided for in Clause 4, will produce a state of confusion for those who have to interpret the legislation. It would lead to the provision of two sets of rules (neither of them easy to interpret), one in statute and one in a code of practice of uncertain status".
That uncertain status has already been brought out by the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Henderson of Brompton.
Despite the criticism of the original code, it appears that the Government are still intent on going down the road of a statutory code. However, as I pointed out to the House on Second Reading, that really does not seem equitable. In the Financial Services Bill now passing through Parliament, the Government have insisted upon self-regulation of the financial services industries depite recent and flagrant abuses in the City. Yet for local elected authorities the Government reject self-regulation. We must remember that although some authorities have been guilty of abuse—and the number hazarded at is only some 12, 13, 15 or 20—there are something like 400 local authorities in this country that have performed their functions with perfect propriety. Those are the local authorities at which the code would bite.
I mentioned also on Second Reading the code of practice of the Institute of Public Relations, which states:
"In promoting their interests or policies in politically contentious issues, local authorities should not collaborate or jointly organise activities with party political organisations or with organisations specifically committed to the support of one political party".
That goes a long way against the politicisation of local government.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, performed a valuable service in moving his amendment and in pointing out that the code is an advisory code that is not or should not be intended to be considered by the courts. The role of the courts is now fully taken care of in Clause 2 as amended by the Committee. If we are to have a code at all, then it should be an advisory code for local authorities to follow. It should not be relevant at all to the consideration by judges of Clause 2, which is the clause of the Bill that concerns them.

831
On those grounds, we would accept either of the amendments. Before the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Ardwick, decide which amendment they are going to rally round, it occurs to me that Amendment No. 17 would require the backup of Amendment No. 19; otherwise it would be incomplete. It is therefore possible that the Committee might feel that it would be preferable to accept the two amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
Lord Leatherland: I have a question to ask. I should first like to explain that at present I have no direct contact with any form of local government, although in the past I was chairman of one of the largest county councils in the country and also chairman of its finance committee. My question is this: if a council contravenes the suggested code of practice, will the district auditor be able to surcharge the councillors concerned?
Lord Denning: This amendment raises the whole question of the status of codes of practice in our law. We had a discussion about this matter a few weeks ago. At that time the opinion was expressed in this Chamber by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, that if Parliament is going to produce codes of practice then it must at the same time apply its mind to stating in what terms is to be the effect of a code when it is prepared. In other words, when Parliament approves a code of practice it should at the same time state what the code's legal effect is to be, if and when that code goes before the courts of law.
In some codes, such as the Highway Code, the statute says that the code is to be taken into account by the courts. In the case of the Highway Code, that is the case. If one is considering whether or not a man has been negligent, then one examines the Highway Code. If he has not obeyed that code then it is some evidence of negligence on his part. In that way the code is taken into account in law and is admissible in evidence.
The same is true in the case of the industrial relations code—a copy of which I have in my hand. If the court or the tribunal is considering whether a man has been fairly or unfairly dismissed, it may examine the code to establish whether or not he ought to be given reasons on his dismissal or whether it can be challenged. In other words, the code is taken into account in disputes of that kind. In the latest code, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, it is taken into account in this way because the statute says so. If the police officer is charged with a disciplinary offence and has disobeyed the code he can be punished, or whatever, by the authority. Furthermore, let us suppose a civilian is claiming that a policeman has wrongfully searched or arrested him. In such a case, the code can be referred to in order to ascertain whether his action was or was not right. Those are perfectly understandable provisions. One can see what is the legal effect of the code.
However, in this Bill we have a different code. It is not between private individuals, such as I have been saying, but where a local authority is to issue publicity and there is a code of practice to govern it. If it is to come within the law, in what way will it do so? At Second Reading I suggested—and I still think it may
832
be right—that the courts could inquire to see whether, in this case subsection (6) has been fulfilled or not. It reads:
"Local authorities shall have regard to the provisions of the codes in force under this section in determining whether to incur expenditure on publicity".
But it seems to me that that provision would be ineffective. It does not say how much regard the local authority must have—whether it is to have much or little regard—and it would be very difficult to challenge the local authorities on that point, especially in regard to recent decisions. I might have done it when I was in the Court of Appeal but, on the other hand, there are three recent decisions of the House of Lords which say quite distinctly that the courts ought not to interfere with what local authorities do, in their discretion, or in the conduct of affairs entrusted to them unless they have gone beyond their powers. Therefore the question is: could it ever be said to the court that these local authorities have gone beyond their powers? It could not, I think, by invoking subsection (6).
An outline of a code of practice was issued for consideration in another place. It was pointed out in that outline code of practice that the publicity which comes within this clause covers not only paid publicity, paid advertising in the press, on radio and television, with leaflets and campaigns and so on, but also unpaid publicity including council and committee reports, consultation documents, press releases, press conference statements, media interviews and the like. All this comes within the code of practice and the wording of it is so wide that it does not seem to me to be fit for consideration by courts of law.
For example, "relevant matters" are the content, tone and presentation; the treatment should be objective; it should not be over-simplified or personalised; it must not directly attack policies and opinions of other political parties or groups. I wonder how our little district council at Basingstoke would get on, because it has passed a resolution unanimously condemning the Sunday trading Bill. Is it guilty of political propaganda? I am afraid that if this code of practice goes out we shall find freedom of debate and freedom of speech unduly circumscribed, not by law but by a code of practice.
Those are the dangers that I see in it. On the other hand, having expressed the dangers I should like to join forces with my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton. At all events, we ought to know what is the legal effect, if any. He would agree, and I see there is great force in it, with a code of guidance which has no legally binding force, for which local authorities cannot be taken before the courts, or anything of that kind, but which leaves to their own good judgment their activities in matters which concern them and does not rely on anyone taking them to the courts of law over what they have done. In other words, the code could be left, provided there is no legal sanction. As my noble friend Lord Henderson says, it could be left as it is without subsection (6), but I am not sure that it would not be better to leave it out altogether.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: It is on that note on the part of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that I, from these Benches, should like to endorse what has

833
been said with such force and clarity by all noble Lords and noble and learned Lords who have so far taken part in this debate on this amendment. If anything emerges from the discussion it is the danger of having a code introduced in circumstances where it is inappropriate to have a code at all. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in his masterly analysis in the debate on codes a fortnight or so ago endorsed one principle of immense importance. It is this. Since there are five or six different types of code, having five or six utterly different effects in law, it is imperative that when Parliament ever has resort to a code it should identify to the letter exactly what the status of that particular code should be. I think that we can put it in these homely terms: the breed of the animal must be specifically spelt out.
That is the very great defect in relation to this provision. On the face of it, as far as the ordinary intelligent layman is concerned, it appears to be mandatory. The subsection states, "shall have regard to". That is the mandatory language normally used by Parliament. But it is clear from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and other noble Lords have said, that it has no effect whatever. In other words, it is passing off an utterly unmandatory provision almost in the guise of a mandatory subsection. Therefore I believe that there is at best the danger of confusion and at worst the danger that local authorities will walk in awe of the content of these codes.
I feel that the logic of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is, as always, unremitting and remorseless. It is this, as I understand it. Where Parliament has already laid down the strict boundaries of a restriction and a code is resorted to, then that code should make no reference to those boundaries but should operate only within them. The draft code—I appreciate that it has now been withdrawn, but it illustrates classically, to my mind, the dangers with which we are concerned—involves itself with delineating, in part at any rate, the boundaries. In other words—
Lord Elton: I think I must remind the noble Lord that the code to which he refers was at no stage meant to be anything but indicative, and my honourable friend has actually withdrawn it in terms and is starting with a blank piece of paper. Therefore to argue from this piece of paper on any intentions we may have is, with respect, misleading.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I totally accept that it was never the intention of Her Majesty's Government to issue this as a code. If I gave that impression, I withdraw it completely. I am saying that this is, if you like, a student's example of what a code should not be and an example of the danger of mixing the legislative provisions which are in Clause 2 with the provisions which are extra-legislative and intended to be in the code.
I should like to make just one last point. Widdicombe looked very carefully at the situation and I think that Widdicombe produced one of the best argued reports on local government that have been seen for a very long time. Widdicombe made no recommendation in relation to a code. It considered
834
two possible alternatives. One was a national body that would draft some form of utterly non-legislative advice; the other was a system of consensus procedure. It rejected both and said that ultimately it must be a matter of self-regulation.
Very humbly I would suggest that perhaps the best thing that the Government can do is to consider whether it is necessary to have Clause 4 in the Bill at all, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in fact has suggested. However, if it has to be there, then clearly subsection (6) should go, because of those inherent dangers that Members of the Committee have already pointed out.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Before my noble friend replies, I must say that after listening to the comments so far on these various amendments and from my 20 years' experience as a member of a local authority, I honestly do not see dangers of the magnitude that has been expressed. However, from the experience of the last 15 to 20 years I believe that some sort of guidance, which could take the form of the right sort of code, is necessary. Local authorities have done things which have been shown not to be in the interest either of the local authority itself or of the nation as a whole, so something ought to be done.
Where I differ to some extent from the Alliance Benches is in the fact that so far only 15 or 20 authorities have been clearly recognised, and I should have thought that was a clear indication that something needs to be done to prevent the problem spreading even further. So if it has been decided that something ought to be done and if one has gone so far as to say that a code of practice may well be the answer, I do not see at this stage that a great deal of danger exists in Clause 4 as it now stands in the Bill. Where I think we ought to be on the alert and go into some sort of detailed examination is in subsection (4) of Clause 4, where my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has tabled an amendment. Subsection (4) is the part on which we ought to be focusing our attention. It is the code itself which will carry the dangers, if there are any dangers, by having it included in the statute.
I hope that when the code is put before both Houses of Parliament, as is suggested, then Parliament will do its duty and see that it represents what is fair and equitable in the light of the experience that we have had so far.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: If the noble Lord will give way, perhaps I may intervene here to save time and seek to clarify the issue. I think it is common ground between my noble friend the Minister and myself that when the code goes before Parliament for approval that will have absolutely no effect on its legal efficacy, which is the issue with which we are concerned. All that it does is enable Parliament to approve the way in which the Secretary of State has exercised his powers. That has nothing to do with the point in question.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I am glad of that intervention because I was going to say exactly that, so there is no need for me to repeat it. But the code itself is still the basis for how it will be treated. When one

835
comes to the legal situation—if I may have my noble friend's attention after his intervention—I believe that it is at the point of subsection (6), under which
"Local authorities shall have regard to the provisions of the codes",
that any legal sanction ought to come in. I interpret subsection (6) to mean that, having agreed a code which has the approval of both Houses of Parliament, the local authority shall have regard to it, and if any matter arising from it comes in front of the courts, then the courts shall have regard to what is in the code as approved by the two Houses. So it really means that legal authority is not being put within the statute, but that there is a code which has the approval of both Houses of Parliament and a local authority would then be deemed to be expected to have regard to that code.
If it is suggested at any point that a local authority has deviated from the code and the matter has to go to the arbitrator of a court, then the court shall take it into account. This is precisely what I understood from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is done with the Highway Code. I believe that that is a most useful example of how a code can be applied and that is what I would expect to happen here: that the courts would have regard to the code, just as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, with his great authority has said that the courts have regard to the Highway Code.
So from my experience I would say that there is nothing terribly dangerous in Clause 4. There would be if the code at which we eventually arrive turns out to be the wrong one, so when we decide the composition of the code under subsection (4), it is then that we ought to be on the alert. Having arrived at that code, we would expect the local authorities genuinely to have regard to it, and if it were suggested that they have deviated from it then the courts should have regard to it but also take into account all the wider issues which surrounded anything that had been done.
Lord Beloff: I find it difficult to follow the argument of the noble Lord who has just sat down and I hope that the Minister will be able to help the Committee. My interpretation of what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and other noble Lords with a legal background, was the opposite; namely, that the code itself, even if approved by both Houses of Parliament, was not the equivalent of the Highway Code because it dealt with an entirely different aspect of activity and therefore it would have no force in the courts.
If that is the case, then I must admit that my worries are the opposite of those which have been expressed so far. Unlike other noble Lords who have spoken, I do not represent the interests of local authorities nor the National Union of Journalists nor the employees of local authorities, but vicariously, since I live under a perfectly respectable local authority, the interests of the ratepayers whose interests this Bill was originally intended to safeguard. It was intended to safeguard their interests by making it impossible for other local authorities to do what it has been generally admitted some local authorities have done, which is to abuse their powers of giving information in order to make political propaganda.
836
If we are now told that the code is of no force, then I would say, with respect, to the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, that a code is not the way to curtail them, any more than is the idea of self-regulation, because we have enough experience to know that self-regulation means nothing whatever to a small number of local authorities.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: Will the noble Lord kindly give way? I think he must have misunderstood me, and if so I am sure the fault is mine. I was saying that Clause 2 is the regulation: that is the legislative prohibition. The code legislatively does not take the matter beyond that. I was arguing that rather than having a non-legislative code, why not do what Widdicombe suggested, which is to have self-regulation? It is a different argument.
4 P.m.
Lord Beloff: Obviously I accept the noble Lord's explanation, but I should still like to hear from my noble friend whether the Government are convinced that Clause 2 in itself provides a sufficient safeguard without the necessity of a code; that is to say, whether it provides the legal sanctions which exist, or ought to exist, in all cases of misdoing whether by individuals or companies, as has been referred to, or by local authorities. To me as a layman the debate on the amendment seems to suggest that at any rate the codes do not provide the protection sought for the ratepayers. The words "advisory" or "non-advisory" seem almost irrelevant. Whatever is said, apparently the code can have no legal effect. I should like to hear what the Government's view now is on their powers to safeguard the ratepayer.
Lord Airedale: I echo the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that the Minister may be able to enlighten us. I have a feeling that the Committee finds itself in considerable darkness with regard to the matter. It was some time ago that the Minister intervened in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway to express reservations whether the recent judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, was of any assistance to the debate. I am bound to say that I share the Minister's misgivings. As I read the judgment, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, was saying that he put aside the code of practice not because of any general principle about it but simply because, as the noble Lord said, it did not add anything to the statute relative to the solution of the problem before the court.
The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, referred to the district auditor. Is he to have regard to the code? Presumably he is. Suppose that a dispute arises between the district auditor and the local authority, the dispute goes before the court and part of the district auditor's case is, "I took guidance from the code of practice". Presumably the court, in deciding whether his case is good, will have at least to look at the code of practice in order to decide whether it considers that he acted properly.
Lord Elton: I am obliged to the noble Lord for that intervention. I think that I ought to start with Clause 2, although it is not the subject of the amendment, because it has been prayed in aid two or three times.

837
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said that the courts would be fully taken care of by Clause 2, and other noble Lords have suggested a linkage between Clause 2 and Clause 4. Let me start on a important point that I had hoped to get clear on Second Reading but about which I think there may still be misunderstanding. There is no effect of Clause 4 on Clause 2. Clause 2 describes material that cannot be published. That is the statutory prohibition that the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, correctly pointed out. And that is all that it does.
The meaning of Clause 2 is expressed in the words of Clause 2 and by those words alone. It is those words that will be applied to material which has to be tested to see whether it is prohibited by Clause 2. The code under Clause 4 is not intended to interpret those words, nor is there anything in the clause that we are now looking at, or anywhere else in the Bill from start to finish, that suggests, permits or provides that it should. Neither Clause 4 nor the code will have any effect at all on Clause 2.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway cited references using the phrases "shall have regard to", "regard shall be had" and "shall have particular regard to". He quoted references to that sort of language in the clause. But I repeat that clauses are interpreted independently and the shading of meaning in Clause 2 will have no effect on the interpretation of Clause 4. As to the shading within Clause 2, which is an interesting question, I took note of that on the first Committee day and I have not lost sight of it.
Let me turn now to what the code will do and why we want it at all. I at once share and echo the anxieties of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and indeed some of those of my noble friend Lord Beloff. I do not think that anybody can have failed to notice over the past decade or so the steady and considerable increase that has taken place in the efforts of some local authorities to communicate with their electors. That is no bad thing in principle, because ignorance obstructs accountability and publicity dispels ignorance, provided it is proper publicity and not designed to compound ignorance; and that is what we are concerned with. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Elysian-Morgan, still nodding his head. I suppose that it will stop fairly soon. But publicity is expensive and, if it is effective, it affects a great many people. Moreover, as Widdicombe points out, that expenditure has not just grown; it looks like continuing to grow indefinitely.
Again I must pause to put right a misconception in case I have by some mischance lodged it in your Lordships' minds. I am not now in this clause talking about party political publicity. That is the subject of Clause 2, and if Clause 2 is effective there will not be any. I am now talking about the large range of legitimate publicity about matters that are properly the concern of a local authority and about which it can, and very often should, put information out to the public.
There is a wide range of such matters and a large number of different ways in which they can be presented. Some of those ways are, as Widdicombe points out, highly intrusive. The tone of what is said or
838
depicted can therefore be as important as the content. As Widdicombe says in paragraph 142, it can be perfectly proper to give a short and even a shocking message in connection, for instance, with a road safety campaign, but that would not be appropriate when explaining the reasons for a complex or controversial new policy. Given the increasing amounts of money that local authorities are spending on publicity, the need to get value from that money in what is now a sophisticated market and the need to satisfy the ratepaying public that they have done so, it seems to us that some standard of good practice is needed as a yardstick. All publicity should, after all, be balanced, informative and cost-effective.
The purpose of this clause is to establish just such a yardstick in the form of a code of practice. It is, I emphasise, a yardstick; it is not a straitjacket that the code will eventually provide. I say "eventually" because, of course, at present there in no code of practice, and nor will there be until some time after the Bill has been enacted.
I must pause again to repeat the assurances that I have just given on an interruption, on Second Reading and on the first Committee day. I shall repeat them because the interruption was necessary. The indicative code that we placed in the Library was the roughest and most embryonic of things. Since then my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government has had a most useful discussion with the local authority associations, in which I joined, I may add. In it he agreed to withdraw this cockshy altogether and to embark on discussions with them over a clean sheet of paper early in April.
I cannot therefore tell your Lordships what in detail will be in the code, but you will know in due time, because, following our Amendment No. 18A, if your Lordships are kind enough to accept it, no code can issue until you have agreed it; and also following that amendment, if your Lordships are kind enough to agree it, no alteration can be made to such a code without your having a chance to reject it. Having read with interest and care the debate on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway about codes of practice on 15th January, I think that that is something that will find general favour with your Lordships as a whole. I accept that my noble friend is rapidly becoming an acknowledged expert in the field. But, important though that debate was, I cannot think that we must stop altogether providing in statute for codes of practice until we have a new procedure for placing codes in different categories, as was then suggested.
I cannot therefore tell your Lordships in detail what will be in this code, but I can give the outline of what will be in the code because it is stated in Clause 4(1). It will be a statement
"of recommended practice as regards the content, style, distribution and cost"
of the publicity material we have been talking about—the matters set out in Clause 4(1) which are those that Widdicombe said we should be concerned about. And it is about them that we shall consult with the local authority associations. We shall be required to do so by subsection (5) of the clause. By "consultation", I do not mean a perfunctory contact.

839
I mean proper and careful consultation and exchange of views.
Everything that I have said so far has been, in a sense, preliminary. I apologise because it has taken four and a half minutes; but it was, I believe, necessary. In order to decide the questions that these amendments put to the Committee, we must be clear as to what the questions are about as well as what they are. The questions are about a free-standing clause that, as I have described, has no effect on the interpretation or scope of Clause 2; that is made necessary, as my noble friends have underlined, by the recent and considerable increase in local authority publicity and its changing nature; that will deal, as I have described, with such matter as its content, style, distribution and cost, all of which are matters to which Widdicombe directed our attention; that will not be based, as I have underlined, on the indicative code to which some of your Lordships have kept referring mentally when trying to think what it would look like, as that version has been done away with; that will be based instead on thorough discussions with the local authority associations concerned and other interested bodies; and that will not be issued until it has your Lordships' own specific agreement. It will be designed, in short, with the close assistance of the users, and it will be supervised by Parliament itself—a pretty safe process whatever its status. It is the status of the code which the amendments seek to alter.
I have described in five minutes what the question is about. This is what the question is. It is what the local authorities themselves are anxious about and need to have clarified, as do your Lordships and my noble friends. So let us start with the status that we now propose. It is expressed in Clause 4(6). It is simply that of something to which local authorities must have regard when they decide whether to spend their ratepayers' money on a piece of publicity. There is no other duty in the matter. There are no other statutory requirements. All we have, all we ask for, is that when a local authority embarks on publicity, it shall have in mind the provisions of a code—a code drawn up in close consultation with local authorities' own associations and vetted and approved by this very House, by your Lordships yourselves.
Your Lordships will notice that there are no sanctions attached to this clause for failure to comply with the code. I have to point out to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls that there is no punishment for its breach and no penalty for any course of action. It will simply be a necessary part of the council's consideration of whether to incur expenditure on publicity. We have even seen and will remove as misleading the references to the code being "in force" to which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, understandably took exception and put down an amendment. I refer to my amendment, Amendment No. 19A.
I go further. Your Lordships will see that even that duty extends only to having regard to the code, having it in mind, in other words, when decisions are made on this class of expenditure. It does not require—your Lordships can see that it does not require—even that the authorities shall abide by the code, drawn up, though it will be, in close consultation with their own
840
representatives; vetted and approved, though it will be, by your Lordships' own careful House and another place. Having considered it, they can, if they so wish, take a course other than what it proposes. That is really not a very onerous or dangerous requirement, in my submission. But it is a requirement that these amendments would strike out of the Bill. Why do we need it in? Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, I am sure, councils will have in mind such a useful and relevant code, which they have helped to make and which your Lordships have vetted, simply because it will be useful as well as prudent to do so. They will want to. And ratepayers, aware of this, will have something to test their performance by. That will be the normal and everyday course of events.
Why then place this modest duty on them at all? Why not diminish it to the sort of non-committal pointer that these amendments propose in one form or another for the end of subsection (1)? The answer is, because of those very same ratepayers. It is their money the council will be spending, and on their behalf, let us remember, that they are supposed to be spending it. Those ratepayers have a right to expect, and their council has a duty to provide, decisions that are based upon a proper consideration of all the relevant factors in every area of policy. When it comes to the spending of ratepayers' money, the councils must consider their duty to their ratepayers to use their money with the utmost care. That duty is called their fiduciary duty. When the decisions relate to the spending of money on publicity, we propose that this code, drawn up in the exemplary way that I have described, must be a relevant factor. It would be absurd if it were not. It follows that there should be a fiduciary duty to consider it. That is what subsection (6) provides.
4.15 p.m.
The ratepayer has no right to demand, and the council no duty to undertake, that the council reach any particular decision on anything, only that they consider the relevant factors before they make their reasonable decision. That consideration is all that we intend to ask of them in this Bill. We do so in language that is well precedented in statute. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway will have noticed from his researches at least Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974—a Labour Government provision—and Section 125(5) of the Local Government Act 1972, as examples.
My noble friend drew your Lordships' attention to three cases. There was the case of Puhlhofer, the gentleman embroiled in a case with the London Borough of Hillingdon. The judgment was delivered, I believe, on the 6th February. I have been able to read the judgment, and I have had the judgment read. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, I have almost insuperable doubts about its relevance. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, made two relevant points, as I see it. One appears on page 6 in the second complete paragraph where he tells us that the code of practice actually gives no assistance in, and therefore, one must assume is not relevant to, the case in question.

841
The other reference is on page 9, one-third of the way down the second paragraph, where he said:
"The plight of the homeless is a desperate one and the plight of the applicants in the present case commands the deepest sympathy but it is not, in my opinion"—
and he said this, remember, after he had dismissed the relevance of the code
"appropriate that the remedy of judicial review, which is a discretionary remedy, should be made use of to monitor the actions of local authorities under the Act save in the exceptional case".
His stricture therefore is for us a general stricture on the use of judicial review which should, he says, be very sparing. Who would contest that? Certainly not I.
I understand that the considerations in the Notts and Bradford cases were the same as they were in the case of In re W. None dealt with the status of codes. And it is the status of codes to which these amendments are addressed. The terms that we have drawn in the Bill are precedented. Even if they were not, this requirement would be a reasonable and, indeed, a minimal one. It is precedented. If we take it away, we shall deprive the ratepayers exactly of that fundamental reassurance about the proper conduct of local government that I believe, and the Government believe, we owe to them. It is on their behalf, as well as my own and that of the Government, that I ask my noble friends and your Lordships generally to leave these familiar words in the Bill—they do not, I should add, bring surcharge onto councillors—and not to press the amendments.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: Before the noble Lord sits down can he reassure me on this point? He has told us on many occasions that any code that comes into existence under this Bill would have to be vetted and approved—I believe that those were his words—by this House. I have heard it argued on more than one occasion that it is no longer constitutionally proper for this House to reject a regulation or statutory instrument of any kind that has been approved in another place. Under this Bill if a code is drawn up, approved by the other House, and then comes to this House, if it is what the majority want to do, have we the right to reject it? If not, the assurances of the noble Lord that it has to be vetted and approved by this House cannot carry any weight.
Lord Elton: Your Lordships will have the right to reject it. There are questions of precedent and timing here. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, is familiar with these in the context of the prevention of terrorism legislation which is of an altogether different order. I speak subject to correction, but as I understand the normal course is that if there is a prospect of the House disagreeing with something of this sort, the Government think very carefully about what is in it before they bring the matter here. The immediate effect is therefore pre-empted. But your Lordships have the right to pray against instruments. Your Lordships are not encouraged to do that—and the noble Lord the Chief Whip opposite is aware of this—but the statutory right is there. I am not offering a paper gun with which to shoot a tiger. I suggest that your Lordships are asking to take fright at a paper tiger and that if you do you will take out of the Bill exactly
842
the substantive and important reassurance that ratepayers—who are sick to the back teeth in many parts of this country of the abuse of publicity expenditure—expect your Lordships to give them, so please do not take it out of the Bill.
Lord Underhill: I do not propose to follow the noble Lord the Minister on this question of what will happen when the orders are before us. We shall deal with that matter at an appropriate stage. But I should like to intervene in this debate to put a completely non-legal angle as the ordinary person might see the situation. May I say in passing that I am certain the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, did not mean to say what it sounded as if he said when he referred to the interests of people in local government and journalism and so on. We are all concerned with one thing only: what is best in the interests of local authorities, local government and the people who are represented by local authorities.
The Widdicombe Report gave considerable attention to the whole question of tone and presentation. It dealt lengthily with this in paragraphs 206 to 218. What did Widdicombe say at the end of the day? The report said that, having considered this deeply, the committee thought that the way to handle this matter was by self-regulation. They justified self-regulation in quite a number of paragraphs, to which reference was made at Second Reading and which I do not propose to repeat.
The Government have not answered the statements made by Widdicombe as to why they believed it should be self-regulation. That has never been answered. It is true that the local authority associations had a useful discussion with the Minister on, I think it was, 19th February. As far as I am informed, all the representatives of the associations made clear that they wanted self-regulation, that they opposed the proposal in Clause 4 for a code, and offered once again—as they have done before, and I believe the Government have accepted—that they will co-operate in drawing up a code of practice. One would hope that there will be agreement on what will be the code of practice. It would be difficult for the Government if, having decided that they will have subsection (6) in Clause 4, the associations, and the Government could not see eye to eye on what should be a code of practice.
I repeat: why are the Government ignoring what the Widdicombe Report has said on the question of self-regulation? The Minister, Mr. William Waldegrave, said on 17th December in Standing Committee in the other place, at col. 370:
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made it clear that he would not issue the code until after Widdicombe part 2 had reported".
We have not had Part 2 yet. If Part 2—the final report—comes out against any statutory code, what will be the situation if we have carried this into effect this afternoon? We are awaiting Part 2 as the Government know.
We have also had the statement made by the Advertising Association—which everyone will agree is a very reputable body. They say:
"So far as advertising in general is concerned, the principle of self-regulation is accepted by Government, industry and consumers, and we recommend that this should also apply, so far as is practicable for the local government sector".

843
Commenting that Clause 4 is rather vague, the association recommend that any code
"should primarily be guidelines rather than rigid rules".
I find that in his closing speech relating to this clause in Standing Committee in the other place—and I am quoting now from col. 391—Mr. Waldegrave said:
"We do not believe that in the code it would be feasible or sensible to go to the level of detail and exactitude which would be necessary to make the code enforceable as detailed statutory code".
I have no legal experience or knowledge, but noble Lords with such knowledge emphasise what subsection (6) either means or does not mean.
Mrs. Rumbold, the Under-Secretary, at col. 360 on the same day as the quotation I have just given from Mr. Waldegrave, said:
"I understand that the code of practice will be similar to the Highway Code, and could be taken into account by a court defining what is balance and what is not".
That leads me to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said. This is what the ordinary person will read into this, that it is a statutory requirement. They will not read into this that it is guidance for which we are asking. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said that there must be some form of guidance; guidance is necessary. That is what the provisions of both Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 give—guidance. We want guidance to be given to the local authorities.
There will be points arising as to the propriety of the whole of Clause 4. Obviously we must discuss the question of the codes now because it is very important that we decide on two things. Do we believe that we do not trust the local authority associations to exercise self-regulation? That is what Widdicombe asks for; and the Government have not responded as to why they have no faith in that. If we reject self-regulation, what is to be the status of the code? We have to take into account what the legal gentlemen have said about this.
Whatever else happens, I hope that we shall support Amendment No. 19 and take out from Clause 4 the whole of subsection (6) and give support to the other amendment.
Lord Bellwin: May I briefly intervene to say one thing on what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has just said. He asks: do we feel that we should not leave it to the local authority associations to impose self-regulation? But the local authority associations have little or no influence upon many authorities who at the present time act in total contradiction of what the majority of the people in these associations would like to do. We delude ourselves if we simply accept that there are authorities in the country today who will take the slightest notice of any pious hope that there be self-regulation. It is so naive to assume that the ratepayers in some of these authorities—like Hackney and other extreme Left-wing authorities—should expect that your Lordships should decide that self-regulation by their people will be sufficient.
4.30 p.m.
What we are proposing here is simply guidance and nothing more than guidance; guidance which will have to be agreed in any case before it is imposed and before
844
it is accepted. We are not even talking about a code of practice which calls for a legal sanction of any kind. That was made clear by my noble friend the Minister in what I thought was a splendid exposition of the whole position. I have to say that I cannot believe that we shall accept that there are not authorities in the country today who will laugh at the suggestion that they will take the slightest notice of responsible self-regulation.
Lord Elton: Before my noble friend winds up perhaps I may—as this is a Committee stage debate—respond to a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. The noble Lord pointed out that Widdicombe would prefer a voluntary route, and I quite understand that point of view. I have read paragraph 218 to which the noble Lord directed our attention. It says:
"We believe that tone and presentation is important, but that it would undoubtedly be best if it were the subject of self-regulation".
However, Widdicombe goes on to say:
"We are not convinced that the options we have so far considered offer a workable means of self-regulation".
No one has told us how the Secretary of State can fulfil the expectations which Parliament and the public have put upon him as regards providing a code of practice which will act as a standard of good practice. How can you expect the Secretary of State to discharge that function if you do not give him even the permissive words in the Bill which we propose; namely:
"The Secretary of State may issue one or more codes".
That is all that we ask. It is not, with respect, relevant to the debate, but the noble Lord raised it and it may be in your Lordships' minds as you address yourselves to the proper question of the proper status of this code. I shall not bore your Lordships by going all over it again, but the status is simply something which the council must have in mind when it decides on matters of publicity and on whether to spend your money and mine and that of the ratepayers. That is their fiduciary duty and we ask no more.
Lord Underhill: As this is the Committee stage I must reply to the points made by the noble Lord the Minister. Let us consider what Widdicombe says in paragraph 242. It says:
"No generally applicable effective means of achieving this"—
that is, the self-regulatory code—
"has so far been produced in evidence or emerged from our discussions. We propose to consider this particular aspect further with the local authority associations".
However, it is because of the Government's action in bringing forward what has been described as a "cockshy" that Widdicombe said that it would no longer have discussions with the associations on that particular matter. In my view that is a crying shame because I think Widdicombe should have continued to have discussions with the local authority associations on whether or not there should be self-regulation.
Lord Elton: The Government are carrying on those discussions and I was taking part in them myself last week. Nothing is lost.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on Amendment No. 16. As my noble friend the Minister has rightly said, the issue is not whether we should have codes of practice at all—that matter arises on the question of whether or not Clause 4 shall stand part, but it does not arise on this amendment. Indeed, matters of self-regulation, to which my noble friend Lord Bellwin referred, also arise in that context.
What we are concerned with here—and it really is a non-emotive matter although of course it can be made an emotive one—is the clarity of the status of the code. I have not sought to import any tone of emotion into my contribution in the Committee.
The problem is that there is a considerable source of confusion, and I say that in the kindest way to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. His speech, which was redolent with a series of misconceptions, only went to enforce my point about how necessary it is to have a measure of clarity in this regard. At one point he was even driven, with all his experience in another place—and I do not denigrate that but applaud it—having dealt with legislation for years and years, to get the position totally wrong, because he thought that these codes were in fact to have legal efficacy. If my noble friend can make that mistake in total good faith having attended to the matter, how are members of the public to seek any measure of clarity at all?
This is not the time to deal with Lord Airedale's conception of the reasoning of the decision in Puhlhofer or my noble friend the Minister's reservation in that regard. This is not a matter, as I have said, for a tutorial.
Lord Elton: I was merely saying that, as the noble Lord rested a great deal of his case on the three judgments, I should have thought that whether or not they are about the matter would be very relevant.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before my noble friend intervened, I was about to take the liberty to make a point about that to your Lordships. My noble friend the Minister seems to be under a total misapprehension, and that of course is a matter for his advisers. Let me give an example. He says that the case of In re. W has nothing to do with the matter at all. In that case there was a code of guidance along the lines of "shall have regard to" directed to a local authority under Section 12 of the Child Care Act 1980. It concerned a code of guidance to the local authority as to how it should have regard to the requirements and the interests of the wider family of a child in care. It was held in that decision, in particular in Lord Scarman's leading judgment, that that afforded the members of the wider family no right to be heard. So much for the value of "shall have regard to" as giving any enforceable rights in codes.
I only mention that to highlight the measure of my noble friend the Minister's misconception of this matter and I rely very much not upon my own reading of the cases, but upon the way in which, having studied them, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has mentioned the matter and put it before the Committee today.
846
This is not the time to go into the matter further save to say, with the utmost respect to my noble friend the Minister, that he has got it totally wrong.
Lord Elton: As my noble friend is indulging in emphatic statements of that kind, my advice (and I do not rely upon my reading of the cases, either) is that in the case of In re W there was no reference to "shall have regard". Perhaps we do not want to pursue the matter further. The point that matters is that the common man understands that when the council decides how to spend his money it ought to think about the relevant facts, and this is one of them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: If my noble friend will look at Section 12 of the 1980 Act he will find the words, "shall have regard". However, let us leave the matter. We cannot go on arguing law on the Floor of the Committee.
The wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, to have a legally enforceable code beyond Clause 2, are again, with respect, beside the point. It was not the point which I was making and it does not touch upon the merit of the amendment as such, as I think my noble friend Lord Beloff would concede.
What we have to do—and we must do it as part of the revisory role—is to ensure that the status of the code as a code for guidance only, is stated with total clarity on the face of the statute. The fact that the agreement of your Lordships' House will be sought when the instrument is laid, in no way affects status and in no way affects legal efficacy. It is far too late. Once Clause 4 in its present form has received Royal Assent, then that is that—that stamps and determines its status.
My noble friend the Minister opposes this attempt at clarification. The very fact that he does so surely raises a hint of suspicion. Why should my noble friend the Minister oppose an attempt to render totally plain what is on the face of the statute (if the statute is to mean anything) a recommended practice? If it is only a recommended practice, it should clearly be, on the face of those words, an advisory code for guidance. If it is not what the statute says, all the more reason why the amendment should be accepted and we should get this plain. To say that it is a relevant factor as part of a fiduciary issue or duty, as my noble friend the Minister has said, may be fine words; but where does it take one? Is it intended to import some form of legal efficacy? If it is, that is contrary to the plain reading of the statute. Hence again the importance and value of clarity in this amendment.
Lastly, having dealt sufficiently with Puhlhofer, we come to "familiar words". "Oh", says my noble friend the Minister. "Here we have those familiar words `have regard to'. Because they are familiar, let us have them again". But these familiar words have no meaning. At the moment as the result of the debate in your Lordships' House on 15th January—my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, in accordance with his promise to consult his colleagues, included his right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General—and the concern expressed in your Lordships' House about resort to these familiar words in regard to a local authority in the realm of public or administrative law, the matter is under consideration.

847
In all those circumstances and as I understand that my noble friend will not give any form of assurance to consider these amendments on their merits, I think I am forced to take the opinion of the Committee.
4.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 108.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Amherst, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kaldor, L.

Attlee, E.

Kennet, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Banks, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Barnett, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Birk, B.

Lawrence, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

Leatherland, L.

Blyton, L.

Listowel, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Bottomley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Brockway, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

McNair, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L. [Teller.]

Mayhew, L.

Mishcon, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Caradon, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Collison, L.

Nicol, B.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Oram, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Porritt, L.

Denington, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Denning, L.

Reilly, L.

Diamond, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Dowding, L.

Roberthall, L.

Edmund-Davies, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rugby, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ennals, L.

Seear, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seebohm, L.

Falkender, B.

Serota, B.

Falkland, V.

Shackleton, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Fitt, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hayter, L.

Tordoff, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L. [Teller.]

Turner of Camden, B.

Underhill, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Vernon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hughes, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

White, B.

Ingleby, V.

Wigoder, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jacques, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Jeger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Auckland, L.

Allerton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Arran, E.

Bellwin, L.

848

Beloff, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belstead, L.

Layton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Biddulph, L.

Long, V.

Blake, L.

Lothian, M.

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Butterworth, L.

Margadale, L.

Caithness, E.

Marley, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Milverton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cox, B.

Newall, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Davidson, V.

Onslow, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Pender, L.

Eccles, v.

Portland, D.

Ellenborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodney, L.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Erne, E.

Selkirk, E.

Faithfull, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathspey, L.

Fortescue, E.

Swansea, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gainford, L.

Terrington, L.

Glanusk, L.

Teviot, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Teynham, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Gridley, L.

Tranmire, L.

Haig, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trenchard, V.

Trumpington, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Vivian, L.

Hives, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hood, V.

Westbury, L.

Hooper, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Killearn, L.

Wise, L.

Kimball, L.

Wolfson, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited: Sale
4.51 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer being given in another place in relation to Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited. The Statement is as follows:
"Last Thursday the Government proposed a short postponement in the date for the receipt of

849
bids for the sale of Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited to allow prospective bidders for the company to tender simultaneously for the first Trident submarine contract. The prospective bidders, however, saw practical difficulties in such a delay and I therefore decided to proceed according to the original timetable."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for having made the Statement. It would seem that this has been an on-off-on situation. First of all, the Government decide that the sale of the yard is to take place on 31st March. Then they decide to delay. Now they decide to fix the date again. I do not know what it is like in Government, but at any rate I know that in the Army we were always taught: order, counter order—disorder. Is it not the case that the DTI has always taken the view that a date should be fixed? The noble Lord today has indicated the victory of the DTI view over that of the Ministry of Defence. Once again, this Statement is a reflection of the evident disharmony that exists between the DTI and the Ministry of Defence.
We have exactly the same situation in relation to Westland. The music of Westland may temporarily have stopped but the melody lingers on. Just what is the Government's policy ultimately to be in this case? Here we have Vickers, which is the only British submarine yard in the United Kingdom. Last year it made a profit of £17 million and the year before £25 million, largely of course due to there being these cost-plus contracts. The company could not lose on them, anyway. Now the Government decide to privatise on a given date.
On what value is this privatisation to take place? On what value? The House is entitled to know. What valuation of any finite kind can be obtained until the contract for the Trident submarine has been finalised? I believe this was the argument of the Ministry of Defence: that it was quite pointless transferring until one knew what the earnings value, which is about 10 times the net asset value, of this contract was to be.
This shows a complete disregard for the interests of the British taxpayer. In the first place, at one fell swoop the British taxpayer is denied the benefit of the profits emerging from the Vickers yard on the basis of its cost-plus contracts which, if the Government's intentions are followed through, will amount to over a billion pounds, in fact many billions.
Thus the taxpayer is denied the income. He will also be denied the capital. He faces a loss because the Government are determined to flog off the company at virtually any price. Prudence would have suggested that if the ridiculous charade of privatisation was to be carried out, at any rate it should be carried out as much as possible for the benefit of the taxpayer by obtaining a proper price.
There is a case, before this matter is concluded, for compensation in the event of the cancellation of Trident being finalised within the contract. On present form, and indeed on past form, it is highly unlikely that the present Government will be returned after the next general election and any investor is entitled to
850
know what is likely to be the compensation for cancellation.
In short, the whole matter is a complete shambles. The Government are divided among themselves on it. We now have the apparent picture of the DTI, and not the Ministry of Defence, in future being ultimately responsible for defence procurement. This is an intolerable situation. It only shows the confusion and disharmony that still prevail within the Government.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, it is difficult not to share some of the suspicions of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, about what is going on, in view of the fact that Vickers, before obtaining the contract for the first boat, have spent a great deal of money, their money and the taxpayers' money. Now the thought that at this stage somebody in the real world may come in and bid for that contract, and take it away from Vickers, leaves one gasping at the unlikelihood of it. What more can the Government tell us about who it was who might have bid for the contract, to get it away from Vickers, which caused them to consider the delaying, then not to delay? Can the Government tell us what are the bids which are now before them? Is there still time for the appearance of anonymous nominee bids, as in the case of Westland?
If there is, and such a thing appears, what will they do this time? Will they be prepared to let it go through and rely on the cumbersome machinery of appointing inspectors and all the rest of it to find out who it was after it has gone through, which as I think it is now well understood at large, would leave time for an anonymous purchaser to move in and dispose of the future of that firm in a way that the Government could not prevent, because they simply would not have power at that time?
Thus, who are the bidders? Is it simply the employee bid, (which means the banks, and presumably the Government knows which banks—if they are respectable ones) and Trafalgar House? Are those the only two bids, or are there more? Secondly, on the matter of the cancellation payments raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will the Government admit that there is a temptation, because if they admit that there is a temptation the public and Parliament would be more inclined to believe that they are resisting it, to fix those payments high in order to make Vickers nice and saleable and to dissuade the next government, which may very likely not be them, from following their best judgment, which would be that the Trident system should be cancelled and possibly succeeded by another one?
Lastly, have the Government noticed the public opinion poll published yesterday in the Sunday Times which showed the extraordinarily strong objection of the British people to our national industrial assets being sold to overseas owners?
5 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for their receipt of the Statement that I have just made.
A noble Lord: Why?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Because, my Lords, they received it with, in part, some grace; although I think that any confusion that might arise is in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and certainly not in the Government's mind. The Government's policy was set out on 25th July 1984 when there was an announcement to Parliament that British Shipbuilders were to sell the warship yards by 31st March 1986. That remains government policy and the Government have not changed their policy since that announcement was made.
On 10th October 1985 British Shipbuilders issued the sale documents for Vickers together with Cammell Laird; and that was the last of the yards to be put on the market. The sale documents included a deadline for bids for Vickers with Cammell Laird for Tuesday 25th February, and it was thought that it would be in the best interests of prospective bidders to have an extension of time. However, the prospective bidders themselves decided that it would not be in their interests and asked us to revert to the original time; so that in effect there has been no change at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked: what are the bidders bidding for? Perhaps I may say that the bidders are bidding for the company as the company stands together with the benefit of a draft contract. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked me a number of questions. May I dispense with the last of his questions: whether the Government had noticed the public opinion polls? I think that my right honourable friend the Leader of the House in another place answered those publicly yesterday. I can add nothing to what he said.
I am not prepared this afternoon to disclose who are the bidders for this company in that they have not given their permission for their interest to be disclosed. It is in commercial confidence and I think that your Lordships would expect me to respect that. So far as I am aware, there is no mystery or nominee bidder on the scene to take Trident away. I think that that was the noble Lord's question.
Lord Kennet: Or to take Vickers/Cammell Laird away, my Lords?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, there is no mystery bidder to VSEL and to British Shipbuilders, who have the matter to consider. I am not quite sure what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was trying to get me to answer when he asked whether the Government would admit to a temptation to fix payments high—presumably in relation to the cancellation of any contact. There is a draft contract with VSEL. It is for the bidders, who have full knowledge of the content of that draft contract, to evaluate it in making their bid by tomorrow.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to a draft contract. Does the noble Lord know the contents of that draft contract? Does he know what price has been fixed in the draft contract? If he knows, it should be given. If he does not know, on what is any prospective purchaser going to rely; and how can this House or another place form any judgment on it at all? Would it not have been best in any event to await the finalisation of the contract?
852
Then everybody would know exactly where they were, including the noble Lord himself and possibly the Government.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, if I took seriously the comments of the noble noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I suggest that he waits until the contract is completed; and then he will know.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the great interest in this matter, especially in the Barrow area where, if my memory serves me aright, a quarter of the population are employed there? If there is any chance of their participating in the buying of this firm, they are very much interested.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, of course I understand the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in this matter. There is a consortium bidding. I think it is that consortium which would reflect the interests that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked about.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the consortium may also answer the interests of the country and not only those of the people of Barrow? Can he explain a little more? As I understand it from his answers, the Government decided quite recently that it would be in the interests of those who are applying for this contract—and I gather that there are only two concerned—to postpone the day. And so the Government postponed the day and then they found that, on the contrary, they did not want to postpone. This is very strange: not to consult, to be taken by surprise in this manner and then to have to make a Statement to the House about it. Is this really the reason for the muddle?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, there was no muddle at all. We were not caught unawares. There was nothing at all strange about it. It was thought at one time that it might be in the best interests of prospective bidders to delay the date for bids to be in: that is, 25th February. This was discussed with the prospective bidders and was found not to be satisfactory to them, and we reverted to the original date.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, if I understood the noble Lord aright, originally the Government wanted to give some more time for other people, other bidders, to come forward so as to find out whether there may be other bidders prepared to buy the company on more favourable terms. Now the Government announce that they are going back on this, that the time which they originally themselves proposed to allow other bidders to come forward is no longer there and that the matter is now to be closed. Can he explain to us why they changed their mind? If they considered it right and proper to allow time for other bidders to come forward, what is it that has made them now say, "No, we will not give any more time for the bidders to come forward"? What happened?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am not prepared this afternoon to speculate on the noble

853
Lord, Lord Kaldor's understanding of rumour. What I can say is that in October of last year British Shipbuilders issued sale documents which intimated that the deadline for bids for the company was to be 25th February of this year. That is tomorrow. We have stayed with that arrangement although, in between, we had invited potential bidders to express an opinion as to whether they wanted more time and we were prepared to extend the 25th February deadline. In the event, those interested said they did not want an extension. So we returned to—we stayed with, in fact—the deadline of 25th February, which was announced in October of last year as part of the July Statement for the sale of the company.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, as I understood the Minister, he said that because of commercial secrecy he could not disclose who the bidders were for this important public asset. Is it not in the public interest that this information should be disclosed? Is he at least prepared to say that any consortium bidding is a wholly British consortium and that there is no foreign interest involved?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I did not say there was any secrecy at all. What I said was that I stayed with the commercial confidentiality in that those people bidding had in fact declined to make their interests public at this time. Noble Lords, I think, must recall that their bid is to the company, which is a subsidiary of British Shipbuilders, who have to act in the commercial interests of the company. They will then come to the Government, who have to take account of the wider aspect: that is, the national interest. That will be done during the course of events.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I cannot understand why noble Lords are making such a meal out of this. Nobody knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that this sort of thing happens every day. There is nothing unreal about it. An auction sale can be postponed because it might suit certain people who would be bona fide bidders. It happens every day. We have been told that initially it was said in October that 25th February was deemed to be the sort of date which would allow for the market to be tested in the proper way; and then nearer the 25th February it looked as though it might be to the advantage of potential buyers for the date to be extended, for all sorts of reasons such as arranging their finance and satisfying themselves that the terms of the draft contract which have been referred to are the ones they want.
It is common sense for the vendor in such circumstances to undertake to give a little extra time for such things to be sorted out. But the bidder might say: "I don't want it and indeed it may be embarrassing, having made my financial arrangements and everything else not to go forward on the day we contemplated". This happens every day; and the sort of interchange we have been listening to for the last 20 minutes puts any government wishing to sell into a position where people will not deal with them. We will prevent the Government getting their proper price by the intervention or the suggestion that somebody is
854
cheating, and all sorts of ideas like that. This is why governments often do not get their price. I believe that—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am not easily shouted down. The noble Lords are being nonsensical, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Bruce—an accountant of some repute—knows that it is nonsensical. In the normal running of a business it is right to ask questions, but to make a meal out of it like this is absolutely against the best interests of the shipbuilding and engineering company which wants to get the best price it can.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I think the House will agree that we have just had a classic example of making a meal of a great big load of rubbish such as I have rarely heard. Could the Minister not answer this: Is it right for us to understand that the Government advanced the view that the date should be extended in the peradventure that someone else might put in a bid? Then they went to those who had already put in the bid, and who said, "No, we do not want any more delay", and so the Government caved in? Is that the situation?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is No.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, that is not an answer.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me specifically: is this or is this not the position? I have just answered him by saying, No, it is not the position.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the new date that is fixed—I am going back to the original date—will in any way inhibit the prospects of a management/employee buy-out consortium, keeping in mind that arranging these kind of bids, where you are covering a very wide range of interests and have to secure bank support for such a bid, takes a little time? Could I have the assurance of the Minister that the new date will enable the management/employee buy-out consortium to participate?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, since the two dates are but five days apart, the suggestion having been made on the 20th February that there should be an extension and the return to the original date of 25th February—I repeat, my Lords, the original date: there is no new date—I do not think that would have inhibited any serious bidder. I think I can give the noble Lord the assurance he is seeking, that the return to the original date will not inhibit any serious bidder.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord appears to be stonewalling. He told us that the Statement was made last Thursday, 20th February. Why does he not tell us what caused that Statement to be made? What had happened between last October and the 20th February to cause the Government to decide that they were going to extend the date to just

855
five days later? Then, only three days later, they changed their minds again. Surely this is a matter where the Minister can see that the House has a right to have a thorough explanation, and not for it just to be said that the Government changed their minds between last Thursday and today. What happened before last Thursday to cause them to make that Statement then, and what has happened since last Thursday and today in the context of a period that goes back to last October?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it only recently became clear that negotiations between the Ministry of Defence and Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering would not be complete before the date set by British Shipbuilders for the sale of the company: that is, that the 25th February should be the deadline for bids. It might have been of mutal advantage to run the two competitions simultaneously, but that did not prove to be possible. The original timetable, therefore, is acceptable to all those concerned in these matters.

Social Security Benefits: Uprating
5.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the uprating of social security benefits. As the House knows, benefits were increased only three months ago, at the end of November. We have made it clear that we intend to move to April upratings from 1987 in order to bring tax and social security closer together and to ensure that benefit changes coincide with changes in rents and rates. The uprating that I am announcing today enables the transition to be made and is the second of three upratings in the 16-month period from November 1985 to April 1987.
"These further increases will be paid in the week beginning 28th July and will be based on the change in prices between May 1985 and January 1986 when the Retail Price Index rose by 1.1 per cent. The overall cost of the new increases will be an extra £410 million in a full year and they follow the 7 per cent. increases in benefits which were paid from last November.
"As a result, the retirement pension for a married couple will rise from £61.30 to £61.95 a week and for a single person from £38.30 to £38.70. Public service pensions will be increased by the same percentage, as will benefits for disabled people and war pensioners. Mobility allowance will go up to £21.65 a week although transport costs have in fact fallen over the period.
"The basic rate of unemployment benefit will also be increased by 1.1 per cent. from £30.45 to £30.80 for a single person and from £49.25 to £49.80 for a married couple. Other main contributory and non-contributory benefits will be similarly increased.
856
"I made it clear last year that the Government believe it right to continue child benefit for all children irrespective of the income of their parents. But I also said that we have to consider its level both in relation to overall priorities within social security and also with the aim of doing more for families with children on low incomes. I have considered the uprating of child benefit on that basis. My conclusion is that child benefit should be increased by 10p a week to £7.10—rather more than the rate of inflation. The older children's rates for supplementary benefit and the age related amounts for family income supplement will also go up by slightly more than 1.1 per cent.
"Mr. Speaker, three upratings in 16 months places inevitable administrative burdens and costs on local authorities and local offices of the DHSS. To sensibly contain this extra work I propose to increase the long term rate of supplementary benefit and the housing benefit needs allowance by the same cash amount as will apply to retirement pension, which means putting supplementary benefit up by 1·1 per cent. although the increase in prices after excluding housing costs is 1·2 per cent.
"For similar reasons I do not propose to make any general changes in the additional amounts paid with supplementary benefit. In some cases no increase would be due in any event and in the others only small amounts. However, I have thought it right to increase the higher rate of heating addition which goes to the very elderly, the severely disabled and to people with homes which are specially difficult to heat. This addition will increase from £5.45 to £5.55 a week.
"One other change will be made from this July which is consistent with bringing the current supplementary benefit scheme into line with the new proposed income support arrangements. From the date of the uprating no new awards of the non-householder housing addition will be made between the ages of 21 and 24. Equally, no deductions will be made from the householder's housing benefit or supplementary benefit in respect of such non-dependants in this age group. This means that the poorest households will remain fully protected. There will be no increase in the amount of non-dependant deductions generally nor will there be any increase in the deduction from benefit which applies during industrial disputes.
"Mr. Speaker, there are two other matters I should mention. First, over the last few years there has been a steep rise in supplementary benefit single payments. Since 1981 the number of these payments has risen from under 1 million a year to over 4 million and the real cost has increased by over five times to more than £300 million a year. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security has reviewed the position and as a result I am today referring draft regulations to the Social Security Advisory Committee for consultation in the normal way.
"Second, concern has been expressed over future policy on the payment of benefits at post offices. In a report by the Public Accounts Committee last summer the possibility was discussed that cash incentives should be offered to beneficiaries to

857
encourage payment directly into bank accounts. I am aware that this has led to anxiety that the existence of many sub-post offices might be threatened if inducements were paid which reduced significantly the volume of benefit business which they transact. To remove that anxiety I want to make it clear that the Government do not intend to offer cash incentives. We recognise that very many people wish to retain the option of being paid in cash at post offices, and it is clear that post offices will retain an important role in the payment of benefits in the future. In order to ensure that the service to the public is as effective as possible, a joint study is being carried out by the post offices and my department to see what improvements can be made.
"Mr. Speaker, I am laying before the House a full schedule detailing all benefit rates payable from next July. This uprating will mean that in 1986–87 spending on social security will be almost £43 billion—that is 31 per cent. of all public spending.
"The last time that an uprating statement was made less than a year after the previous one was in 1975 but the circumstances today are very different. In 1975 inflation was out of control and the value of savings was being sharply eroded. Today inflation is low, which is to the benefit of the whole nation—but perhaps most of all to millions of pensioners. This interim increase keeps pensions ahead of the rise in prices since this Government came into office and I will be making a further uprating statement in the autumn."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I sincerely thank the noble Baroness the Minister for reading that long and complicated Statement. It is very difficult for the House to take on board the full significance of every single word and figure in the Statement. Personally I shall try to absent myself from loquacity, but there are certain points which are very important to millions of people in our country and I must ask the Minister whether she can answer one or two questions.
Is it the case that the extra payments that have been announced today will not be made until 28th July 1986, and that those upratings will have to last until April 1987, whatever happens as regards changes in the retail price index or inflation? That would seem to be the effect of the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Statement, and I only hope that I am wrong.
The many points that have been raised, especially the more fundamental principles underlying the Statement, will, of course, be due for discussion when the Social Security Bill comes before your Lordships' House, but for the moment I must ask especially about child benefit. The noble Baroness said that child benefit will go up higher than the rate of inflation. That puzzled me, because I seem to recollect that last November, when there was an uprating, child benefit went up by 5 per cent. less than the rate of inflation. Though I am very bad at arithmetic, it seems to me that to make good the cut in real terms that child benefit suffered last year there would have to be an increase of 45p a week. Certainly to take any praise for the fact that this paltry increase is a little above the
858
current rate of inflation, without confessing that there was that shortfall last year, seems rather unfair.
Moreover, when I look at what is happening to other children, I find that the child's special allowance is to stay at £8.05, with no increase at all. Perhaps the noble Baroness can advise me whether that is the case, because this departmental document which I have states that child dependency additions and the guardian's allowance are not to be increased at all. So I feel that in this situation there is minimal help for children and therefore for families. The Government make a great deal of what they are doing for families and it should be made absolutely clear that the amount of help they are giving is very limited.
Then there is the question of heating allowances. The recent cold weather has brought this matter to public attention. I know that concerning this matter there is a great deal of sympathy and understanding in all parts of the House. Can the noble Baroness make it clear that the modest heating allowances which are referred to in this document will not be paid until the end of July? That seems to be a delay which is hardly acceptable to people who are very cold at the present moment. When I look at the document I find that not everybody is to have an increase in their heating allowance, that the lower rate of £2.20 a week is to stay at £2.20, that the central heating additions are to stay at £4.40, and that the hard to heat estate rate heating additions are to stay at £8.80 and £4.40. Thousands of people in this country are to be excluded even come July from additions to their heating allowances.
It is very interesting that the Statement referred only to the increases, and that one has to look at other documents to find cases where there are no increases. I am especially concerned and have been for many years about the position of blind people. The blind addition, which is a pitiful £1·25 a week, is to stay at £1·25 a week. There is no addition to the 25p a week for the over-80s. There is to be no increase in the laundry cost deduction and other payments which mean a great deal to people who are really hard up.
I cannot welcome this Statement and I think it is only fair that we should make clear our dissatisfaction with it. I hope that there can be some improvements during the discussions on the Bill, or that in any case we may have an opportunity to debate some of these points, because I am trying to keep myself very strictly in order and not to turn what is a Statement into a debate.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for repeating the Statement made in another place. First, may I welcome the fact that the Government recognise that very many people wish to retain the option of being paid in cash at post offices. I think that is a most important point. Secondly, while we agree with the moving of the uprating date to April, previous experience both with this Government and with their predecessors has shown that when the reference period, which is used to determine the rate of inflation, is moved beneficiaries can suffer.
In this case it would appear that from July 1986 to November 1986 beneficiaries will be 1·1 per cent. better off in the main, but that from November 1986

859
to April 1987, if we assume an annual rate of inflation similar to that which prevails at the moment, they would be more than 4 per cent. worse off. Will that not mean a loss overall for beneficiaries? Does the noble Baroness agree that that is so? Is there any truth in the statement which at least one organisation has put out, that the Government will save £250 million by this operation? Would it not have been better to increase at this uprating by a higher percentage in order to ease the transition?
I turn now to child benefit. I think I am right in saying that that would need to have been increased to £7·40 to make good the cut in the real value which was imposed last November. It is to be raised to £7·10, which involves some small reduction in the cut but leaves it well short of the total cut imposed last November-30p a week short in fact.
In conclusion, I should like to ask the noble Baroness two questions. Can she say that there will be no further reduction in the real value of child benefit? Further, can she say whether it is the Government's intention at some time in the future to make good the cut made in child benefit last November and which remains outstanding after this uprating?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am appreciative of the brevity of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, if not of the content of their questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked when the payments will be made. The uprating will cover the period from July 1986 to April 1987, when benefits will be increased again. With regard to child benefits, about which both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked me questions, as the House will know we are increasing the benefit by 1·4 per cent., from £7·00 to £7·10. This will more than maintain the November 1985 value of child benefit; an increase of 1·4 per cent. when the January RPI shows an increase of 1·1 per cent.
We recognise that child benefit is an important element of the policy of providing support for families. It is true that child benefit would need to go up to £7·45 to keep pace with inflation since introduction, but we have made clear our intention to focus help on poorer families, as we did in November with the introduction of higher FIS rates. For child benefit we must consider each uprating on its own merits in the light of the circumstances at the time. I think it is worth repeating from the Statement the fact that inflation has gone down very considerably, which means that all these benefits are of far more real meaning to the recipients than they would be under the galloping inflation that existed formerly.
The noble Baroness referred to heating additions not being increased. Our main help with fuel costs for those in receipt of supplementary benefit is through the weekly scale rates. These are being increased in line with inflation. Extra weekly heating additions are not being increased on this occasion because the movement in the fuel price index only between May 1985 and January 1986–1.7 per cent.—would produce an increase of less than 5p. With regard to claimants paying bills, they will be receiving extra help in the form of increased scale rates which are intended to cover normal heating needs among other things. An increase in heating additions in line with the fuel price
860
index would have only a marginal effect. I was asked whether the failure to uprate all heating additions this year will be taken into account for the April 1987 uprating. I have to tell your Lordships that no decision have yet been taken on next year's uprating.
With regard to the change in the uprating date producing savings and what the level of the uprating would be if it had still been in November this year, which I think is what the noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked me, the cost of an uprating depends on inflation over the period measured. We will not know what an uprating in November 1986 would have cost until the inflation figures for May 1986 are available. Whatever happens, pensioners will have their benefits maintained against inflation. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked about child special allowances and guardians' allowances not going up. Recipients of these allowances will get extra help through child benefit. The same practice has been applied at this uprating as in previous years. There has been no oversight here.
I hope that that deals with the main points raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. If I have omitted anything I shall of course write to them.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that opinion generally, I am sure, favours the stage transfer of uprating dates to April, so as to make them coincide in time with changes in taxation and rates, and that it would congratulate my noble friend and her right honourable friend on their steps towards that end?
Is she aware also that the comparatively modest cash figures contained in the Statement, despite the immensity of the cash outlay of social security as a whole, reflect the success of the Government in dealing with inflation? I was rather surprised that no reference to that at all was made from the Benches opposite.
I have questions to ask of my noble friend on two specific points. First, does her reference to the uprating of war pensions include also, as I hope it does, war widows? In Statements they are generally referred to separately from war pensioners and I hope it is only a misunderstanding that my noble friend did not mention them specifically. Secondly, is my noble friend aware that I for one wholly agree with the noble Baroness opposite that consideration ought to be given to raising the figure for the blind?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his remarks. Perhaps I may reiterate my comments concerning inflation, which his own remarks just now added to very nicely. I am conscious of the fact that I have not answered the question of the noble Baroness opposite, concerning the blind. I will answer both the noble Baroness and my noble friend by saying that that addition has not been uprated for many years, but blind people receive help for special needs in the same way as other disabled people dependent upon supplementary benefit.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter will be glad to hear that war widows are of course included. They were not excluded from the Statement for any reason except perhaps brevity; they are of course included.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Baroness record that this side of the House also welcomes the change to April? As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has rightly said, it is a change for which many organisations have been campaigning for many years. Our welcome does not necessarily mean that we accept the arbitrary transitional arrangements. That is a different matter. The RPI figures that the noble Baroness announced take no account of the post-Budget increases that will inevitably occur. Pensioners will have to endure those Budget price increases from now until April 1987. If the arrangements made are not arbitrary then that situation ought to have been reflected in the transitional arrangements—but it is not. We cannot therefore accept the transitional arrangements.
I am dealing here with pensioners because I do not have time to deal with all the other aspects; and pensioners and their increase interest me. Is the noble Baroness aware that if pensioners had waited until November of this year and had then enjoyed four months, from November or December until the following March, on a 4 per cent. increase—that is, £1.60 per week—then they would have received double the extra cash that they will receive from the eight months, from August until March of next year, at the rate of 1.1 per cent?
As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said, and on my own rough calculations, there will be a saving to the Government of some £100 million on pensioners alone, to say nothing of the saving on the unemployed and on the other beneficiaries. This is obviously another cost-cutting exercise to build up funds for the Chancellor's Budget. Will the noble Baroness say how much money the Government expect to save in total as a result of this measure?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is unexpected that the noble Lord should sit down so quickly! I am simply not used to it. If I may endeavour to answer the noble Lord's points, pensioners will receive extra help in July, and all movements in the RPI from January 1986 to September 1986 will be taken into account in April 1987. This year's uprating is based upon the movement of prices, as the noble Lord will know. The reason why the uprating is so low is simply due to our success in controlling inflation. It is also because the uprating is based on only eight months' price rises. That success benefits pensioners and others on low incomes most of all. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, spoke about a cuts exercise. How can this be a cuts exercise when it will add £410 million to the budget in the next year?

Local Government Bill
5.45 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 4.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): Before I call Amendment No. 17A, I must point out to the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 17B.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before my noble friend the Minister speaks to Amendment No. 17A, may I know whether the observations of the Chair cover also Amendment No. 17C, which seems to me to be in the same position?
Lord Elton: I can reassure my noble friend that they do, because the amendments to which I shall speak cover the same ground.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I thank my noble friend.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 17A:
Page 3, line 31, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 17A, I will, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to my own Amendment No. 18A, which goes with it, and I shall be covering the same ground as that covered by Amendment No. 17B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and Amendment No. 17C in the name of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree with the main principle behind these amendments. We consider that the code should be subject to the scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament, and Amendment No. 17A provides for such scrutiny. Your Lordships will be aware that the Bill as introduced in another place contained no provisions for parliamentary scrutiny. There are, in the case of a code of practice such as the Bill proposes, arguments both for and against such scrutiny. Nevertheless, the view of the other place was that such scrutiny should be provided for, and the Government have accepted that view and so, I believe, have your Lordships.
That having been accepted, it was of course plain that the code of practice should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in your Lordships' House as well as in another place. That is the purpose of the proposed new subsection (5)(A). The proposed new subsection (5)(B) is a consequential amendment that provides for parliamentary scrutiny of amendments and revisions to a code. It seems wrong to us that the first version of a code should be subject to affirmative procedure but that the Secretary of State could immediately revise the approved code in any way he wished, without further approval. Also in our view, the negative procedure is more appropriate for revisions of the code. In practical terms, revisions may be of a very minor nature indeed, and a further requirement for affirmative resolution could prove too inflexible. There is a precedent for having a different procedure for revisions. In Section 14 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 the provision for a code of audit practice is so constructed.
Details of the procedures we are proposing can be very briefly described. By Amendment No. 18A, the Secretary of State would be required to lay before both Houses of Parliament any code he proposed to issue and it could not be issued unless it had been approved by a resolution in each House. The procedure for revision of the code is very similar to the negative resolution procedure for statutory instruments but it will not of course mean that the codes are statutory instruments; I merely use it as an illustration. The Secretary of State is required to lay a draft before each

863
House for 40 days. If during that time either House resolves that the alterations be withdrawn, then the Secretary of State could proceed with the proposed revisions laid before Parliament—Clearly my text has omitted an important negative. If during that time either House resolves that the alterations be withdrawn, then the Secretary of State could not proceed with the proposed revisions laid before Parliament. I am obliged to Members of the Committee, for not having noticed that omission either.
I have not yet heard what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter or the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, have to say on their amendments, but I hope they will agree that in the light of what I am proposing their amendments are rendered unnecessary. Therefore, I beg to move Amendment No. 17A.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, whose amendment is before mine, desires to speak now. If not, I shall make a few observations, but I was waiting for him to speak.
Lord Airedale: I think the peg upon which I hung my amendment is about to be taken away and I shall not be able to move it; but I am quite satisfied.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am very much in the same boat. As my noble friend knows, at Second Reading I raised the question of the position of this House. I only tabled my amendment when we came to the first day of the Committee stage last week and my noble friend had not then tabled an amendment to bring this House into approval of codes of practice. Therefore, I tabled this amendment simply as a precaution in case the pressure of public business prevented my noble friend from doing so before we reached this stage.
However, there is one point of difference and of interest particularly in the light of the earlier observations of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham. I am sorry that he is not in his place. As I understand it, the original proposal was for a negative resolution procedure and my amendment sought simply to put this House in the same position as another place. I beg the Committee's pardon, I should have said an affirmative resolution procedure. My noble friend's amendment introduces the affirmative procedure for, at any rate, the first round.
That has one rather interesting point. Although it is a fairly well established convention that the House does not disagree with another place on delegated legislation of this kind the precedents are, curiously enough, much stronger against it doing so in the negative than in the affirmative case. Some Members of the Committee will recall that there is a not too remote precedent of this House rejecting an affirmative resoution in the case of the Rhodesia order. The noble Lord, Lord Elysian-Morgan, appears to recall that.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: It was 1967.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The adoption of the affirmative procedure in my noble friend's admendment in some degree meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, with whom
864
I happen to agree. Obviously in the circumstances my amendment will be excluded anyhow if, as I hope, the Committee accept my noble friend the Minister's amendment. However, I felt that that explanation as to why my amendment had been tabled, and the quite significant difference in the character of the procedure in the two, was worth remarking upon.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I think the Committee owes a considerable debt of gratitude not only to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but also to my noble friend the Minister. However, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minster could possibly arrange for the Committee to be informed of the constitutional position that arises on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham.
I have no experience of conventions in another place, and practically none of those in this place, but I like to know what I am doing. I have not the slightest idea of the effect of this. I think it is reasonable that all noble Lords should be informed authoritatively of the constitutional position that arises. I hope noble Lords will not think this intervention out of place.
Baroness David: Of course we on this side of the Committee are pleased that this House has been brought into the whole affair. Having said that, it is only a partial satisfaction because it is the convention of this place that we do not vote against orders, regulations and so on; and equally, that we should not vote against a draft. We have sometimes put an amendment to regulations but they have never altered the words of the regulation or order, whatever it may be. The example of Rhodesia is true as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said; but we think it was an affirmative, not negative, resolution.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It was certainly an affirmative resolution. Indeed, I based my whole argument on the point that it was.
Baroness David: This order will be an affirmative order when it comes before the House. However, I should like to make it quite clear that the power of this House is very little indeed on these orders. The power of the other place is not all that great. It will not have the opportunity to amend the code of practice. It can vote either for it or against it, as I understand it, and our power is really nil. It is a courtesy which we are glad to have.
The Government have conceded half the case by making the initial code subject to the affirmative procedure, but we think that it is rather illogical to allow only the negative procedure for revisions to the code. It would be quite possible for the Government to slip by quite large alterations to the code without your Lordships being aware of them. I know that the noble Lord said that most revisions to the code would probably be quite small, but we cannot be certain of that.
Therefore, we would in fact prefer the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because that would give us the opportunity at least to see and comment on revisions to the code. It would be nice to have confirmation from the Government—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Baroness allow me? With respect, surely we can comment whether the procedure is affirmative or negative. In neither case can we amend. The only distinction is that the precedents are rather stronger against rejecting a negative procedure than they are against rejecting an affirmative one.
Baroness David: I understand that. We can if we notice that they are on the Order Paper; but I understand affirmative resolutions have to be brought before the House.
Lord Mottistone: I do not understand why the noble Baroness should think that my noble friend's amendment would be any better in what we can say and what we can do than would be the Minister's amendment. In both cases we can adopt as strong a position as we can and sometimes Ministers pay attention and withdraw orders to amend them and lay them again. That has happened within the past year. It does not make any difference whether it is under the negative or affirmative procedure. I do not think that the Rhodesia incident is one which can be called a real precedent; it was a very special case. It is about the only one that has happened in the time that I have been in the House, which is nearly 20 years.
We are making rather a meal of this matter. I think that the Minister's amendment is the better one because it gives a proper position relating to revisions which are not in the Bill at the moment even with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I should have thought we have a very good solution in Amendment No. 17A and that we should go ahead with it.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to both my noble friends for their support. I simply say that when an order is laid before the House the convention is that if it is an affirmative procedure then the Motion is to approve it, and that Motion can be voted against. If it is known in advance that it will be voted against, then the Government can take what steps they think appropriate either through the Whips or by amending the order.
The noble Lord, Lord Elysian-Morgan, is making what I can only describe as a face of distaste at what I suggest, but I recall that when I was sitting where he is sitting now I discovered that there was an inconsistency in a sugar order. I do not recall what on earth the sugar order was about, but I do remember the inconsistency. I remember informing our Whips and the Government Whips of this inconsistency, and the Government then withdrew the order, took it off the Order Paper, amended it and brought it back in a satisfactory state. So this does happen. If the noble Baroness who is sitting opposite is going to tell me that, despite her vigour and vigilance which we all admire so much, things will get past her on the Order Paper, then I shall be disappointed to hear it. If I were honest I should be somewhat relieved, because one always expects trouble from an Opposition which spots anything on the Order Paper.
But the fact is that we have a procedure whereby very large amounts of legislation can be agreed by Parliament simply by acquiescence, and the more that
866
is required to be done positively the more time is eaten up which cannot be used for more important things. Given that the important measure of the main code will be on the affirmative order, I should have thought that the Committee would consider it appropriate to spend a lot of time on that—from the debates that we have already had it is quite clear that we shall do so—and that the alterations, which cannot amount in total to as much as the code, in most normal cases might be dealt with by the negative procedure. The hawk-eyed Opposition, aided by the Alliance on one side of them and the Cross-Benches on the other, will keep a very close eye on the Order Paper (as will no doubt some of my noble friends behind me) and alert the Government, your Lordships' House and the world to anything that needs stopping. They have the means so to do in the amendment which I now beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 17B and 17C not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Ardwick Lord Ardwick moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 35, at end insert ("and bodies representative of employees of local authorities.").
The noble Lord said: Subsection (5) says that the Minister,
"before issuing, revising or withdrawing a code [shall] consult such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned"
etc. My amendment simply adds,
"and bodies representative of employees of local authorities.".
In moving this amendment I should like to make clear that I continue not to accept the need for a statutory code of practice at all. Self-regulation by local authorities is by far the better course. A professional code has just been published by the Institute of Public Relations for this purpose and I think that if the Government read that code they will find that it is a very promising and pretty rigorous one. However, if Ministers insist on a code which is backed by an order approved by both Houses of Parliament, it is essential that council officers who are likely to be involved in carrying out its provisions should be consulted as well as the associations. The draft code published in December 1985 and written by the Department of the Environment is a warning of what can happen when the professionals are not asked first. Anyway, that code is now withdrawn, thank goodness.
Clause 4 as it now stands provides for consultation between Ministers and local authority associations. That is all right, but it is not quite wide enough; it misses out the people whose professional job it is to operate the code. The local authority associations represent the councils themselves—that is, the elected members—but the officers also need to be consulted. In practice nowadays the information and public relations functions in most councils are carried out by professional journalists and professional public relations people who work in the press and PR departments of the town hall or the county hall. Large numbers of them are members of the National Union of Journalists. I think it would be wrong not to give their representative body the same right to be consulted as the local authority associations. The Government can only benefit from the advice of

867
professional men and women of long experience in the field of journalism and public relations.
I have drawn the terms of my short amendment, which is taken from a clause in last year's Local Government Bill, wide enough to enable other bodies representative of employees to be consulted if the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate, but obviously I am concerned to involve those members of staff who work specifically on information and publicity and who will be directly affected by the existence of a statutory-based code. I hope that the Government will see the amendment as being aimed at improving the operation of the clause and will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: Very briefly, from these Benches we should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, in his amendment. It seems to us fairly important that Clause 4(5) should be widened to require the Secretary of State to consult bodies representative of council employees. These officers will have the difficult task of interpreting the code, often in circumstances of high pressure from other officers, from journalists and of course from their elected members, as the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, has already explained.
It seems to me that this is such an extraordinarily reasonable, sensible and straightforwardly practical amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, should have no difficulty in accepting it. As the clause has already been significantly improved by the Committee, perhaps the Government would now like to improve it a little further.
Baroness Faithfull: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, exactly what he means by,
"bodies representative of employees of local authorities"?
I am not quite sure about this term because there are many bodies in one local authority who are representative of the employees. I wonder if I may ask him for information.
Lord Ardwick: I do not think I can go any further into it than to give a generalisation—the principle that employees' organisations should be represented: the professional organisations as well as the local Authority associations.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am afraid that I oppose this amendment for almost the very reason that was given by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, before I decided to speak. It is rather vague, and it is far too vague and imprecise to be enshrined in the words of a statute. I know that it sounds a little trite for a lawyer to make that sort of comment, but that is the reason I oppose this amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, does not persist in his amendment because I think it will cause a little disruption between the employees and the local authorities. At the end of the day, the associations of local authorities are the authentic voice of any point of view which comes from the local authorities. I think that even to suggest, by adding the employees' representatives to the statute, that they are not, would perhaps create some sort of
868
disruption. I look to the local authorities, who would have the power under the clause as it now stands, to take into account their employees' point of view. Those of us who have served on local authorities know that that is done.
Before a local authority forms its own view, it takes into account the official view of the employees, particularly the associations identified by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. To suggest that there will have to be two horses in the shafts may well risk a disruption, which is unnecessary. For this reason I hope that the noble Lord does not pursue this particular amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I should like to add to the words of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, with which I entirely agree, the fact that, as I see it, the amendment as worded applies to all bodies representative of employees of local authorities, whereas I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, was really making a plea for the NUJ in particular. I think that what my noble friend Lord Campbell had in mind is that this amendment, as worded, covers all the trades unions of all the employees of the local authority, which is really going much too far for a matter which is particularly concerned with publicity. In any case, I agree with the arguments that my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has made, that the trades unions are not responsible for publicity but it is the responsibility of the local authorities, and it is the responsible people who need to be consulted in the usual way. It happens in lots of Bills. This is a very special case. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Underhill: It appears to me, with respect, that the two previous speakers have interpreted the amendment wrongly. With the amendment, the subsection would read:
"consult such associations of local authorities and bodies representative of employees of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned".
The decision will rest with the Secretary of State. I am president of one of the local authority associations. As the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, says, we take into account the views expressed by advisers. I am certain that the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives could do a vital job if it was consulted by the Secretary of State. As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, these are the people who have to carry out the various matters. It has already expressed serious concern about the type of advice that it will have to give its members. It is doubtful whether local authority associations would get direct advice from such people as journalists and public relations officers, who are also vitally concerned.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am a little surprised to hear the noble Lords, Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Mottistone, remind us how amenable and agreeable the local authorities are, since we spent a good part of last year with the Government trying to abolish them for not being amenable and agreeable. That is a most welcome change. I should like to have seen it a year ago, but it is never too late.
However, I think that there is something in what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said about the imprecision of the amendment. I am sure the noble

869
Lord, Lord Ardwick, will be inclined to agree. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and others that the idea underlying it is sound. I should like an assurance from the Government that the Minister will consider the principle and perhaps come to an arrangement to have a more precise amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is right in saying that the amendment, if adopted, would involve consultation only with such associations of employees as the Secretary of State saw fit. But he knows the trade union world well enough to be aware of the hornet's nest that the Secretary of State would stir up if he started consulting one trade union and not another. He knows very well the friction there. It would be clear that under the amendment NALGO would expect to be consulted and perhaps—and this is a sobering thought—SOGAT 82.
Lord Skelmersdale: In the interests of harmony, I start by agreeing with one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said. He quoted subsection (5) absolutely correctly! Why does the Bill empower the Secretary of State
"before issuing, revising or withdrawing a code"
to
"consult such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned and any local authority with whom consultation appear to him to be desirable"?
It is for the very reason that my noble friends behind me have stated. It is they who are the Aquarians; it is they who carry the can.
I accept that some employees of local authorities will be responsible for the day-to-day use of the code of practice on publicity, but they are among a number of other representative organisations which have an important interest and with which the Government would clearly wish to discuss their proposals but which are given no special status in the Bill. I do not think that we should be justified in making a statutory requirement to consult with them.
6.15 p.m.
I can readily accept that consultation with such bodies is desirable—the right bodies; again I refer to my noble friends behind me. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, may perhaps know, for instance, that my officials have had informal discussions with the local government branch of the Institute of Public Relations about the areas which the code might cover. In addition, my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government has also discussed the Bill, including the code of practice, with the TUC Local Government Committee where the major local government unions were represented. Such discussions are always helpful; but I see no reason why the Bill should require them. To do so would immediately imply that any body not included on the list of required consultees would have no right to comment, and I do not think that the Committee would wish that to be implied to those organisations outside local government which clearly have an important contribution to make. Those include bodies representing voluntary organisations and the advertising industry, for example.
870
I fully agree with the comment of noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, about professional men with long experience; but, as my noble friend Lady Faithfull pointed out, those are not necessarily the employees referred to in the amendment. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said that the phraseology in the amendment is vague. I am not sure that I should like to be quite as hard-hearted as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls and describe it as disruptive.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, produced two arguments. He spoke first about advice being given to members of local authority associations. It occurred to me, perhaps rather naughtily, that it may be more appropriate to have an amendment for local authority members to consult the appropriate officials. That is a flippant point. The noble Lord mentioned the Local Government Act 1985. As I understand it, the provision that he was referring to is Section 51(5)(a), which is in the part of the Act dealing with staffing matters and so it cannot be described as a good precedent for the amendment. Staffing would cover all employees of the existing metropolitan authorities and the GLC.
I hope that I have said enough to persuade the noble Lord that at best the amendment is not quite as full as he intended and that it certainly would not have the general approval of the Committee.
Lord Ardwick: I take it from those words that the noble Lord may look at something else at a later stage in the Bill. All that I am concerned about is that the Minister should consult the employee associations that he thinks relevant concerned with the operation and interpretation of the codes. That narrows the provision considerably, but I agree that that is not expressed in the amendment. It may be possible to contrive something more acceptable than I have done so far.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 18A:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert—
("(5A) A code shall not be issued unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5B) Where the Secretary of State proposes to revise a code he shall lay a draft of the proposed alterations before each House of Parliament and—

(a) he shall not make the revision until after the expiration of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft is laid (or, if copies are laid before each House of Parliament on different days, with the later of those days), and

(b) if within that period either House resolves that the alterations be withdrawn, he shall not proceed with the proposed alterations (but without prejudice to the laying of a further draft).

In computing the period of 40 days no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Perhaps I should say that if Amendment No. 19 were to be agreed to I should not be able to call Amendment No. 19A.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 38, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: I am advised that, as this amendment is bound up with Amendment No. 16, and as I have spoken to that and there has been a Division on it, I need only move it formally. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 19A:
Page 3, line 38, leave out ("the provisions of the codes in force") and insert ("any relevant provisions of a code").
The noble Lord said: I rather think that this is another peg which has disappeared.
[Amendment No. 19A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness David: The Government have all the time had considerable difficulty with this clause. They have certainly faced difficulty today. A draft code was produced but has had to be withdrawn. We can, however, guess something of the Government's intentions from that draft code. We hope very much, of course, that the next one will be very different from the draft that has now gone.
During our discussion on Amendment No. 16, the Minister suggested that the local authority associations were satisfied now that the draft code had been withdrawn. I have here a letter written by the vice-chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to the Minister of State, Mr. William Waldegrave. That letter was written the day after the meeting at which the Minister was present with the local authority associations. I should like to quote a few lines from it. It states:
"You will have recognised yesterday that our primary concern at this stage is not the content of the code but its status in legislation. As you know, our preferred option is self-regulation as recommended by Widdicombe—the removal of Clause 4 from the Bill".
So they are only partially satisfied.
I should also like to quote the comments of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives on Clause 4. They state:
"On all issues, local authorities, their members, officers and ratepayers, are entitled to seek from Parliament a clear statement in a statute of what is or is not permitted. The overlaying of a code of practice by the Secretary of State, as provided for in Clause 4 will produce a state of confusion for those who have to interpret the legislation. It will lead to the provision of two sets of rules, neither of them easy to interpret, one in statute and one a code of practice of uncertain status".
Well, we have improved the clause today—quite substantially, I think. I still believe, however, that it would be very much wiser for Clause 4 not to stand part of the Bill and that we go back to what Widdicombe suggested in paragraph 211 of the report. This states:
"As we have indicated, the criteria for such a body"
this is a sort of complaints body—
"could not readily be laid down in statute. The question, however, arises of devising a nationally accepted code of practice. While it might be possible to develop such a code over time we do not think this would be a simple task".
Indeed, the Government have found that.
872
Again, the report states, in paragraph 242:
"We believe that tone and presentation is important, and it should be controlled. Undoubtedly it would be best, in our view, if this could be done by self-regulation within local government, or through the agency of the local authority associations".
I should like to think that the Government could still see that as the way forward and decide perhaps themselves to get rid of the clause.
It has emerged from the debate—because the Government would not accept the very simple amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—that really what they wanted to do was to impress the ratepayers and to suggest that they were putting something tough into the Bill. I think, in fact, the Minister said—I copied it down—that ratepayers will have something to go by. Maybe, with the thought of elections in May and this Act coming into force on 1st April, the Government would be able to say that they had done something very tough, that they had included this code of practice and that local authorities shall have regard to it.
Lord Elton: As a matter merely of fact, I have made clear that there will be no code of practice in April. That is when we start talking about it. It will take quite a long time to get it ready. I doubt very much that it will be ready by May, or whenever it is, that the great decisions are taken.
Baroness David: I was not suggesting that the code would be ready but that the Government would be able to say that they had put in a clause that will demand a code of practice and that the local authority associations will have to have regard to it. This is the reason, it seems to me, why the Government were so adamant about not accepting the earlier amendments.
We are opposed to this clause standing part of the Bill. However, as we have improved the clause considerably by the amendments already accepted by the Committee, we shall not press it to a vote.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose the amendment, and here I am afraid—
Lord Elton: It is not an amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am much obliged. I oppose the proposal that the clause shall not stand part of the Bill; and here I part company with the noble Baroness who has just spoken. Clause 4, as it now stands, amended by Amendments Nos. 16 and 19, serves a vital and important purpose of clarification of the status of the codes. The advisory status, as now established beyond all doubt in this area of codes devised in consultation, will afford, I would have supposed, a requisite adjunct to self-regulation. It could do a lot of good. I do not see that it could cause resentment or do any conceivable harm. I cannot therefore support the Opposition on Clause 4 not standing part of the Bill.
Lord Denning: I oppose the suggestion that Clause 4 stand part for three reasons. First, the clause, as it originally stood, has been emasculated by amendments already made by your Lordships. The first amendment confines the guidance to local authorities in order to determine expenditure on

873
publicity. That confines the code to a very limited field. The other amendment is much more important. We have struck out subsection (6) which states that local authorities "shall have regard to". That means that there is nothing in the statute to say what the effect of this clause is.
We have discussed codes of practice before, and I have quoted on an earlier occasion what was stated by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. Everyone, I think, agrees. The noble Viscount said that,
"if Parliament is going to do this sort of thing… then it must at the same time apply its mind to saying, in terms, what is to be the effect of the code".—[Official Report, 15/1/86; col. 1083]
What is the effect of the code? It is not equivalent to regulations. That is clear. Is it as lowly as a circular issued on departmental authority? That has no legal force at all. Or is it something in between—a code that has statutory approval but not a word to explain what will be its effect if the matter should ever come before a court? Looking at this constitutionally, I would say that it is wrong to have a code in force in which nothing is said about what will be its effect.
Thirdly, the Widdicombe report wisely said, "We cannot decide about this at the moment. Leave it to the time when we get to our final report". Surely, that is a much better way of dealing with the matter than having this clause as it is at the moment. According to what I read, the local authority associations have reaffirmed their willingness to develop and agree a code of practice on the timing and presentation of publicity based on self-regulation within local government, saying that Clause 4 should be withdrawn. It seems to me that this is right, and that in view of the developments that have taken place it should be withdrawn.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: Not for the first time I find myself very much in agreement—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I wish only to ask a question by way of clarification before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, sits down. Would the noble and learned Lord look, in view of what he has said—I put this with the utmost respect—at Clause 4(1), dealing with codes of recommended practice? Will he then look at Amendment No. 16 which provides "for the guidance of local authorities"? Would the noble and learned Lord not agree that that makes it totally plain beyond all peradventure that the status of these codes is, as he said when he supported my amendment, advisory only and of no legal effect?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Denning: If it has no legal effect then I think that we should have a clause in to say, "This clause is to have no legal effect." Otherwise people will misuse it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Embellish the Bill.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: As I was saying before giving way to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, not for the first time I find myself very much
874
in agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, particularly on the second point regarding the effect of the clause.
I would say that had subsection (6) been left in the clause I would still have found this clause extremely difficult, because one would then have had in subsection (1) a description of the code as being a code "of recommended practice", and in subsection (6) a requirement to "have regard" to it. I would have found it very difficult myself to square the concept of an instruction to "have regard" to something which is merely recommended. We have at least now removed that uncertainty. We have nothing but a code of recommended practice. For the life of me, I cannot see why the Government cannot issue as many codes of recommended practice as they like without incorporating them in a statute.
Lord Kilmarnock: It is always dangerous for a layman to come between noble Lords learned in the law, but I still find it extremely difficult to understand if, as the Government argue, no inflence can be exerted on the judiciary by the existence of a code what the value is of having a statutory based code at all. We continue to argue that a professional, self-regulatory code operated by the IPR in agreement with the local authority associations would do just as well.
One further point is that the powers of your Lordships in respect of this legislation have received a certain amount of debate this evening. We are told that any code which comes before us will now come in the form of an affirmative instrument in the first instance, and then as a negative instrument for any revisions. In spite of the instances which have been given of the exercise of your Lordships' powers in relation to the Rhodesia Order some considerable number of years ago, and the interesting reminiscences of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on a Sugar Order when he was sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, I do not think that we should be under any illusion that we should have a great deal of effect—if any at all—on any code that eventually comes before us, or any revision of it. That is something we should bear in mind.
I understand that the noble Baroness will not press her objection. However, as a practical consideration, the Widdicombe Report, Part I, at paragraph 218 says that they believed they should consider this matter further and that they would do this with the local authority associations. It appears to me that when they saw the Bill and saw Clause 4 in the Bill, they will have desisted from that intention. Is this not a good moment to put the consideration of the matter back into Widdicombe's court? Should they not be encouraged to proceed to explore with the local authority associations a formula for a code of good practice which could eventually be adopted? Pending that process of consideration, would the Government not be well advised, even with Clause 4 in the Bill, to delay any further action on a code and not to bring anything further forward until we have the Widdicombe Report, Part 2, with its recommendations after discussions with the local authority associations?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I think that the amendments which we have made to Clause 4 are a

875
mistake; but we have made them, and that is now the position. I cannot accept the claim by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that, because it has no clear legal enforcement behind it, the existence of a clause which has been recommended by the Minister would not have some good effect on any decisions which may flow from it. I believe that it would. I believe that the fact that the code was there, that it had had the support of the Minister, and that it was written into the statute would give it that extra status which would make it more likely—even though it could not easily be legally enforced—that the terms behind it would be generally accepted.
I think that we ought to keep in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said on a previous amendment with regard to it being made purely self-regulatory by the local authority associations. I do not think that certain authorities would accept that self-regulation. They would get the bit between their teeth and do things with which, I am certain, Members in all parts of the House would not agree. I am not saying, if we leave Clause 4 as it is now amended, that it would be a clear answer to people who wanted to do that. However, I think that it would be that little bit stronger in trying to persuade them to accept the general message which would come from the code itself. I think we still ought to have Clause 4—amended though it is—in the Bill. I believe that it can only do good and is not likely to do any harm.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I wonder whether I might have a very brief word before the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, speaks for the Opposition. In its unreconstructed state I should certainly have voted against the clause standing part. But it has been notably improved and clarified. In my view, it has not—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said—been emasculated. Matters have been made clearer. We now all know the import of the legislative language of the clause, whereas we did not know that before. The clause has been not only improved by Amendments Nos. 16 and 19—which have taken out misleading words and have substituted precise words—but it has also not imported imprecise words by the grace of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, withdrawing his Amendment No. 17.
Further, I think that we must be grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his Amendments Nos. 17A and 18A. I believe them to be a distinct improvement on a number of grounds, not only because the amendment includes the House of Lords—as it should—but it also leaves out the old subsection (4), which was thoroughly misleading in that it referred to codes of practice coming "into force". We now know that they now have no force at all; so that is an improvement. It is an improvement in that it differentiates between initial codes and variations of codes. If we have affirmative resolutions for variations of codes we shall have no parliamentary time to talk about anything else at all.
For all those reasons, I think that we have given this clause some precise meaning, and I would now no longer oppose its standing part of the Bill. Instead I think that it would be wise to leave it to Widdicombe.
Lord Underhill: There is only one brief point I wish to raise. Although as the clause is now amended it is recommended practice for guidance, I should refer to subsection (2) and remind noble Lords what that says:
"Different codes may deal with different kinds of publicity or different kinds of local authority or the same kind of local authority in different circumstances or different areas".
It might be helpful if the noble Lord the Minister could explain why we might want a different code of guidance for a metropolitan district from that of a shire district, a London borough, or a Scottish district? Why might we need a different code of practice for a shire county from that of a Scottish regional authority? Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister could explain exactly what the words mean,
"or the same kind of local authority in different circumstances".
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may save a little time by reminding the noble Lord that he is only talking about the bigger authorities. Does he really think that a Scottish regional authority should be subject to the same guidance as a parish council?
Lord Underhill: Of course not, but this gives scope for so many different features. In case the noble Lord missed what I was saying when he intervened and asked me a question, let me remind him that I was referring to the different circumstances within a particular kind of authority. What are the different areas? The North of England may have a different kind of code from that in the South of England and from that which applies to the shire counties. We need an explanation as to why that is so. Frankly, my mind boggles at the number of computations that there could be in having different codes applying to different parts of subsection (2).
Lord Elton: Let me begin by endorsing what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, said in different terms by saying that I imagined, in my innocence, that when Members of the Committee voted amendments to the clause which they voted for on the grounds that they were an improvement to the clause they did not do so in the spirit of somebody giving a respray to his car before he put it on the scrap heap! It seems to me that noble Lords have spoken eloquently about the virtues of amending the clause in the sense which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway in a somewhat peripatetic manner has persuaded them to do. I understood that what they were doing was improving the clause for the purpose of putting it in the Bill. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, suggested that that was the appropriate course for those who had voted for the amendments and I was surprised that some Members of the Committee should think otherwise.
The status of the code will of course be what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway wishes it to be: that is, a code of guidance. It is true that Widdicombe suggested that it would be a great deal better to have self-regulation among the local authorities, and I have already addressed that point at some length. I need only say that it is not clear from our understanding of recent events and recent utterances that all local authorities would be keen to participate in constructing or, indeed, conforming with a voluntary code, and that the expectation of Parliament and the public is

877
that the Secretary of State will see that a code is delivered. He cannot do that—can he?—unless the Committee gives him the authority to do so, and that is what the clause does.
We would be failing in our duty if we did not ensure that the clause was in the Bill and if we made no provision at all for dealing with the very important matters that we intend it to cover. We hope and expect the associations to have a considerable voice in the content of the code. The noble Baroness read out a letter which said that still the first choice of the associations was self-regulation. I have to say that we do not see that as an acceptable choice for the reasons which I have given, but we remain of the view that the Secretary of State must be in a position to ensure that from our discussions a code emerges and is put in place. Nothing that was said last week or that I have since read has led me to suppose that the discussions will be withheld or that they will not be fruitful.
We live in a changing society. Some of the most rapid changes have taken place in the world of communications. As a result, information which one used to take only by choice at a newstand, or in restrained statements of fact on the hoarding, is piped down cables, echoed from satellites, beamed into the living room, spewed out of ticker tapes, flashed onto Prestel screens, multiplied on disc and tape cassettes; it is galvanised, televised and sloganised until there is no escaping from it. All that costs a great deal of money and affects a great many people.
Where that money belongs to the public, they have a right at least to know that there is a code of standard good practice devised by the Secretary of State in close consultation with the local authority associations and other bodies—as my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale made quite clear—and approved by both Houses of Parliament under procedures which are in fact effective when they bring such matters to your Lordships' House and to another place. I question whether sugar was an appropriate example. However, it was the example to hand in my memory, and one has to make the best of the material that one has to hand. It is a fact that the machinery is present and that the Committee can make use of it.
6.45 p.m.
We are not asking to censor local authorities. We are not asking to curb freedom of speech. We are not asking even to stop Labour councillors making political speeches that promote Labour policies. That may be tempting, but we have not done it. There is no question of stopping politicians of any party speaking in a personal capacity on anything.
All that we want to do is to ensure that some guidelines are set in the light of some of the less desirable developments that have taken place in local authority publicity and which the Widdicombe Inquiry clearly recognised. The only way in which the Secretary of State can ensure that is if you give him the authority. I have said that he does not wish to dictate to local authorities, nor to censor them; nor could he have done so even if he had wished to do so and even if my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway had not succeeded in his amendments, because you could stop
878
him by rejecting any code that even hinted at such a preposterous move. The power and the opportunity for you to do so are here on the face of the Bill.
My honourable friend and I have already had useful talks with the local authority associations. I believe that they will result in a code which even in its revised status will, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, said, be very beneficial. It would be a disappointment of a great order to deny it to those who expect it. I beg to move that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lord Airedale: The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has pointed out how the draftsman has gone to town with the word "different" in subsection (2). The word "different" occurs five times in three lines of print. If, when we get to Report, we can leave out the first word of subsection (2), which is "different", I am sure that that will make matters much easier for the noble Lord, Lord Underhill.
Lord Elton: I am not sure how keen I am to make things easier for the noble Lord, Lord Underhill; I get more pleasure from making them more difficult! The point of having this range of choices open is to avoid being boxed in by some absurd and unforeseen position when it arises. I thought that the noble Lord was only concerned about different authorities having different provisions and I pointed out that, whereas it might be quite reasonable to have shires and districts and metropolitan districts and London boroughs under the same constraints, it may well be—and comments made in Committee earlier have suggested that this is likely to be the case—that parish councils ought to have some different criteria applied to them because they are different animals doing, basically speaking, a different job. I keep using the word "different" too, because it is relevant on every occasion.
I cannot, as I stand here on my feet, detect what would be the effect on the wording of subsection (2) of the deletion of the word "different" where it first occurs in line 26. If it has a beneficial effect, which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, believes will make life easier for the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, then the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, being so much better disposed towards the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, even than I am, will doubtless put down an amendment at Report. However, that is something which we could do while still leaving the clause in the Bill, and I ask the Committee to do that.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5, [Separate account of expenditure on publicity]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 19B:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
(", and public bodies or voluntary organisations receiving money for publicity from Local Authorities must make available to the public their accounts, constitution, lists of officers and names of any other groups which share their offices.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to make public the information relevant for keeping a public check on the implementation of Clause 2(3). The Committee may think that it is a bit elaborate for

879
doing that. The reason for the amendment is that there are quite a few different ways in which money may be spent which are not clear as to whether or not it is being used for publicity. I shall give the Committee an example. Indeed, I shall give you quite a few examples because I think one wants to explain the position fully. I am sorry that the amendment has been taken quite so close to what is normally the dinner break, but that is no fault of mine and I shall seek to say as much as I think I need to say.
Groups may be funded for some purpose other than publicity—for example, running costs or research. They may be awarded a grant for wages. How will anyone know whether any part of that money is being used for prohibited purposes?
The Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom has the wages of its information officer paid by the London ratepayers via the GLC. Who, if this Bill were enforced while the GLC were still in existence, would monitor his work to ensure that he never uses his time to publish material which contravenes the Bill? A number of so-called resource centres are council-funded. They provide graphics, typesetting and printing facilities for other groups. These frequently include local branches of political parties. To keep track of all these activities it is essential to have public records of groups which are funded for publicity and groups which, though funded for some purpose other than publicity, actually publish material.
To give another example, many organisations which receive ratepayers' cash are interconnected. They have common officers, similar objectives, and often share the same address. For example, Lespop (Lesbians and Policing Project); GALOP (Gay London Police Monitoring Group); RAMPET (Research and Monitoring of Police Equipment and Training Group); and, ALTARF (All London Teachers Against Racism and Fascism), each of them GLC-funded, have a common address at No. 38 Mount Pleasant, London.
Another example is that many organisations share common officers. I do not mean "common" in one sense, but officers who are shared between them. For example, the chairman of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom is Loretta Loach, who works for Spare Rib. Both those organisations receive GLC money. Charles Landry was treasurer of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom and a director of the Comedia Press, which also receives GLC money. Mike Jempson, a Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom committee member, works for the GLC-founded GLEB. Your Lordships may say that with the GLC being phased out this will not happen in the future, but I think your Lordships are aware that organisations of this type are all too likely to be taken on, in same way as they now function, by other local authorities.
In the same way as companies have to register the names of their directors and the details of other directorships held by those directors, I suggest that publicly-funded groups should also be required to disclose the names of their officers and of other publicly-funded groups with which those officers are connected. It is only by those means that we can track down whether Clause 2(3) is being contravened.
In addition, the object of the amendment is that these organisations should, like companies, have to file their constitutions and accounts and give access to the public to other information which groups have submitted in support of their grant applications. The amendment also asks groups to name their other principal sources of funding to assist in determining whether they are likely to support a political party.
Lastly, any organisation which is in receipt of council funding, and is either funded for political purposes or is funded for some other purpose but engages in publicity, will be required to disclose that fact to a member of the public if requested. To keep track of all these activities it is essential to have public records of groups which are funded for publicity and groups which, though funded for some purpose other than publicity, actually publish material. It is only by having the comprehensive nature of Amendment No. 19B that one can keep a proper track publicly of whether the terms of the Bill, and in particular of Clause 2(3), are truly being adhered to. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: I hope your Lordships will not accept this amendment, because I suggest it is unworkable. The voluntary body or organisation with which I have been most closely connected is the National Marriage Guidance Council, whose fundings were mainly from the local authority. They came in a lump sum, such as £10,000, but there was no segregation into publicity or other purposes. No doubt some of their funds were used for proper publicity supporting the institution of marriage. One could not say that they had received money for publicity, but for their general purposes. It seems to me that one could not work this provision in relation to the innumerable bodies which receive money from local authorities because publicity is not separately itemised. I hope my noble friend will not press it.
Lord Underhill: The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in moving his amendment, did not refer to subsections (1) and (2) of the clause. Subsection (1) provides:
"A local authority shall keep a separate account of their expenditure on publicity".
Subsection (2) states:
"Any person interested may at any reasonable time and without payment inspect the account and make copies of it".
Despite the amendment which the noble Lord has moved, there already seems to be a considerable amount of information; otherwise, he could not have referred to all the grants that have been made to the various bodies.
What does the amendment mean by:
"must make available to the public"?
Surely, if subsection (1) and (2) mean anything the information will be there. Is it suggested that all this information should be detailed in a council minute; the whole of the constitution of a voluntary body or similar organisation which is receiving a grant—
Lord Mottistone: The amendment is calling upon the subordinate bodies, public bodies and voluntary organisations, which receive this money, to make public their own accounts. We are not seeking to add to what the local authorities have to do. That is why

881
the other part of subsection (1), which is already in the Bill, and subsection (2), are not relevant to this amendment. This amendment seeks to widen subsection (1) to call upon these other bodies—bodies of the nature of those of which I gave examples—to make public their constitutions, accounts and lists of officers. We are not seeking to add to the local authorities' requirements. I think the noble Lord believes we are.
Lord Underhill: I am glad that the noble Lord explained that, because I was assuming from his amendment that he was wishing the local authorities to make these details public. But there are still points which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has brought forward which make this amendment objectionable. I have no objection to any organisation making public what its aims are, but when we consider the details that are required here they include,
"accounts, constitution, lists of officers and the names of any other groups which share their offices".
That last item is surely going rather far. I am not suggesting that we should hide any insidious organisation which occupies someone else's office under some pretence, but to ask an organisation to detail any body to which it may sub-let its premises is surely going a bit too far. The whole of this amendment seems to be along that line.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: May I ask my noble friend, when he replies, to clear up a point for me? It is not very clear, and it arises on the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. If a local authority, in order to secure publicity for political purposes, gives a sum of money to some either public body or voluntary body outside, is that gift of money caught by subsection (1)?
7 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: I rise only for a moment to express some surprise at the misapprehension under which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, laboured as to the effect of this amendment. I should have thought, and respectfully submit, that the drafting of the amendment is admirably clear. It is an amendment designed, as my noble friend has said, not to lay an additional burden on local authorities but to impose a perfectly reasonable obligation on bodies receiving moneys out of the public purse. In so far as such bodies have nothing to hide, then they have no reason to be apprehensive of this amendment.
Lord Elton: My noble friend has brought before your Lordships an amendment of which I agree the effects seem to be fairly clear and not to lay an additional burden on local authorities. It would require public bodies and voluntary organisations who received money from local authorities for publicity to make certain information available to the public. I must say that the kind of information which it might produce, if it is like that my noble friend produced—and I am much indebted to him for the fascinating expose he gave us of the ramification of bodies funded by the GLC—would be interesting for the public to see. But as I have described it, this is a narrowly framed amendment. However, I think it
882
raises general questions about ensuring proper accountability for local authority decision making and about the way some local authorities use their discretionary spending powers to fund what could well be described as peripheral and politically charged activities.
These are matters which the Widdicombe inquiry is still considering in the context of its main report. As you Lordships know, the committee is due to submit its main report this spring. I think we should be ill-advised to pre-empt that report by legislation in this field now. We will wish to consider the issues in the light of the committe's recommendations, but I should not wish to make any commitments at this stage in the relatively narrow field of local authority publicity alone.
It is arguable that grant aided bodies should be accountable, whether they are grant aided for publicity or for some other purpose. In that case it would be anomalous to make provisions of this kind only in the case of publicity grants. I can tell my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that the local authority have to include a grant in the account, but it will not be for party political purposes because of Clause 2, which will rule them out; so they will not get the grant, and it will not go into the account.
I should only add that I recognise that my noble friend's underlying concern is the nature of some of the groups that are grant aided by local authorities under their discretionary spending powers, including Section 137 of the 1972 Act. I have to say that the Government are concerned also in the same way about some recent funding. Our evidence to the Widdicombe inquiry very clearly reflects this concern. However, here again is a matter which is much wider than the narrow issue of local authority publicity which Part II of the Bill addresses.
I can assure my noble friend that the Government will very carefully consider any recommendations the committee of inquiry makes about the use of authorities' discretionary spending powers. We shall consider the need for further legislation in the light of what the Widdicombe inquiry's main report concludes. I think that that will be the right time and that my noble friend's enthusiasm, though well directed, is just fractionally premature, given that we share his interest and we will retain it until a later and I think more suitable opportunity, when we can direct it at a wider field than merely local authority spending on publicity. I hope he will feel able to await that date and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: Yes, I can see the problem. It needs something as comprehensive, even to cover the narrow gap of publicity. Of course, I covered publicity because that is the nature of Part II of the Bill, and it is the nature of the title of Clause 5.
I see the point my noble friend makes. He almost said—perhaps he cannot say more—that there will be further legislation when Widdicombe makes his final report, and that this kind of matter will be included, possibly on the lines which I suggest. I do not know whether he can be a little more open on that.
Lord Elton: Well, I did; I almost said that.
Lord Mottistone: Well, with that almost reassurance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdale: In begging to move that the House do now resume, I should say that it is not proposed to return to this Bill until five past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Incest and Related Offences (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Marriage Bill [H.L.]
7.7 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, before the House proceeds further, it might be helpful at this time if I was to make known the Government's view on the extension of the Bill to Scotland.
As my noble friend Lord Davidson made clear at Second Reading, the Government's attitude to the principle of the Bill is one of neutrality, in keeping with the convention that issues such as those dealt with in the Bill should be left to personal conscience in the light of arguments advanced in debate. Having said that, I should also make clear that the Government take the view—whether or not Parliament decides that the changes proposed in the Bill are desirable—that it is preferable for there to be so far as possible consistency in the laws of marriage of England and of Scotland. This view is based upon the accustomed practice of keeping the laws of England and Scotland substantially compatible in respect of capacity to marry, having regard in particular to the movement of people between the two countries.
It is on account of practical considerations such as these, I would emphasise, as opposed to any departure from the convention of neutrality, that the Government undertook consultations in Scotland after the introduction of this Bill. These consultations were intended to ascertain whether, if the Bill was to be given the support of Parliament so as to change the law of marriage of England and Wales, if there was a consensus in Scotland in support of application also north of the Border. These consultations have now been concluded and indicate a general consensus among the churches and other bodies in Scotland in favour of maintaining consistency in the law of marriage between England, Wales and Scotland.
In the light of these consultations and the favourable reception which the Bill has been accorded in your Lordships' House, the Government consider that it would be appropriate and practical to extend the provisions of the Bill to Scotland. To this purpose I intend to table amendments to the Bill at Third Reading in your Lordships' house. I thought that your
884
Lordships would wish at this time to have notice of the Government's intention in this matter.
As I indicated during the Second Reading debate on the Incest and Related Offences (Scotland) Bill, if it is to be the view of Parliament that the principle of the Marriage Bill should be supported, it will be necessary also to amend the law of incest in Scotland so as to preclude the possibility of embarrassing inconsistencies in the law of marriage and in that relating to incest. However, these considerations and other questions of detail concerning application of the Marriage Bill to Scotland may probably be discussed to greater advantage at Third Reading.
Lord Meston: My Lords, before moving on to the amendments in the Marshalled List, may I thank the noble and learned Lord for that indication? I welcome the proposed extension of this Bill, should it become law, to Scotland. I accept that the drafting involved may not be entirely straightforward. There are differences in the legislation relating to marriage in Scotland and to marriage in England. One example which comes to mind is that in England you are only expressly prohibited from marrying your grandmother. In Scotland, they felt it necessary to prevent you from marrying your great-grandmother, which says something either about the Scottish climate or Scottish caution. I know not. I am grateful for that indication from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I would hope also, having dropped a hint at Second Reading, to repeat that hint now that perhaps it might be felt appropriate and practical to extend this Bill to Northern Ireland as well.
Clause 1 [Marriage between certain persons related by affinity not to be void]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("at any time") and insert ("for any period").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I may, I shall speak also to the identical Amendments Nos. 10 to 15 inclusive and the consequential Amendments Nos. 5 and 18. This amendment proposes in effect a semantic change but a change which is perhaps of some importance. If I may remind your Lordships, it is a pre-condition of marriage between stepchild and step-parent under this Bill that the stepchild has never been a child of the family in the household of the step-parent who is to be married. The concept of "child of the family" is well known to the law and it is defined in this Bill in Clause 1(3).
The drafting of the Bill—and the drafting of this proposed amendment—was the product of a great deal of thought. It was realised that it was important to strike a balance between a period which is very short—indeed, too short to be a reason for preventing marriage—and a longer, but still relatively short period, which might give rise to what the law knows as a "child of the family" relationship. It is felt on further consideration that the expression "for any period" is probably preferable to the expression "at any time" in that "for any period" suggests something more substantial. It is on that basis that this modest amendment is proposed. I beg to move.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as your Lordships know, the Government are neutral on the main aims of the Bill; but I should like to say that so far as these amendments are concerned, we do not consider the use of the words, "for any period" in place of, "at any time" to be an improvement to the Bill. Does, for instance, "for any period" mean for "an appreciable period at any time before the younger party has reached the age of 18"; or does it mean for a "period no matter how long or short before the younger party has reached the age of 18"? If Lord Meston's intention is that a very short period of, say, no more than a week during which the couple lived as a family should not disqualify them from ever marrying, can he not perhaps specify the minimum period in the Bill rather than leave it to those who will have to interpret the Bill, if enacted, to decide what the minimum period should be? In view of the doubt about the effect of the words introduced by the amendment, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Meston, might be prepared to consider the wording of the subsection before we come to Third Reading.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is very frequent when the Government are neutral on this type of Bill for the Government nevertheless to provide drafting assistance which a Private Member of either House very much needs. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to say that drafting assistance in this sort of context would be available to the noble Lord, Lord Meston. If he can say that, may I respectfully suggest that the noble Lord might withdraw this amendment at this stage because it is the kind of amendment which can properly be made at Third Reading.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount and to the noble and learned Lord for their observations. The difficulties which we have faced with the wording of this particular part of this Bill have not been inconsiderable. I think that they go to show that reasonable people can differ reasonably about what certain words can mean. It is important that we get it right; it is important at the end of the day that the words in the Bill are a help and not a hindrance to those who have to interpret them. Whether or not the noble Viscount is prepared to give me the indication which was suggested just now, I am nevertheless at this stage prepared to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 15, after ("the") insert ("mother or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. This amendment is a modification of an amendment which was put to your Lordships at Committee stage and which was lost. It was to permit marriage between father-in-law and daughter-in-law, mother-in-law and son-in-law. In bringing this back in a modified form, I would point out to your Lordships that already there are three cases for Personal Bills coming before your Lordships' House, which means that it is not a very rare matter
886
that people in cases which are prohibited under existing law wish to get married. Of the three cases that are at present pending, only one could be dealt with if the legislation as it is at present worded passes through your Lordships' House and becomes law. That would leave two of the three pending cases to be dealt with by the procedure of a Personal Bill before your Lordships' House. This is a procedure which we all agree is very unsatisfactory.
As I understood the objection to the previous proposal, it was based on the argument that to permit marriage between father-in-law and daughter-in-law could give encouragement to erotic relationships within the family which could stimulate divorce between married partners inside the family circle. This was held by many people to be such a totally undesirable possibility that the law should prohibit it.
The amendments which I am now presenting to your Lordships' House avoid that difficulty and overcome that objection in that what is proposed is that marriage between father-in-law and daughter-in-law and mother-in-law and son-in-law should be permitted only where both the connecting spouses have died. That would mean that, before such a marriage was possible, the wife of the father-in-law and the husband of the daughter-in-law would both be dead. That being so, it seems highly improbable that the objection (of which a great deal was made last time) about the development of erotic relationships leading to divorce between married partners within the family circle could obtain if this amendment is passed. In view of the need to cut down as many cases as possible that have to use the Personal Bill procedure, I hope that your Lordships' House will feel that, as now presented, the proposal is acceptable. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, when your Lordships were considering this Bill in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, gave what she called an olive branch to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in making the suggestion which now formally appears as an amendment. The noble Baroness said she thought that her olive branch had been rejected. Happily, that is not the case. We have now had the time for which we asked to think about this suggestion. I am glad to say that the amendment will not be opposed from this Bench.
As a matter of fact, when the Bishops consulted we found ourselves divided. There are those who would wish to oppose this amendment, preferring a complete ban on marriage of all in-laws, while others of us (and I include myself) while not over-enthusiastic about the amendment would not wish to oppose it. The reasons for our luke-warmness or opposition are not hard to seek. In the first place, in such a marriage there would be a certain confusion of family roles, since a child may find that his grandfather has overnight become his stepfather and another may find that his grandfather has overnight become his uncle. We are anxious that family roles should be confused as little as possible and we think that is important for society as a whole.
Secondly, if a husband and wife become one flesh in marriage it might seem to some that for a man to marry his daughter-in-law is rather like marrying his daughter. Thirdly, and most importantly, we are told

887
that in other cases the distinction between terminating a marriage by death and terminating it by divorce is not recognised, so far as remarriage is concerned, in the eyes of the law. We are fearful that after a few years someone will come along and say, "If you can marry your divorced wife's sister you ought to be able to marry your divorced daughter-in-law as easily as you can marry a daughter-in-law whose husband has died". That really would endanger roles within the family and would open up possible erotic overtones of which the noble Baroness has just spoken. Indeed, I would agree not to oppose this amendment on the understanding that there is no question of that being proposed in this Bill. I hope the noble Baroness will assure us that she will be opposed to any further changes in this Bill that would facilitate marriages between a parent-in-law and a child-in-law.
Having made those three negative points, I do not wish to seem ungracious or ungenerous. Let me now be more positive and say why I would not wish to oppose it. If both the first marriages have been terminated by death—that is, in the case of the parent and the child when a widowed parent-in-law seeks to marry a widowed child-in-law—there can be no threat or damage to the relationship either of the extended family or of the two nuclear families; and as a grandparent in fact often acts as a parent towards his grandchild when his own child has died, I do not think there would be great confusion of roles. I see the force of the noble Baroness's argument, that if someone can marry his sister-in-law there is little logical ground for refusing to permit him to marry his daughter-in-law in this case.
However, I should like to add a word of warning. Let us not suppose that by agreeing to this amendment we are going to prevent all hard cases. Of course there will still be some that remain. What about a divorced parent-in-law marrying his widowed child-in-law when the parent was divorced five years before his child even got married? That would seem to me to be a hard case. Or what about the case of the child-in-law whose marriage was terminated by divorce five years before the parent-in-law became widowed? We must not think that we have got rid of all Private Bills by means of this amendment. Nevertheless, I would not wish to oppose it because there are surely some individual cases which merit our attention, such as are covered by the noble Baroness's amendment, even though in general some of us regard the good of the family in society as more important than individual cases. However, there are some, such as those covered by this amendment, which seem to be just.
Lord Denning: My Lords, may I add my support for the amendment? I am personally grateful that the right reverend Prelate is no longer opposing it. I always thought that the pass was sold, so to speak, when step-parent was allowed to marry stepchild. I gave illustrations earlier on. It seems to me that that situation is much more likely to lead to sexual rivalry than the in-law one. At all events, once the pass is sold and step-parent can marry stepchild after divorce or decease, it seems to me that, with in-laws, equally the parent-in-law ought to be able to marry the daughter-in-law, of course after the necessary divorce or decease. This amendment does not go nearly so far as
888
that. It only operates on the decease of both parents. It seems to me that this is a very welcome amendment and I am glad that it is no longer opposed by the Bishops.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, if I may say just one word in support of the intention of this amendment, I too am very glad that the right reverend Prelate is now satisfied. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in answer to the very complicated and confusing examples that were given by the right reverend Prelate about which he was still not too happy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said, there are examples before us right now where in-laws do wish on different occasions to get married. There is complete proof of this and we only have the very cumbersome system of the Personal Bill to deal with it at present.
I should like just to mention that in the minority report of No Just Cause it was clearly shown that the suggestion in the amendment of the noble Baroness was supported when they said that such marriages would not be opposed by them in principle if the intervening spouse were dead (I quote what they said),
"for then our concern about disruption within the family circle would lose some of its immediate force".
Of course that is entirely true: so I hope the Minister will see the amendment in this light and will consider it to be of practical help. The important part of it is that it will not endanger or disrupt the family circle, which is obviously the concern of all of us in regard to this Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, did not state with complete accuracy what the objection to her previous amendment in Committee was and what followed the objection to the majority report. If I may say so, I gave the example of divorce, the damage that is done and the misery that is caused over and above the normal misery that one gets when the relationship is between a father-in-law and a daughter-in-law. But I gave that only because that is the only situtation of which we have actual experience.
Here we are dealing with a world of hypothesis, and so the objection that was urged at that time really only amounts to this. The intrusion of erotic impulses into the primary family is liable to be destructive of that family and, for those who cherish the family as an institution, that is absolutely out. However, the noble Baroness rightly says that this would meet some of the cases that have been brought to our notice and that both the majority and the minority agreed that those sorts of cases should be met by a change in the law of affinity rather than by a parliamentary Private Bill.
7.30 p.m.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, quoted paragraph 274 of the minority report. I found it rather difficult to follow the committee's reasoning, because they went on after the point where the noble Baroness stopped, but I think their reasoning is this. The 1960 Marriage (Enabling) Act allows a marriage between a man and his divorced wife's sister. They said: "We do not like that." I share their dislike and I believe that the right reverend Prelate does. I see that he nods. I

889
really had no doubt about that. The point they are making is, I think, the same as the one to which the right reverend Prelate adverted; namely, that if we allow a marriage between a father-in-law and a daughter-in-law, the mother-in-law and the son having died, we may find ourselves pressed, as we were pressed in 1960, "Why not, if one of the intervening spouses has been divorced?" That, I think, is the argument and it is a cogent argument.
I am bound to say that, weighing all the advantages, I have to take into account on the other side that the Church representatives were very weak in 1960, as they were again very weak in 1969. The disastrous Divorce Reform Act 1969, which has led to this momentous break-up of marriage which has been so frequently deplored both on this Bill and on the Shops Bill, owes much, I am bound to say, to the fact that the Bench of Bishops and other Church leaders did not step in firmly and state their objections. On the contrary, with the document Putting Asunder they, if anything, encouraged that situation.
However, having said that, and having heard the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham say that on this issue they are absolutely firm, that there is to be no extension—and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will be able to assure us that she, at any rate, will seek no extension—what we are left with then is the argument of the thin end of the wedge. I have never been very encouraged by that sort of argument. A very wise statesman once said:
"The British constitution is full of the thin ends of wedges which the good sense of the public refrains from driving home".
So, although there is a danger in what the noble Baroness has said, and although she has undoubtedly proved that there is a case to be met and that this is one way of doing that, on the whole, with the perfectly firm assurance of the right reverend Prelate speaking on behalf of the Church, I myself feel that this is an amendment which should be accepted.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, seems to think that the Minister is expected to answer the points raised in debate, but I must remind her that this is a Private Member's Bill and that the Government's view remains one of benevolent neutrality. The Minister's job, in my view, is to express the Government's point of view.
So far as this amendment is concerned, it is a substantive point and the Government remain neutral. It is up to your Lordships to decide whether the change proposed by these amendments is in the best interests of the parties concerned and of society at large. But I must admit that we are not altogether happy with the lack of precision in the amendment, particularly in the use of the word "connected". Without in any way departing from the position of neutrality, I wish to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about the aim of these amendments.
I assume that it is that, for example, a man whose wife has died can marry their deceased son's wife, though he could not do so if his wife was living but divorced from him, or if their son was living but divorced from his wife, or both. If so, I am not sure whether the noble Baroness's amendment to line 18 would produce only this result.
890
For instance, it could happen that a man divorced his first wife and had a son by a second wife who then died. If the son took a wife who was connected—and I use the noble Baroness's word advisedly—in some way with his father's divorced first wife and the son then died, the noble Baroness is surely not saying that the father would have to wait for his divorced first wife's death until he could marry his deceased son's wife. Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to consider this point—if not now, before the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I fully admit that this may not be a perfectly drafted amendment. As has been pointed out, Private Member's Bills do not have the full help of a parliamentary draftsman. Although I really did not follow the full party list-like combinations which the noble Lord put forward, I can see that there might be some misunderstanding in the wording, though I think there is no misunderstanding at all in your Lordships' House about the intention.
The intention, as I think everybody has fully understood, is that marriage is not possible between the parties mentioned, unless the spouses in the cases of both people who propose to get married are dead. I think that is quite clear to your Lordships. If the House accepts this amendment this evening, perhaps a further amendment could be introduced at Third Reading in order to improve the drafting.
After listening to the debate this evening, I can, of course, assure the right reverend Prelates that there is no intention of extending this further, at any rate so far as this Bill is concerned. What may happen later is another matter. I very much go along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who pointed out—I have often reflected this myself—that the thin end of the wedge metaphor is a singularly unfortunate one, because it implies that all wedges more or less slip in by themselves, which is not at all my experience of wedges, and, in fact, it needs positive action to take the matter any further.
Having got this far, if your Lordships' House decide right through the future that you do not want it to go any further, no further will it go. It will not slip in unperceived. So nobody is committing himself to anything at all, except this very modest extension that, in the event of the death of both spouses, marriage will not be impossible.
I entirely accept the arguments about the importance of the family, but I sometimes think that we lose sight of what the majority report termed the "liberty to marry", which is inherent in human nature. What we are proposing is that if two people very much want to get married, and to make a good marriage and a good family, there have to be very strong reasons indeed for obstructing that wish. We all know that there are far too many unhappy marriages around. If we can further a few happy ones, we will surely have done something which is very worthwhile. I very much hope that the House will accept these amendments.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving fair warning of these amendments at the Committee stage. We have been able to consider them long and hard in the intervening period, and I should say now that I am prepared entirely to accept the principle of this amendment.

891
The problems that can be envisaged when one or both of the former spouses of the couple to be married are still alive do not exist when both intervening spouses are dead. At Committee stage perhaps time did not permit one to explain the problems, certainly as I envisage them, when both the spouses are still alive. One can take a typical example. A young couple marry. They may go to live with the parents of, say, the young husband. There may be a weak, immature, perhaps teenage daughter-in-law who may be very vulnerable to the influence of her father-in-law. There is a situation of proximity and dependency. If a relationship did develop between the young husband's wife and his father, there are two subsisting marriages which potentially would be ended by divorce.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, with his great experience, and I can echo with my lesser experience, there is nothing more painful than a divorce in that kind of situation. There is a great alienation and distress. The father would divorce his son's mother to marry his son's wife. It would be worse if the young couple had produced children. The children would probably stay with their mother after the disintegration of the family which I have just suggested. The grandfather would be marrying the children's mother. The alienation and upset could well be so profound that all contact between the children and their natural father and between the children and their grandmother would be completely severed. The grandmother herself would have lost her husband and lost her daughter-in-law and may well have lost meaningful contact with her grandchildren.
Those problems in what might be described as a fairly extreme but not an unlikely example would not arise if both the intervening spouses were already dead. But nevertheless—and I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for reminding us of this—the children would still have to adjust to the situation, and that adjustment and the need for it should not be underestimated. As I have said before, if I may remind the House, in the course of this Bill, our whole law of adoption, to take one example, strains itself to avoid the distortion of family relationships. The minority report in No Just Cause conceded that it would like to propose what my noble friend proposes in this amendment but the minority decided against. Their reasons for so doing are set out in paragraph 274, and I am bound to say that I find them questionable, both in law and in logic. It is not perhaps the strongest part of an otherwise strong and cogent report.
The "thin end of the wedge" argument has already been ventilated by your Lordships. I would not wish to add anything save to say that it took more than 50 years to extend the liberty to marry one's deceased wife's sister to the liberty to marry one's divorced wife's sister. The suggestion that there is a thin end of the wedge therefore possible in this situation I would beg to doubt. I am by no means sure that marriages between in-laws of the same generation—between brothers and sisters-in-law—are in the same category and throw up the same difficulties as marriages between in-laws of different generations.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has said, in this instance today the Bench of Bishops have
892
made it quite clear that they would draw a very firm line on any further extension, but this amendment has the welcome advantage that it will mean a few less Personal Bills. It is quite right that if this situation were simply left to the Personal Bill procedure, they would almost all get through. Accordingly, I willingly support and accept the amendment, subject perhaps to certain drafting improvements at a later stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
Page 1, line 17, after first ("his") insert ("son or").
Page 1, line 18, at end insert ("provided that, in the case of both parties, any former spouses through whom the couple are connected are deceased.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 2 [Marriage according to rites of Church of England or the Church in Wales]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 16, after ("Marriage") insert ("(Prohibited Degrees of Relationship)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may speak at the same time to the identical amendment, Amendment No. 8. This amendment seeks a modest and more accurate Title for the Bill. It seeks to be more accurate and to define it as the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill, one advantage of which is that it will more clearly differentiate this Bill from the Marriage (Wales) Bill which is presently travelling through your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has said, this amendment seeks to make the Bill more immediately distinguishable from the Marriage (Wales) Bill, which is also going through its stages in Parliament at this time. We have no objection to the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Amendment of s.3 of Perjury Act 1911]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, leave out lines 25 to 29 and insert—
("(d) with respect to a declaration made under section 16(1A) or 27B(2) of the Marriage Act 1949—

(i) enters a caveat under subsection (2) of the said section 16, or

(ii) makes a statement mentioned in subsection (4) of the said section 27B,

which he knows to be false in a material particular,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to improve the drafting of the new offence created by Clause 3 of the Bill. It produces an offence which is more specifically delineated and removes an unnecessary reference to attempted offences which are already covered by another statute. I beg to move.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, in our opinion this amendment provides an improved formulation of the offence set out in Clause 3. The essence of the offence lies in knowingly making a false allegation rather than in causing a particular result. If your Lordships accept

893
that it is appropriate to create such an offence in this context, I would ask your Lordships to support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Short title, citation, commencement and extent]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 35, after ("Marriage") insert ("(Prohibited Degrees of Relationship)").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment in the context of Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 36, after ("1983") insert ("and the Marriage (Wales) Act 1986").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Marriage (Wales) Bill has now been through all its stages in another place and has received a Second Reading in your Lordships' House. Accordingly, as I understand it, and by convention, it is now proper to refer to that legislation in this Bill. It is for that reason that Amendment No. 9 is proposed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Schedule:
[Amendments Nos. 10 to 15 not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 10, after ("may") insert ("enter notice of the marriage in the marriage notice book and may").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 17. Amendment No. 16 is a somewhat technical but necessary amendment. As drafted, the Bill in its present form might appear to short-circuit an essential pre-requirement for civil marriage; namely, the entering of notice. It is to correct that omission that both amendments are proposed. I beg to move.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, this amendment improves the procedural arrangements under the Bill by making it clear that the superintendent registrar should have power to enter a marriage in the marriage notice book in cases where the couple seek a declaration from the High Court successfully but have not first made a declaration to the superintendent registrar himself. The Government therefore support this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 11, leave out ("notwithstanding that no") and insert ("whether or not any").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.52 until 8.5 p.m.]

Local Government Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 5.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth Lord Elliott of Morpeth moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 4, line 13, at end insert—
("(5) The Secretary of State, consulting such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned and any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable, may specify in a direction those categories of publicity which a local authority does not need to include in the account referred to in subsection (1) above.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment and it is fair to say that it raises technical issues rather than questions of principle. However, the issues are of considerable importance to those who work in local government, and consequently I should like to know the Minister's views.
The amendment proposes an addition to Clause 5. As your Lordships know, this is the clause which makes provision for each local authority to keep an account of its expenditure on publicity. It is a provision with which I wholly agree and support. It must be right to put an end to the position in which we find ourselves at present where most local authorities do not even know how much they spend on publicity, let alone seek to account to the public for the way in which the money has been spent. Nevertheless, I believe that we must take care to ensure that in seeking to cure a problem in local government we do not go beyond the practical requirements of public accountability.
I understand why the definition of "publicity" is wide in the context of the prohibition of party-political propaganda. The range of material we have seen used by some authorities is extensive and it includes some techniques that are very new to the local government publicity scene. I referred to some of those techniques which are being practised by, among other authorities, the Tyne and Wear County Council when we considered Clause 2.
My concern is that the clause in its present form would in effect require authorities to include within a separate account spending on the whole of this wide range of material. At present the account would include all publicity expenditure, defined as it is in Clause 6 as,
"any communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public".
I can, as I have already said, fully understand why the definition is wide. We have sought throughout our proceedings to avoid the loopholes which unscrupulous local authorities could exploit for party political advantage, and that is what we are seeking to avoid. However, I question whether the definition of "publicity" needs to be quite so wide for the purpose of keeping a publicity account.
As provided for by Clause 5 at the moment, local authorities would be required to include in their account expenditure on items such as a circular letter from a headmaster to the parents of his pupils. I have been told that it is possible for a floral clock in the municipal park also to fall within the definition. I can just imagine the odd local authority which might even include in some way a floral clock for the purpose of party propaganda. However, I suggest that there is a case for defining more closely the parameters of the publicity account. It does not seem to me that the inclusion of essentially peripheral items will be of any assistance in terms of ensuring local accountability for spending on publicity. That is what we believe to be the purpose of Clause 5. If there is no means of setting commonsense limits to the publicity account, there must be a grave risk that proper accounting practices may be distorted and unnecessary and very costly administrative tasks imposed on local authorities.
Therefore, to summarise, whereas we want an all-inclusive definition of publicity for the purposes of party political prohibition, surely it is unreasonable to be exhaustive in trawling a boat through local authorities' expenditure looking for items of expenditure on publicity which are minute. In my view there is a strong case for excluding peripheral and minor items from the account. I should therefore be very grateful indeed if the Minister could give me some assurances on this matter and would comment on my proposal. My proposal does not suggest any specific exclusions from the account but would give the Secretary of State the power to make such exclusions after consultation with local authorities. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I think that this is an interesting amendment. It shows an awareness of the problems which local authorities are facing when they have to prepare for this Bill becoming an Act. Neither we nor the associations oppose the principle of local authorities being accountable for their actions.
Widdicombe suggested that local accountability could be enhanced by separate accounting arrangements for pubilicity expenditure. The same method of accountability already exists in relation to expenditure incurred under Section 137. I understand that the associations are content with the specific requirements of Clause 5. What concerns local government is the practicality of the proposals.
In coming to a view on the principle of what has become Clause 5, Widdicombe stated in paragraph 202:
"The conclusion we draw is that it is feasible separately to account for publicity expenditure provided that some definitional guidelines are established. The task might be more difficult if it applied to expenditure under section 111 … as well as section 142".
On balance though, Widdicombe came down quite firmly towards what appears to be the Government's view in Clause 5:
"In principle, we believe that all expenditure on information and publicity activities should be clearly accounted for, even though there might be greater technical difficulties in the case of service-related expenditure under section 111".
That is from paragraph 204.
But the view of the local authority associations is that both Widdicombe and the Government have
896
under-estimated the practical difficulties involved in accounting for expenditure, particularly in the absence from the Bill of definitional guidelines. Widdicombe began to recognise the problem by considering whether Section 111 publicity should be within the account. Such publicity would be that which was incidental to the delivery of services.
The associations agree that accountability is better served by not excluding such incidental publicity. The major difficulty that this clause will cause local authorities comes from the very broad definition of publicity in Clause 6(3); that is
"any communciation, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public".
The Committee should consider first just what such a definition could include: statutory notices in respect of planning matters—highways, notices of audit accounts and so on—all the things which seem always to fill a page or two of any local newspaper; communications sent to parents of schoolchildren, which the noble Lord has mentioned; prospectuses of schools; letters to council tenants; letters to residents; posters giving details of refuse collection over bank holiday periods; staff advertisements; invitations to tender for contracts; committee and council papers—particularly given their wider availabilty under the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985; painting of council vehicles with corporate identity logos, et cetera. The breadth of the definition of "publicity" will cause problems.
Accounting systems are not geared up to provide information which is as detailed as this. Take the example of a school head who decides to send a letter (or any communication) to the parents of the school's pupils, which is a section of the public. That letter would be produced on school paper which has already been charged to the school as "educational supplies". Does that head then have to notify the LEA treasurer's department that the cost of one ream of paper is to be debited to "publicity" and credited to "educational supplies"? And should the school also have to include school office staff time? Recent case law on Section 137 indicates that staff time would have to be charged to publicity even if no extra staff expenses were incurred.
8.15 p.m.
This problem was raised in another place. An amendment in Committee attempted to restrict the separate account to publicity covered with the code of practice under Clause 4. In rejecting the amendment, Mr. Waldegrave said:
"It would be inappropriate for the code to narrow the coverage of the account that is laid down in the Bill".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A, 19/12/85; col. 400].
In his rejection, Mr. Waldegrave did not really address the serious practical difficulties that this clause presents. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, was, he said, a probing amendment, but it would provide a means of remedying the situation. We ask the Government to give consideration to the difficulties which are likely to be faced by local authorities and to accept the amendment, and then talk to local government so that the principle of accountability for publicity expenditure is not carried ad absurdam. I hope very much that the Minister will

897
feel able to accept this amendment, which would give a great deal of help to local authorities in carrying out their duties under this Bill when it becomes an Act.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth for raising this issue. I agree, perhaps for the first time this evening, with the noble Baroness, Lady David, that this is an interesting amendment. But I should perhaps put it in the context of Clause 5, which requires local authorities to keep a separate account of their expenditure on publicity and which makes an important step toward accountability in local authorities' publicity spending.
At present, as Widdicombe made clear, few if any local authorities keep a separate centralised record of all expenditure on public information, advertising and consultation activities. As a consequence, the inquiry was unable to make a firm estimate of the total amount of local authority expenditure on publicity. This clause will rectify this worrying state of affairs. As to the scope of the word "publicity" there is an amendment, No. 23, still to come which will explain the position to what I hope will be the satisfaction of the whole Committee.
The Widdicombe inquiry recognised that authorities might none the less face some technical difficulty in including some expenditure in an account. However, they believed that in principle all expenditure on information and publicity activities should be clearly accounted for despite these difficulties. They believed, and the Government accept this, that the overall level of publicity expenditure by a local authority was a matter of legitimate public concern. This is why we have proposed the account provided for in Clause 5, and I have to say that the professional accounting body, CIPFA, considers that the Bill as drafted should present local authorities with no insuperable problems.
However—and this is where I come to my noble friend's amendment—it has been represented to us that such a definition of publicity may not be entirely suitable for application to the publicity account, on grounds which are very much the same as those which my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady David, outlined in their speeches. We should certainly not wish local authorities to have to engage in unnecessary effort and expense in including in the account more marginal elements of publicity expenditure that had no clear relevance in terms of public accountability—for example, regular circulars by schools to parents of schoolchildren in their care, and I am thinking particularly of one that I had the other day on sex education.
I can see that there may be cases where the inclusion of some items of expenditure in the publicity account would involve disproportionate expense—cases where the amounts involved are very small and/or accounting systems are very devolved As has been said, an example might be that of a school's expenditure on circular letters.
I accept the principle behind my noble friend's amendment that it would be sensible to take a reserve power to make specific exclusions from the definition of expenditure required to be included in the publicity account. We would, as his amendment proposes, wish to consult in detail with local authority representatives
898
before making such exclusions, including, as the noble Baroness said, incidental publicity.
I also consider that, as the amendment proposes, a direction by the Secretary of State is the most appropriate vehicle for making such exclusions. These are technical matters, and we would wish to retain the element of flexibility which a direction would allow. We might wish to alter the form of exclusions in the light of experience in keeping the account. For instance, if types of publicity which had traditionally been uncontroversial became used for controversial publicity or took on a greater prominence, it might in certain circumstances be appropriate to ensure that they were not excluded from the account.
If my noble friend agrees, I would ask him to withdraw his amendment so that we can consider it fully and produce a properly drafted amendment on Report to cover the points to which he, the noble Baroness and myself have alluded.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments on the amendment that I have proposed. I have listened to my noble friend who, as he said, accepts the principle embodied in the amendment. He has made me feel quite happy that the matter will be looked at carefully in the future, as it was a probing amendment. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 21, the Lord Chalfont. Lord Mottistone?
Lord Broxbourne Lord Broxbourne moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Proceedings against local authority.
.—(1) Any elector or ratepayer in the area of a local authority may institute proceedings in the County Court or High Court against that authority in respect of a breach of any part of this Act.
(2) Proceedings may be instituted against any local authority for failing to make a rate as required by section 1 of this Act, or for publication or threatened publication of material contrary to section 2, or for disposal of an interest as mortgagee prohibited by sections 7 and 8.
(3) No order for costs may be made against any person instituting such proceedings unless the court is satisfied that the action was vexatious.").
The noble Lord said: It is following that introduction, with feelings of more than usual inadequacy, that I rise to move the amendment standing in the distinguished name of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. Unfortunately for us, he is unable to bring to your Lordships' Committee this evening his sage counsel and wise guidance from which we always profit so much. He is usefully, agreeably, and perhaps one might say enviably employed in warmer climes. Your Lordships may feel inclined to say O si sic omnes!
I am, however, a little comforted and encouraged from my feelings of personal inadequacy by the merits of the new clause which I am commending to your Lordships. Its merits are indeed so clear as to require no advocacy, fortunately no doubt. They should at one

899
strike a responsive chord in all right-thinking people. In that category I hope to include my noble friends the Ministers and the noble and learned Lords who are sitting at this time on the Opposition Front Bench. It would indeed be a sad moment for me to have to excise them from the category of right-thinking people because of any misguided opposition to the amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: You ain't heard nothing yet!
Lord Broxbourne: I did not hear the intervention of the noble and learned Lord. Perhaps it was as well.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I merely said, "You ain't heard nothing yet!", in the best parliamentary language.
Lord Broxbourne: In those, I shall not say happier, but more lucrative, days when the noble and learned Lord and I used to have exchanges in another context he was wont to express himself, if I may say so, in a more grandiose and dignified way which wholly became him.
The merits of the new clause are clear. It is concerned with enforcement of the law and is therefore of great importance. It is a truism that law, however well-intentioned, is only effective and meaningful in so far as it is enforceable. It follows therefore that those entrusted with the formulation of our laws should have close regard to their enforceability and should ensure that appropriate provisions are in operation when the legislation reaches the statute book. The question therefore arises: Does the Bill as at present drafted satisfy that requirement? In my submission the answer is, regretfully, no, or at any rate not in all respects.
May I draw attention in that context to the contrast between two clauses of the Bill, a contrast as strange as it is striking? Clause 5(1) requires local authorities to keep separate accounts of expenditure on publicity, a very proper requirement. Subsection (2) gives a right of inspection to the citizen, again a very proper requirement. Subsection (3) provides for enforceability to protect the exercise of the citizen's right. Clause 5 follows the normal and proper practice of providing for enforceability of its statutory provisions. But in Clause 2, an even more important clause, there is no provision for enforceability. That, I submit, is a clear and regrettable omission.
Because of that omission only the private citizen on his own initiative in the public interest can enforce the law. Subsection (1) of our proposed new clause gives him that right in clear and unequivocal terms. Any elector or ratepayer in the area of a local authority may institute proceedings in the county court or High Court against that authority in respect of a breach of any part of that Act. It is a right which is enjoyed and recently bestowed in the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 and the Local Government Act 1985. It is therefore a desirable provision and one with respectable precedents.
But it is also essential that citizens to whom alone the enforcement of the law is entrusted should not be deterred from serving the public interest by apprehension of incurring financial penalty thereby. We seek to
900
meet that point by subsection (3) of our proposed new clause:
"No order for costs may be made against any person instituting such proceedings unless the court is satisfied that the action was vexatious".
8.30 p.m.
This provision is in line with modern thinking in regard to costs. The principle that costs follow the event, if not more honoured in the breach than in the observance—that would be over-stating the case—is now at any rate considerably modified, as noble and learned Lords will know. For example, there is no award of costs against an unsuccessful litigant who enjoys legal aid. There is no award of costs against such a litigant in industrial tribunal cases. There is no award of costs in claims made in the small claims court. Would not the proceedings brought by a private citizen in the context of this Bill, he alone having the opportunity and the responsibility for enforcement, as I have said, be in consimili casu with those other precedents?
I submit that this saving provision in our proposed new clause as to protection against a deterrent award of costs is in line with current thinking and common sense. I hope, as I said at the beginning, that Ministers will be able to accept the amendment or at least promise sympathetic consideration of the principle embodied therein. I beg to move.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: I am accustomed to the honeyed words of the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, both here and in other tribunals where I have had, sometimes the misfortune, sometimes the good fortune, to oppose him. On this occasion, I am afraid that I have to exclude myself from the category of right-thinking Members of the Committee, as defined by the noble Lord, and also possibly by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, whose amendment this is and who is doubtless encouraging our representatives in another sphere, a more sporting sphere than that covered by this legislation at the moment.
There are two reasons why I would oppose this new clause, the first being that it is unnecessary and the second that it is undesirable. It is unnecessary because while I of course accept (and I am sure we all accept) that there must be provision for ensuring that a law that is passed by Parliament is enforced against those who break it or those who threaten to break it, that situation will exist irrespective of whether or not this clause becomes part of the Act.
There are two ways in particular whereby enforcement can take place. First, those who act out of accord with the legislation, whether under Sections 1, 2, 7 or 8, will be acting outside the powers of the local authority concerned. Accordingly, there will be the normal remedy of surcharge and, if necessary, disqualification against those who cause a local authority to incur expenditure that is in excess of its powers. That is not the only means by which the Act can be enforced. I need not tell the noble Lord, because he is very well aware, that there is also the relator action that can be brought with the consent of the Attorney-General to restrain among others local authorities who are committing, or who are threatening to commit, a breach of the law.

901
The noble Lord will know much better than I do the passage in which this is explained. It appears in Halsbury's Laws of England, volume 37, at paragraph 230, which, as I happen to have it handy, it is perhaps worthwhile referring to for the benefit of those who are not so familiar with the mysteries of the relator action as the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne. It says:
"A relator action is one brought to restrain interference with a public right, whether committed or threatened, or to compel the performance of a public duty or to abate a public nuisance, and in such an action the Attorney General is a necessary party. The action is brought in the name of the Attorney General at the relation of the person or body seeking to prevent the commission or continuation of the public wrong. Although he is the nominal plaintiff, the Attorney General is not deemed to be a party to the proceedings, so as to be liable for costs, but the relator is liable for costs".
I shall come to the point on costs in a moment.
The paragraph goes on to say:
"The Attorney General is a necessary party in a relator action because he is the person recognised by public law as entitled to represent the public in a court of justice and he alone can maintain a suit ex officio or ex relatione for a declaration as to public rights. In this respect his jurisdiction is absolute and the court has no power to review his decision".
There is an exception to that rule where someone is seeking to restrain interference with a right where the plaintiff has some personal direct interest but not simply as a ratepayer or as an elector, the words of the clause. The principle that the Attorney-General should have control over proceedings of this kind is one that has been adhered to for a very long time, as the noble Lord knows. It has been fairly recently reinforced by the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House in the case of Gouriet, as some noble Lords may recall. It is extremely important, in my view, that the principle behind the Attorney-General's right and indeed duty to uphold the public interest, not for any party political reason, but in the interests of the public generally, should be adhered to. I see no reason whatever why this particular case should be made an exception to that general rule. The noble Lord has not explained to the Committee why he suggests that this should be so.
I say that it is not only unnecessary but undesirable. I submit to the Committee that it is undesirable just because it takes this particular subject matter outside a rule that has been hallowed by practice and that is well understood and puts it into a special category in respect of those who could not normally sue themselves, both electors and ratepayers. I am not certain, incidentally, why an elector as distinct from a ratepayer is included. Nonetheless, that is what is proposed. Any one of those, elector or ratepayer, will, without the consent of the Attorney-General, be entitled in this one case to institute proceedings. I find it difficult to understand why this should be so, why such an exception should be made. I suggest that it is highly undesirable that this legislation should be singled out in that way.
Similarly, when one comes to subsection (3) of the clause, one finds a very unusual provision, one that I cannot recollect having seen elsewhere, with regard to costs: a provision that plainly is intended or would be calculated at any rate to encourage persons who are electors or ratepayers to take proceedings, if this clause became law, in every case short of the case where it could be said that the action is vexatious. I can see no possible reason for that.
902
The court, if this provision became law, would have the normal power of the High Court or county court to deal with costs within its discretion. It would take into account all the matters which induced the litigant to bring the proceedings and, if it were in accordance with justice that no order for costs should be made against him, then the court would so order. The noble Lord's advocacy of subsection (3) would appear to be an advocacy casting grave doubts on powers of discretion of the courts to deal with these matters in an equitable way.
In his opening remarks the noble Lord compared the provisions of subsection (3) of Clause 5 and suggested that this clause would be in similar state. However, subsection (3) is a criminal provision. It is aimed at those who illegally obstruct somebody in the exercise of the rights conferred by the section to inspect the account which is specifically given to the public. Any person interested may inspect the account. Subsection 3 says that anyone who wilfully or intentionally obstructs such an exercise of rights will be committing a criminal offence. That is a very different situation from that envisaged by this clause. There is no question of obstructing a private individual who wishes to exercise his rights. We are not here dealing with a criminal penalty but some kind of civil procedure, the precise nature of which is not wholly clear from the clause but which, I take it, is intended to enable the plaintiff to obtain either an injunction or perhaps a mandatory order; I assume not a declaration because that would not normally be granted.
I come back to the point that the clause is not necessary, and that it is ill-advised in making distinctions in relation to this legislation where the customary procedure has been hallowed by time. I hope that the Committee will not accept the new clause.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps I may speak to my amendment as well and answer most of the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin. I appreciate that he has been an Attorney-General and therefore knew a lot about what that involved.
Perhaps I may make two points. The first is with regard to the question: why the elector or ratepayer? My noble friend Lord Broxbourne made the point that there is provision in the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 and the Local Government Act 1985 to empower electors to go to court against breaches of those Acts. There is also such power in Section 91 of the 1972 Act. There is therefore considerable precedent for electors.
Your Lordships may ask: why ratepayers? The answer is that, as I see it, this Bill is designed to protect the ratepayer against misuse of his money because he is the one who is paying the rates. It therefore seems only reasonable that he too should have special provision made for him.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, asks why should there be subsection (3)—implying that costs in the ordinary course will not be made against a person instituting such proceedings. The answer to that is that there have been good examples and I can quote two of them to the Committee where, under the other legislation that I have quoted, people have been

903
put off taking their councils to court for just that reason—that they cannot risk the costs.
For example, last year Hackney ratepayers were advised by a leading firm of solicitors that Hackney Council was breaking the existing law with its publicity campaign. A barrister was ready to take the case. They were ready to meet their own costs from their own money but they were frightened off because had they lost the council's costs would have been crippling.
8.45 p.m.
I give another example. Some years ago a group of councillors on Wandsworth Council decided to sue that council. The Labour controlled council instructed its officers to fight the case as hard as possible. Again, these councillors had to abandon their action. They subsequently came to power in Wandsworth and were able to see the papers. They discovered that the council had been advised by counsel that they would lose the case and had only ordered officers to fight it in the hope that the plaintiff councillors would be thus deterred by the risk of costs—which of course is what happened.
It is therefore for those kinds of reasons that we need something like subsection (3). We need something like this new clause to provide the protection that the ordinary elector and ratepayer requires in order to protect (in the case of the ratepayer) his money from being mis-spent in the terms that this Bill seeks to provide.
I trust that I have answered the points that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, sought to put before the Committee and that you will agree that there needs to be something similar in the Bill to provide the protection which the ordinary person requires to implement the purposes of this Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support most of what my noble friend Lord Mottistone has said, particularly with regard to costs. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider again at leisure where the justice lies in this situation, having regard to the examples—which are but a few—which my noble friend Lord Mottistone has given.
I hope that the clause as it stands, would not be put to a Division. In its present form it raises certain difficulties. My noble friend Lord Broxbourne referred to this as being requisite as an adjunct to the enforceability under Clause 2 which is Part II of the Bill. I see the force of that point. However, I wonder, with the greatest respect, whether it is a necessary adjunct to enforceability under Part I or Part III—the setting of the rate or the mortgages. I should have thought, having listened with great attention to everything that has been said in this debate, that there is something to be said for limiting the incidence of the clause as an adjunct to enforceability under Clause 2 and leaving enforceability under Part I and Part III to the very type of relator action to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, referred.
However, I must not take time at this hour of night. I think that there is something in the spirit of this amendment that is worthy of consideration but I could not vote for it in its present form and I hope that it will not be pressed.
Lord Morton of Shuna: As a Scot I find this new clause rather difficult to understand because in Scotland we do not have a county court. The High Court in Scotland is simply a criminal court and it is far from clear in what court the elector or ratepayer is to sue if he wishes to do so in Scotland. Is it the intention of the noble Lord moving this clause that Scottish electors and ratepayers shall have to go to Carlisle to sue in the nearest county court? If so, what is the jurisdiction against the local authority?
Lord Broxbourne: If the noble Lord will allow me, we are here concerned, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has said, with Part II of the Bill. The noble Lord will see that that does not apply in Scotland.
Lord Morton of Shuna: With respect, if one looks at Clause 6 of the Bill one sees that it applies to local authorities. Subsection (2) says:
"'Local authority' means—

(a) in England and Wales …

(b) in Scotland, a regional, islands or district council".

It seems to me that Part II applies specifically to Scotland and there is no provision that applies it to a Scottish court.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I rise briefly to support what has been said by my noble and learned friends and the reservations which were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. The first difficulty which occurs to me as regards what is proposed is that, as my noble and learned friend Lord Silkin of Dulwich said, it seems to be based on a misconception of the effect of Clause 2, which is to make certain types of publicity ultra vires. The making of such types of publicity would render the transgressor liable to surcharge and all else that follows. Therefore, there is already a public remedy at any rate against transgressions of that kind.
With regard to subsection (1), the difficulty that occurs to me is that no specific relief is claimed that could be achieved by the elector or the ratepayer. I know the noble and learned Lord too well; he would not embark upon what the lawyers call a brutum fulmen— threat with no possible serious consequences lying behind it.
As your Lordships will see, there is no relief sought. An elector or ratepayer may institute proceedings against the relevant authority. What kind of proceedings? To achieve what purpose? We do not know; we are not told, even in the background of the immense knowledge of the noble and learned Lord who rejoices in situations of this kind. So there is a measure to introduce that which has no reality in practice.
A bare declaration would not avail the elector or the ratepayer. I have armed myself with a copy of the Annual Practice and it provides as follows:
"Although the remedy by way of declaration"—
which is what the noble and learned Lord may have had in mind—
"is wide and flexible, yet it will not be granted to a plaintiff whose claim is too indirect and insubstantial and would not give him relief in any real sense—that is to say, relieve him from any liability or disadvantage or difficulty".
It seems to me, with great respect to the noble and

905
learned Lord, that this is a measure or a proposal without teeth and without effect.
Subsection (3) concerns costs. What is proposed goes completely against principles. As the noble and learned Lord knows better than I do, costs should follow the event except in very extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, and in any event the final decision on costs should above all lie upon the trial judges. It is a well-established practice in certain hard cases of the type to which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has referred. I fear it is one of the inescapable consequences of our proceedings which do not provide for any real remedy that would protect the unsuccessful plaintiff. Like the citizen in litigation throughout the country, he must take the risk. However, as it stands, to restrict costs in the way proposed is contrary to principle and would shackle and limit the discretion of the trial judge. Therefore, I join in opposing the proposal.
Lord Elton: As I understand the criteria of right-mindedness as set out so eloquently by my noble friend, I think that Her Majesty's Government are right-minded. At least I can say that my noble friend has struck a resonant chord because we share his anxiety that there should be effective rights of challenge to the decisions of local authorities.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone quoted the Local Government Finance Act 1982 as an example of how that challenge could be arranged in a particular area. I must tell him that I believe that there is no other example of the procedure, which I shall not write out here but which is the procedure followed under that Act and, therefore, I think that the precedent is probably not the best one.
We made plain our concern about the necessity of effective rights of challenge in our evidence to the Widdicombe inquiry which, as regards their main report, had been asked to pay particular attention to the question of proper accountability for decision-making. They made it clear in their interim report at paragraph 243 that one of the questions which they will be considering is the rights of the public to challenge local authorities' activities and decisions. They are looking to ensure:
"that the citizen has prompt, effective, inexpensive and local remedy for dealing with complaints about local authorities".
The committee of inquiry recognised—and I think that we must also recognise—that this is a major issue. It goes well beyond the scope of the present Bill and the relatively narrow range of matters covered in it. It would, in our view, be inappropriate to include the proposed provision for that reason.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin of Dulwich, has referred to this matter, I should perhaps refer to the district auditor as a means of redress. The procedure for that type of redress may have disadvantages, but it also has several advantages. It costs the objector nothing which, for obvious reasons, will appeal to my noble friend, and the responsibility to investigate is placed upon the auditor who has wide powers to scrutinise the council's internal documents. It thus enables an effective investigation without the complainant incurring major costs. It also provides
906
protection against weak and vexatious cases being brought to court. Much of that could no doubt be said of the relator procedure which the noble and learned Lord has so clearly set before your Lordships.
My noble friend pointed out that individuals are put off instituting cases of judicial review because of the high costs involved and because they fear that the councils' costs may be awarded against them in the event of their losing the case. Again the Government share these concerns, but again they apply to all cases of public challenge through the courts and not simply to these. That again leads me to suggest that this Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for the solution of this concern.
I should remind your Lordships that my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government summed up the matter in response to similar amendments in another place by saying that we cannot charge into major reforms of the system of redress under civil law without having considered the matter a little more carefully. That is why we have asked the Widdicombe inquiry to consider them; and even if they had already reported, they would not, we think, be appropriate to put into the Bill, for the reasons which I have given. They are issues which must be addressed in the wider context in which Widdicombe is considering them. We look forward to his report which is expected in two or three months, and shall certainly consider very carefully the recommendations made in the report—it will be a report of greater importance in this particular area. I think that we ought to wait until we have the report because it would be unwise now to legislate on a matter which, I agree, deserves the attention of Parliament, even if this were the appropriate vehicle.
Given that my noble friend's concerns and ours go so well beyond the matters that are strictly relevant to this small piece of legislation, I ask him to accept our concern and good intentions and await, if appropriate, a later occasion and a different vehicle.
9 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: It would be remiss of me not to take up a moment or two of your Lordships' valuable time in expressing my appreciation of the speeches that have ben made and the interesting submissions that have been brought before your Lordships' Committee. It would at the same time be unnatural on my part if I did not express a little regret that noble friends on this Front Bench and noble and learned Lords on that Front Bench have chosen to exclude themselves by their voluntary act from the category of the right-minded, as I defined it in opening! I take this source of satisfaction however, that the Opposition have had to field two noble and learned Lords, two former Attorney-Generals, one a former Lord Chancellor, both formidable forensic opponents of former times. It must be a very weak case indeed that demands such an extravagant deployment of forensic talents.
One can understand that when one analyses the case that the Opposition have sought to put. The noble and learned Lords, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, said there was no need for this, do we not have two remedies already? What were the remedies he cited? First, the district auditor, merely a surcharge

907
ad hominem, quite outwith the sort of remedies we are looking for here. The second was the relator action; a curious form of action, probably not well known to your Lordships—and why should it be? It is known only, of course, to the two noble and learned Lords opposite because it is initiated by Attorney-Generals. That was their trade, the bringing of relator action; an old-fashioned clumsy device. There is nobody so conservative as Labour Members of Parliament who are entrusted with the office of Attorney-General, but conservative (in spite of a long friendship with both) I am bound to say, not conservatism of the enlightened type of Burke and Disraeli, but merely reaction of which those two great masters cured the Conservative Party. I am disappointed that they should think that those two old-fashioned, inadequate remedies should stand in the face of this enlightened procedure which it is my privilege to commend to the Committee.
Similarly, on the question of costs: "Well", say the noble and learned Lords, "everybody takes a chance with costs and we can trust the judges to get it right". I do, after all. One wins some cases that one ought to lose and loses some cases that one ought to win. But that is taking a very professional view of it. Noble and learned Lords must put themselves in the position of the citizen, who, not for his own interest but in the public interest, is seeking to bring this action. How is he to interpret and prophesy in advance the inscrutable result of the award of costs? Of course, it is a deterrent and a very formidable deterrent indeed. Your Lordships' Committee should do away with it.
I was about to refer to my noble friend who seems to have left us, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I agree with what he said. Part I is not important in this context. We are concerned with Part II. I did not refer to Part I. I did not think it very probable that a citizen would bring an action to enforce a rate. That would seem a paradoxical action for him to entertain.
Finally, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said that remedies are not prescribed, but they are there: the remedy of declaration, the remedy of injunction and whatever may be necessary in that regard. I am still satisfied by the merits of this matter and its importance. I am fortified by those noble Lords who have supported it. But I do not take any obstinate pride in the draftsmanship, more particularly because it was not originally my new clause. It is not exactly a return brief, but I am devilling it. I have far too much respect for the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to say that the maxim les absents ont toujours tort would have any application in this case, or the case of Mahaffy and Dodson in their book on highways when a mistake was pointed out to Mahaffy. He fought his corner long and hard to prove it was right, but finally, having to concede it was wrong, said, "Ah, I remember, that was one of Dodson's passages". I do not. I am sure my noble friends would not take any point on the precision of draftsmanship. I shall not ask the Committee to come to a formal decision on this matter. I thank my noble friend the Minister for such part of his response as was sympathetic, and I invite him respectfully to continue his researches and to gain adoption into the ranks of the wise men. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Interpretation and application of Part II]:
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 14, at beginning insert—
("( ) Nothing in this Act shall prevent the publication of material, or any other action, by a local authority in exercise of its functions under the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns the possible conflict between the Bill before your Lordships and the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. I am sure the Committee will be aware that a similar amendment was moved by my noble friend Lord Winstanley during our debates on Clause 2. I venture to raise the matter again only because the wording of this amendment is such that it bites somewhat wider; that is to say, it does not bite only on Clause 2 but on the whole of this section of the Bill.
On the first day of Committee, in response to my noble friend's earlier amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, undertook to bear the matter in mind and to come forward with an amendment at Report. Therefore it would be wrong of me to detain the Committee for long at this stage.
There is, however, one point I should like to raise with the noble Lord, Lord Elton. In col. 581 of Hansard for 18th February he said:
"the present Bill would not, in any case, apply to material made available for public inspection under the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985".
He went on to give us a further assurance on that point, lower down in the same column, when he said:
"As I tried to make clear earlier, the agenda and reports and the material as generally described in the Local Government (Access to Information) Act would not be caught by the Bill because they are not published in the sense that the Bill means by published".
So he has given us those assurances that there is no possible conflict between this Bill and that Act. Yet what puzzles me is that he has at the same time generously recognised the general anxiety on the point and told us that he has it in mind to table an amendment on Report to clarify the matter. There seems to me to be a certain incompatability between those two positions: on the one hand the categorical assurance that there is no conflict, and yet an acknowledgement of the anxiety and the intention to bring forward an amendment. That intention to bring forward an amendment would appear to imply that there is at least some basis or foundation for the anxiety that was expressed. That is the only thought that I want to put into the noble Lord's mind at this time. Perhaps he would like to comment on it when he comes to reply.
The only other matter I want to ask him about is this. If he is going to bring forward an amendment on Report, will he use his best endeavours to see that we have it in reasonable time so that we can scrutinise it carefully and decide whether it does or does not satisfy the anxieties that we have on this matter? I should be very grateful to the noble Lord if he would undertake to do that. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I think I should make it quite clear that it is certainly no part of the Government's intention that the publicity provisions of the Bill

909
should prevent local authorities from fulfilling their responsibilities under the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. That Act, while it was a Private Member's Bill, was of course fully suported by the Government. It is an important step towards improved accountability in local government, as indeed is Clause 5 of this particular Bill, and we certainly should not wish to undermine the effectiveness of either.
The Committee will remember that my noble friend Lord Elton has already given assurances on this point in the context of Amendment No. 9, which was very similar to this amendment but, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, as said, related to Clause 2 only. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that the Government remain firmly of the view that the terms of the definition of publicity given in the Bill mean that it would not apply to material made available for public inspection under the Local Government (Access to Information) Act. My noble friend has, however, undertaken, in the interests of clarity, to table an amendment to make this absolutely clear, and I repeat that undertaking.
I think it would be only fair to say on behalf of my noble friend that he has an extremely good record for putting down in good time amendments to Bills with which he is concerned, and I know that he will undertake to pursue this with his usual zealousness.
Lord Kilmarnock: I did not in the least wish to impugn the good track record of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on tabling his amendments, but I wished just to make sure that he keeps it up to the mark. Obviously we await the amendment with considerable expectation.
I am not sure that the matter is quite so clear cut as the Government have given us to understand. It seems to me from the debates we had this afternoon on Clause 4 that there certainly is some possiblity that some of the kinds of material contemplated in the Local Government (Access to Information) Act may well be bitten on by the code of practice, and it seems that the relationship of the code of practice under Clause 4 to the general prohibition under Clause 2 is still not entirely clear. Thus it seems to me that there is a grey area there at which we shall have to look very carefully indeed.
However, we are grateful to the Government and to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. We look forward to the amendment, which we shall study with the greatest care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 4, line 32, at end insert ("other than a communication comprising only factual information about employees and other agents of the local authority and the facilities made available by them.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 23. I may possibly be covering some of the ground that we covered in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, Amendment No. 20. However, as the Council of Local Education Authorities, which is, as I
910
am sure the Committee knows, the joint council for the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, feels very strongly about this matter, I think I must follow it up and speak to it.
The definition of "publicity" reads as follows in Clause 6(3):
"'Publicity', 'publish' and 'publication' refer to any communication, in whatever form addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public".
CLEA is very worried about this because there are a lot of existing requirements to publish information. For example, under Section 12 of the Education Act 1980 an educational authority must publish all proposals for making a significant change in the character of a county school. An authority wishing to close a school or to move from 11-to 18-schools to a tertiary system could therefore be required by the 1980 Act to publish its proposals for such a change but could be prevented by the Bill, if it is enacted, from explaining its reasons for doing so.
9.15 p.m.
If passed as it stands, this clause would cover a whole host of general communications. It would include for example, a whole range of uncontroversial publicity material: adult education, institutes, college prospectuses, booklets on schools' admissions; arrangements, even a notice board outside a museum or an art gallery stating the opening times; a sign outside a school giving the name of the head teacher; a sign outside a youth centre giving the name of the warden. Not only would local authorities have to have regard to codes of practice about the content and style of such things but, because the defintion of "publicity" is so widely drawn, it would be necessary to account for the cost of these items in a separate account.
Certainly, it would seem that a letter from school heads to parents would have to be costed; as would a speech to parents in the school hall, and even direction signs at public meetings. Other examples which may also have to be costed include rate demands, electoral registration forms, letters to residents about Christmas arrangements for emptying dustbins, rabies notices, fire hydrant plaques, road signs and the painting of vehicles in council livery.
Perhaps the Government would like to comment on these specific items and provide guidance on how one would go about costing the publicity content. If we look at the example of a head teacher proposing to distribute a leaflet to parents and people in the local area, perhaps about a forthcoming jumble sale for the benefit of school funds, it is difficult to define what part of the cost should be recorded as publcity. If posted to parents, the cost of posting the leaflet would presumably have to be accounted for. But how much more? The possibilities are endless.
Do you also include a proportion of the salary of the office worker who types the letter; a proportion of the cost of the typewriter; a proportion of general office costs? This all seems like a recipe for a bureaucratic nightmare and a waste of valuable resources. In particular, the obligation to have to keep a separate account for such items will lead to many time-consuming problems of definition: for example,

911
whether, in any particular case, the commuication is addressed to a section of the public. The purpose of this amendment is to remove factual information provided for public benefit from the definition of "publicity". I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The concern of the noble Baroness goes principally to the definition of "publicity" set out in Clause 6(3), the definition which applies throughout the Bill. It is a wide definition, I agree. It is defined as a,
"communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public".
The breadth of the definition is intentional because it is quite proper to have a wide-ranging definition, for we need to ensure that local authorities are quite clearly prohibited from engaging in party political propaganda at the ratepayers' expense across the wide range of activities that give the scope for it.
We certainly do not want to narrow the definition of "publicity" for Clause 2 or, for that matter, for Clause 4. There are so many ways of communicating political messages to the public that it is essential not to have a definition which leaves the possibility of new forms of propaganda being uncontrolled. But the inclusion of this wide range of publicity in the definition does not prohibit the production of any form of material at all. Authorities that wish to do so, can, in appropriate cases, continue to use modern media techniques—balloons, stickers, badges and so on—if that, in their view, is a reasonable thing to do.
What they may not do is to use these items as a means of transmitting party political publicity. Once a code of practice has been issued under Clause 4 of the Bill, they will of course have to have regard to the relevant provisions. This perhaps goes a little wide of the noble Baroness's concern because, as I understand it, her concern is the other effects of the width or breadth of the definition. That is the amount of work it will generate in the supervisory function, as it were, of Clause 5(1) where the details of expenditure have to be accounted for.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness that we agreed to bring forward an amendment on the lines of that proposed by my noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth, to ensure that exclusions can be made from the requirement to account for publicity expenditure in Clause 5. We have accepted that there is a case for excluding marginal expenditure from the requirements of Clause 5, and other examples of material that should properly be excluded may emerge from our discussions and consultations with local government. In fact, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness for having produced a useful list, at which I shall look. I hope she will think it will be sufficient at that stage.
Baroness David: I am very grateful to the Minister for that reply, and of course I was aware of the commitment to produce an amendment on Report. I should like to consult again with my colleagues in the education world but I feel that possibly some satisfactory solution could be arrived at. Hoping for that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 23A:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Review of the operation of Part II.
. Part II of this Act shall expire two years after this Act comes into force, unless its continuation has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: This is an amendment which asks that Part II of this Act shall expire two years after the Act comes into force unless its continuation has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. The amendment has been tabled to draw attention to some of the undesirable consequences of the demand for an interim report and, thereby, this Bill; and to suggest a way out.
The main report of the Widdicombe inquiry, covering many more aspects of the conduct of local government than the interim report, is, we heard, expected in a couple of months or so. This amendment ensures that this legislation is updated in the light of the full report. Two years will give the Government ample time to consider the report, to consult on it and to prepare, we hope, fuller and more considered legislation.
The amendment allows the Act to continue in force if approved by both Houses in the light of the main report. We think it was a mistake to call for an interim report. The original reason for the interim report, given by Mr. Patrick Jenkin in his Statement to the House, was—I quote from cols. 957–8 of Hansard for 6th February last year—
"the growing public concern about the use made by some local authorities of their discretionary power to engage in overt political campaigning at public expense."
This almost in the same breath as:
"it is essential that the inquiry should be both impartial and effective.".
The then Secretary of State then went on stating as fact that councils were misusing public funds and spending ratepayers' money on political propaganda.
The next stage was the joint DoE and Scottish and Welsh Offices submission to the committee. This document was polemical in tone and robustly prescriptive in conclusion. Highly contentious and political statements were presented as facts or assumptions.
At times the submission appears to be trying to tell the committee how to do its job. It says:
"controversial facts will doubtless be considered by the committee.".
Phrases like, "the committee of inquiry will wish, as a matter of first priority, to" frequently recur.
Since the publication of the interim report there have been ominous signs that Mr. Kenneth Baker is attempting to pressurise the committee on the main report. In his speech at the Local Government Chronicle dinner, he seemed to be promising legislation to stop council officers standing for election in other authorities, angering, according to press reports, members of the committee. The speech drew a dignified rebuke from Widdicombe, who wrote to several newspapers, saying:
"The views expressed by Mr. Baker are those of the Government and we shall take them into account along with all the other evidence we have received. We shall then reach our own conclusions.".

913
Having failed to jump the committee into accepting their views, the Government have now come up with a Bill which ignores them.
We say that the Government's demand for an interim report puts the cart before the horse. It means that the committee has effectively been forced to consider one aspect of its study before it has gone into the fundamental issue—the purpose of local government, its constitutional position and the changing nature of the political process of which it is a part. By so doing, there is some risk of the main report being prejudiced by the findings of the interim report. More importantly, the enactment of legislation following the interim report which is not based on the recommendations of the committee—and this Bill is not—must prejudice the main report. In effect, the Government have asked the committee to investigate local government and to suggest reforms, and in the middle of the inquiry have come up with their own legal "reforms" which ignore or contradict those recommended by the Government-requested interim report.
The committee members themselves were, it would seem, not altogether happy with the idea of an interim report.
"Many of those who have given evidence have considered it unfortunate that we should have been asked to prepare an Interim Report … We have some sympathy with this view".
That is in paragraph 7. But they were reassured by the Government's statement that,
"The Government accepts, therefore, that the Committee's recommendations in their Interim Report cannot be taken to prejudice their findings and broader judgements reached in the light of their appraisal of all the evidence eventually presented to them".
That is in paragraph 4 of the DoE's submission. At the time, the committee was unaware of the Government's intention to ignore the interim report.
In particular, the Government drew attention to four links in paragraphs 9 to 12. First,
"'political campaigning' needs to be considered alongside wider evidence of the politicalisation of local government".
So the Government's proposals, going well beyond anything in Widdicombe, will prejudice their consideration of the wider issues. Secondly,
"The adequacy of the existing forms of accountability and public challenge",
which many had suggested were able to control councils,
"is equally at issue for the rest of our terms of reference".
The Bill cuts off status quo as an option for the main report. Thirdly,
"publicity needs to be set in the wider context of the proper role of Local Government".
Fourthly, there is a direct link between the interim and main report considerations of Section 137. While the committee had to look at the publicity uses of Section 137 in the interim report,
"the other aspects of Section 137 will be dealt with in our Main Report".
The Government have legislated to implement the report's recommendation on the publicity aspects of Section 137, but in doing so they have twisted the proposal to prevent grants to campaigning or information bodies—an area which Widdicombe may well
914
have wanted to look at in the general context of local authorities' uses of Section 137. The committee did, however, explicitly state that,
"we must reserve the right to return to the subject in our Main Report".
It is to be hoped that the committee will still feel able to do so after the passage of this Bill.
The Government-set timescale was too short. The chairman of the committee was appointed on 6th February 1985; the appointment of the other members was not completed until 16th April 1985; the deadline for evidence was 27th April 1985; and the report, asked for "not later than July", was published on 7th August 1985. The committee itself draws attention to the problems that this schedule imposed. In particular, it prevented the commissioning of formal research on the study of overseas experience. That is in paragraphs 17 and 18.
The Government's justification for urgency does not hold water. They claimed it was necessary because of "growing public concern" on the issue. The committee was unable to commission its own opinion poll to test this—there was not time—but referred to three others. One, carried out by NOP for the Right-wing pressure group, Efficiency in Local Government, had an 88 per cent. "disapproval" rating—hardly surprising when the sample was asked what it thought of local councils spending large sums of money on political advertising using the rates! There are, however, two impartially phrased polls for the GLC (Harris) and the Derbyshire County Council (Mori). Both asked whether particular campaigns were approved of. The result for the GLC's anti-abolition campaign was "approve", 51 per cent.; "disapprove" 29 per cent. There has also been a Mori poll within the last few days, but I have mislaid the results for the moment.
But it is not only because of waiting for the main report that we propose this amendment. Part II of the Bill is the particularly controversial part, and that has upset the local authority associations and the voluntary organisations. I hope that our amendment will give the public and the associations a chance to see how this Bill is working and that if in the course of two years it is causing a lot of difficulties and is creating a lot of trouble for local authorities and councillors the Government will consider withdrawing Part II and, if they wish to continue with it, putting it before both Houses of Parliament at that time. I beg to move.
9. 30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it really is fascinating to notice the change in tone and the assessment which noble Lords and Baronesses opposite have of the value, of the worth and of the excellence of the Widdicombe Report, according to whether they are speaking to an amendment which is founded on the Widdicombe Report's recommendations or speaking to an amendment which is attacking the Government's proposals. I had hitherto supposed that the work of Widdicombe and his committee had been something which filled the Opposition with admiration and that they wished to repose a lot of their

915
arguments on the arguments adduced by the committee of inquiry. So I am surprised to hear that it is also worthless, tendentious and unstable, and I am relieved, on the other hand, that the purpose of the amendment is to enable the noble Baroness to launch these attacks. Had it been a more serious purpose I should have to have told her that it is technically defective since different parts of the Bill would come into force at different times and that she would have to redraw it anyway.
I dare say that the view of the noble Baroness of the whole operation and of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the Widdicombe Report and our intentions towards the Widdicombe Committee rested in part on the Local Government Chronicle dinner speech to which she referred with some animation. I have to tell the noble Baroness that it was in fact misquoted and misinterpreted by the press, and I shall be very happy to pass her a transcript of what my right honourable friend actually said when she may perhaps view him in a different light. I think perhaps that that is as much as I should say on that issue.
I accept that in Part II we are legislating in a relatively new area but I do not accept this means that the Bill should be subject to the exceptional review procedure which is normally reserved for emergency powers legislation or the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The inquiry recommended a clear statutory prohibition on party political publicity. The inquiry did not mean it to be a temporary measure; indeed, it saw the problem as one that was likely to grow rather than to diminish. There can certainly be no justification for requiring an account to be kept for a limited period; neither would it be a very good idea to abandon principles of good practice for local authorities' publicity decisions or to reinstate the current scope of Section 142 which has in practice proved so inappropriate. Clearly if issues of substance arose, or if the Widdicombe Inquiry made some further recommendation that we wished to adopt and your Lordships supported us in that wish, we should have to consider revising the Bill's provisions. But I do not at the moment see any reason to expect that that will happen.
The noble Baroness said that we ought really to have waited for the main report; but that is like telling somebody with a thumping headache not to take an aspirin because he may have 'flu and that some better remedy will be invented next year. It seems to me that what we have done is a response to the Widdicombe interim report, which we have not, as I thought I heard the noble Baroness say in one aside, ignored. We have not ignored it; we have acted upon it. That is what this Bill is. The noble Baroness will not be satisfied by what I have said. She very rarely is, to give her credit. But on this occasion I have to say that I do not think that what she is proposing is suitable. I am glad that it was chiefly the pretext for the gallop around the course that we had on the unsuitability of our approach to Widdicombe.
If the noble Baroness feels after two years that the Bill is wrong-headed then I suggest that she comes to
916
your Lordships' House and suggests that it be repealed or amended. However, I do not believe that the House should be forced to go through the whole Bill, and its three totally separate parts, again, or even to analyse the distinct parts of Part II as a separate exercise, unless that proves necessary.
Lord Underhill: My noble friend Lady David is thoroughly able to defend herself but I wish to comment on the Minister's remarks concerning her alleged comments about Widdicombe. To my knowledge my noble friend was not criticising Widdicombe. If anything, she was criticising the Government's interpretation of Widdicombe and the fact that they have turned Widdicombe completely on its head, as so many noble Lords observed on Second Reading.
The amendment now before the Committee deals only with Part II of the Bill. We recognise that there is a clause in the Bill that defines the dates on which the various sections shall come into operation. We are dealing with Part II—except of course subsection (5), which will come into effect on a date that the Secretary of State may fix by statutory instrument.
My noble friend has outlined various reasons why the Committee ought to agree to her amendment, irrespective of the fact that the main report is yet to come, and bearing in mind that the main report itself will be of major importance as the Minister said, and will require some time for consideration. I hope that the Government, even if they reject this amendment, will monitor the effect that this Bill will have upon local government information services and upon publicity services. I hope also that the Government and noble Lords will monitor carefully the effect that the Bill will have on the relationship between central government and local government, which year by year gets worse and worse. There is a thoroughly good justification for my noble friend's amendment but I believe it is her wish that the amendment be withdrawn in the light of what has been said; but perhaps I had better let her say that.
Baroness David: I believe that the Minister misunderstood what I was saying. Certainly I was not attacking Widdicombe. I was attacking the Government's use of Widdicombe.
Lord Elton: As I understood the noble Baroness, she was attacking my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Government for the timing and was saying that Widdicombe did not have remotely enough time to get out a sensible report. I understood her to say that it had all been done in great haste and that the opinion polls proved that to be the case. I truncate the noble Baroness's argument somewhat. However, if she is saying that it is an excellent report, then that whch my right honourable friend set by way of a timetable cannot have been such a bad thing, because we got a good report out of it.
Baroness David: I beleive that what I was saying was that the Widdicombe Committee was hurried into producing the interim report for the benefit of the Government, who then ignored a great deal of what was said in that interim report. There have been a certain number of misunderstandings, but I shall read what has been said by the Minister. I hope that he will also read what I have said and will then understand it.
We are very unhappy about Part II of the Bill, and that has been made very clear. We have managed to
918
improve it in Committee but we may need, as the Minister has said, to consider it again once we have seen the working of the Act. Indeed, the local authority associations themselves will no doubt be making their comments constantly. If we need to return to this matter later, then no doubt we shall do so. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 7 to 9 agreed to.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Duty of local authority to comply with report by Local Government Commissioner in cases of maladministration.
. A local authority shall have a general duty to comply with a report of the relevant Local Government Commissioner in respect of any acts of maladministration leading to injustice by that authority. A local authority shall within six months of a formal written notification of findings against them by the Local Government Commissioner inform the Local Government Commissioner and the complainant of the remedy proposed and any administrative or policy changes being carried out to prevent a continuing or recurring injustice.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to introduce a different type of material into the Bill. I should say that I am proposing this amendment, very inadequately, in substitution for my noble friend Lord Winstanley who, unfortunately, has been taken ill with 'flu. I promised him that I would do my best to explain his case.
With Amendment No. 24 I should also speak to Amendment No. 27, which is required to bring the main amendment within the Long Title of the Bill. I make no apology for raising a new issue. The Bill is called the Local Government Bill. It covers a number of rather disparate items, including the item on the transfer of mortgages, and it would seem to me to be a perfectly suitable vehicle for legislation along the lines proposed in this amendment.
I come to the amendment and I do not want to read it out in extenso; but I think the description in the margin is adequate. It refers to the,
"Duty of local authority to comply with report by Local Government Commissioner in cases of maladministration."
Maladministration is specified in the amendment as,
"maladministration leading to injustice by that authority."
What are we talking about when we refer to maladministration leading to injustice? There are perhaps three or four main areas. For example, in the purchase and sale of land a council can use its position as a public authority in an oppressive way by unreasonably withholding planning permission and thus causing the sale price of a piece of land to be reduced. In the provision of various services—for example housing—an arbitrary method of housing allocation may well unfairly cause hardship. Indeed, unacceptable delays in repairs may cause injustice. In schools, too, many of the cases brought before the ombudsman centre on an authority allocating a place in a school on grounds of administrative expediency rather than on educational suitability. There are a number of other areas in which a local authority may commit an injustice, such as matters concerned with roads, the social services or the environment.
What is the situation at the moment? In August 1984 the Commission for Local Administration in England sent a memorandum to the Secretary of State for the Environment precisely on this subject. The memorandum was concerned with the number of occasions when local authorities have not provided a satisfactory remedy following a finding by the local ombudsman that injustice has been caused through maladministration by the authority. This has been reviewed by the Select Committee of another place which felt that,
920
"Such an extent of defiance by local authorities risked bringing the ombudsman system into disrepute."
In terms of volume we are not talking of an enormous number of cases, and the Commission for Local Administration states:
"Put simply, about 6.25 per cent. of those found by the local ombudsman to have suffered injustice through maladministration have not received a satisfactory remedy. Perhaps more significantly 19 per cent. of local authorities receiving critical reports have at one time or another not provided a remedy even after the local ombudsman has issued a further report on the complaint".
That 6 per cent. may not be thought to be a very dramatic figure but the situation is bad of course because injustice should always be remedied. If there are 94 per cent. of cases which are adequately and successfully dealt with, that is no reason why the remaining 6 per cent. should not be dealt with in the same way.
9.45 p.m.
The other thing which bears on the general credibility of the Ombudsman system is that of course the publicity given to failures always receives more attention than that given to the successes of the system, and it tends to reinforce the belief of the public that there is no point in using the Ombudsman system because it has no teeth. Of course this is not entirely true, but that is a perception which may well arise from the record of cases not successfully settled.
The Commission for Local Administration in England has also produced a report in which it names 72 local authorities which between 1974, when the English local Ombudsman started work, and the 30th January 1986 failed to provide a remedy satisfactory to the Ombudsman on an occasion when, following investigation of a complaint, the Ombudsman issued a report finding that there had been injustice caused by maladministration. In each case the failure was in spite of the issue of a further report by the local Ombudsman following the authority's failure to respond satisfactorily to the first report. These 72 authorities represent 19.5 per cent. of all the authorities in England against which an adverse finding at some time or other has been made by a local Ombudsman.
I do not wish to be invidious or to cite the names of any of these authorities, but I have them and they are of course in the Government's possession. Also, there have been 16 cases outstanding since at least the 31st March, some of which may also prove to be cases where no remedy will be provided. In each year there were some authorities who declined to provide a satisfactory remedy, including some who did so for the first time. In 1984–85 a further five authorities joined the list, despite having provided remedies previously, and there may be more to follow from the outstanding cases. The point is that this could be seen as a relatively small failure of the system, but it appears to be persistent. The rate of improvement in the last five years over the previous five years has not been spectacular, and there always seems to be this small percentage of cases where the authority will not follow up the Ombudsman's ruling and give a remedy where a remedy is due.
The amendment seeks to use this Bill as a vehicle to impose an obligation on the authority to have:
"a general duty to comply with a report of the relevant Local Government Commissioner in respect of any acts of maladministration leading to injustice by that authority. A local authority shall within six months of a formal written notification of findings against them by the Local Government Commissioner inform the Local Government Commissioner and the complainant of the remedy proposed and any administrative or policy changes being carried out to prevent a continuing or recurring injustice".
I am pretty certain that in reply the noble Lord will tell me that this is neither the right Bill nor the right place to suggest that this worthy measure should be included. The Government in fact have been stalling on this matter for some time. If this is not the right vehicle, we certainly have to find a vehicle and find one fairly soon. Of course, I am aware that the matter is still under consideration by the relevant committee of another place. I am also aware that it is within the remit of the Widdicombe Report which we seem to have spent so much time talking about during this Committee stage; that is to say, part of Widdicombe 2. It therefore seems, I accept, that we have missed the bus on this Bill, and I think that that is rather a pity. The rulings of the Ombudsman are clear, and there was adequate material available, I think, to have included a clause in the Bill on the subject. However, I think that we have to be realistic and to accept that we probably have missed the bus on the Bill.
But I would like to ask the noble Lord, if that is his view of the matter, what he has in mind for bringing the measure into statute once the Select Committee has finished its report and the Widdicombe Committee has also produced the second part of its report. Do the Government take this seriously? Will they undertake to legislate as soon as possible? If this is not the right vehicle, have they any other in mind? The matter has been pending for quite a long time. Those of us who are interested in this matter—and I think that we must all be interested in any question of injustice—would want to hear from the Government what their plans are to remedy these shortcomings in the implementation by local authorities of the recommendations of the Ombudsman. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sandford who I am afraid also is ill today. I should like, briefly, to ask the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, three questions. I do not understand, first, the phrase "have a general duty to comply". It seems to be very wide and imprecise. Secondly, the new clause states:
"A local authority shall within six months of a formal written notification of findings against them",
etc. In my experience local authorities put right complaints and recommendations made to them by the local government commissioners. They usually do so quickly. If it has to be within six months, they will hold things up for six months and say that they do not have to do it until then. I should much prefer a period of three months if we are to retain that provision.
Thirdly, there is the assumption that the local government commissioners are always right. We are fortunate in our local government commissioner, but the very best of us can sometimes be wrong. There is no appeal provision in the amendment.
922
I also have the figures. Adverse reports in the past five years have numbered 859, of which 92 per cent., by my figures, have been put right by the local authorities, leaving only 5 per cent. where no remedy has been provided and 2 per cent. not yet decided, but that is in a way irrelevant. While I understand the feelings and the thought behind the amendment, I do not hold with it as it stands.
Baroness David: We too would like to support the idea behind the amendment. There probably is in a great many cases some duty to provide a remedy, but is this the right moment? The Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is currently considering the question of remedies for the complainant when a local authority has failed to provide appropriate redress and maladministration has been found against it. It would seem sensible to await that report, and so this is not quite the right moment to take action.
Lord Kilmarnock: With permission, I shall try to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. We are not wedded word by word to the amendment as it stands. Objection has been raised from other quarters which I also respect, about the six-month period specified. Certainly we would not go to the stake for that. It would be a matter for discussion. Also, the figures that the noble Baroness quoted are exactly the same as those that I have mentioned. There is no dispute between us on that. What we are talking about is perfecting the system or bringing it up to its maximum perfectibility given its very successful track record in the majority of cases. I certainly do not dispute the figures with the noble Baroness. As for the wording of the clause, that is something for discussion if the Government will eventually take it up here or in some other vehicle.
Lord Elton: Let me start by saying that the Government do take this issue seriously. That is the direct question that I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. Secondly, as he recognises, the amendment goes far wide of the Bill. That is why he had to put down a second amendment to increase the scope of the Bill so that it could embrace the principle that he wanted to amend the Bill to embrace.
In the autumn of 1984 the Commissioner for Local Administration in England, the local ombudsman, made formal recommendations to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Justifiable concern was expressed that in 6 per cent. of cases where injustice was found, the authority complained against failed to remedy the injustice. The local ombudsman recommended that unless matters improved on a voluntary basis, legislation should be considered. The response of the local authority associations for England and Wales to this was positive. They wrote to each local authority urging speedy and total compliance with all the findings of the local ombudsman.
It was against that background that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced the Government's position in September last year. He

923
shared the local ombudsman's concern at what was happening. He acknowledged that although non-compliance is relatively rare, each occurrence compounded the original injustice to the individual citizen concerned and that the resultant publicity might undermine public confidence both in the office of local ombudsman and in local government as a whole. He concluded therefore that steps should be taken to secure greater compliance with the commission's findings.
In the first instance, the Government welcomed the action of the local authority associations in writing to their members. It was right that local government should be given the opportunity to put its own house in order. The voluntary route would, in our view, be preferable to the compulsory one in this case if it can secure the same objective. We are therefore watching closely the effects of this voluntary initiative. We have undertaken to discuss its achievements with the local ombudsman and local authority representatives. It will then be possible to decide in consultation whether further steps need to be taken.
Turning to the clause itself, I must say that its potential effect in its present form is worrying. It would, as my noble friend Lady Faithfull has pointed out, on behalf of my noble and absent friend Lord Sandford, to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, who answers on behalf of the noble and absent Lord, Lord Winstanley, be particularly harsh for local authorities to have the findings of the local ombudsman imposed on them without the right of appeal to another body. It assumes total rectitude and absolute unshakeable infallibility. It would, I fear, represent also a fundamental change in the role of the local ombudsman. It would give him executive powers in addition to his investigatory powers. That is another fundamental change. Authorities might come to see the ombudsman in fact as both counsel for the prosecution and judge, whereas he should be seen as neither. I am not expressing my own fear or indeed that of the Government in isolation. Independent observers have made these same points. Most important perhaps, the local ombudsman for England has taken the same view.
10 p.m.
May I conclude therefore by assuring the noble Lord that we understand and share the anxieties that underlie the amendment? There is a problem with some local authorities defying the local ombudsman. That problem must be tackled. However, a Select Committee of another place started taking evidence on this mattter in 1984 and is due to report in three months' time. The main report of the Widdicombe Inquiry is also expected shortly and, as they made clear in their interim report, and as I have referred earlier, one of the questions they will have to consider is the rights of the public to challenge local authority activities and decisions.
I am sure that these two reports, together with our own assessment of local government's voluntary efforts, will provide the best possible basis for deciding what should be done next. I do not think that we have
924
missed the bus; I think that this was the wrong bus. We want the next bus.
I am grateful to the noble Lord therefore for bringing this matter before the Committee. The noble Lord says that this may be a small failure of the system. Nonetheless, it is an important matter for all that. I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment now and perhaps give us the benefit of his views, and those of his party, when the two reports of which I have spoken and our own assessment of the developments resulting from the local authorities' voluntary initiative are available for discussion.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his reply. I have accepted the imperfections of the clause as drafted. I take the point that there is no right of appeal, which seems to be wrong. I am also fully aware that the Select Committee of another place is due to report shortly and that Widdicombe is also investigating the whole question of the right of challenge of the citizen. Obviously we shall look forward with interest to both of those reports. However, if we see no action in the offing, we shall be inclined to come back to this in some form or another.
I am slightly encouraged by the noble Lord's continuance of the bus analogy. The noble Lord said that although this was not the right bus he sees that there is another bus probably coming along. We shall certainly be there in the bus queue waiting for it, if we do not see that the requisite action is coming forward. For the moment, I certainly do not intend to press this amendment.
Lord Elton: I forgot one important matter. I forgot to say—and I am sure that your Lordships will join me—that I hope his noble friend and my noble friend both make a speedy recovery.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I shall convey that to my noble friend Lord Winstanley. The noble Lord will no doubt convey the same sentiment to his noble friend Lord Sandford.
I am encouraged by the noble Lord in his implication that there is not only one bus suitable for this but that there may be another coming along. We shall certainly be on the look-out for it. I certainly do not intend to press this matter. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth Lord Elliott of Morpeth moved Amendment No. 25:
Before Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Duty of local authorities to publish annual reports of road safety measures.
.—(1) Section 38(2A) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (as inserted by section 8(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1974) (powers of the Secretary of State and local authorities as to giving road safety information and training) shall be amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph (c) insert—
"(d) shall publish an annual report to the Secretary of State on the measures undertaken to promote road safety.".")
The noble Lord said: In the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Nugent, I am asked to move the amendment in his name.
The Road Traffic Acts 1972 and 1974 required local authorities for the very first time to prepare and carry out a programme of measures designed to improve road safety. This existing legislation nevertheless means that although local authorities carry out studies of accidents in their areas—and they are further required to take measures which the studies and the evidence from them suggest would be helpful in preventing further accidents—at the present time they are not obliged to publish the reports on their road safety programmes. These reports include information and publicity campaigns and the improvement and required maintenance alterations of roads for which they are responsible as a highway authority. Some excellent reports are produced. It is estimated that some 50 per cent. of local authorities who undertake these studies produce reports which have proved to be of general benefit.
The new clause in the name of my noble friend is aimed at making it obligatory for all authorities to produce an annual report. Highway authorities would benefit enormously by a full exchange of experience, information and ideas. A number of authorities have quite recently adopted wide-ranging and imaginative road safety schemes, and a national perspective could be achieved on the types of measures which some authorities have really found to be most effective.
We were reminded earlier today that this is European Road Safety Year. Therefore, I suggest on behalf of my noble friend that the addition of this clause to the Bill in this year would represent a substantial step towards reducing the constant tragedies which daily arise from accidents on our roads.
Finally, it may interest your Lordships to know that the Association of County Councils has informed my noble friend of their agreement in principle with his new clause. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: I should like very briefly to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth. I am sorry that his noble friend Lord Nugent cannot be here. However, I think that all noble Lords have respect for what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said on various occasions on the question of road safety, and I hope that we shall give consideration to this amendment.
I am certain that the noble Lord the Minister will have some useful matters to tell us. He may say that this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for such an amendment, but I hope that he will go beyond that and give us the Government's views on the matter.
As the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, has said, this is European Road Safety Year. Your Lordships have shown by Questions over the last two or three weeks the concern which is felt on the matter of road safety. Apart from the fact that, as the noble Lord says, the amendment has the support of the Association of County Councils, it is also fully supported and approved by the Parliamentary Advisory Committee for Transport Safety. Therefore, it is an important amendment, and I am certain that the publication of these reports would, as the noble Lord says, not only provide useful information for the department and the
926
Ministers but also provide for the exchange of information between authorities.
I shall be very interested to learn the Government's views here. If the Bill is not the right medium for this provision we would nevertheless like to know the Government's views on this particular amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: I must start by saying that I am attracted in principle to my noble friend's delegated (if I may put it that way) argument on road safety. His intention is to make local authorities publish year-by-year the measures they take to fulfil their statutory responsibility for road safety under the 1972 and 1974 Road Traffic Acts. The Government are well aware of the important role which local authorities have to play in road safety, and recognise that, while some authorities have a first-class record, others have a great deal to learn.
Anything that would improve road safety, especially where the care and maintenance of roads is concerned, must be a good thing even in a year that is not designated as road safety year. The question is whether a statutory requirement to publish an annual report would improve matters. My noble friend suggests that it would do so. The Government think that it could help, but would not want to introduce such a measure without the full support of the local authorities.
Annual reports would inevitably impose some financial burden on local authorities. There would need to be discussion about what the reports will cover; and there are implications for the existing information and grant systems which need to be considered. Such issues would require extensive prior consultation with local authorities, among others. No such consultation has, to date, taken place. Nor, with the abolition of the metropolitan counties imminent and the organisational re-arrangements which will follow, is it a suitable time to be considering such consultation.
Nevertheless, I most certainly do not want to reject the idea completely. The Committee will be aware that my colleagues in the Department of Transport are currently reviewing future road safety policy. I understand that that department is considering a number of issues which bear on the most effective arrangements for improving road safety policy and performance. I shall make sure that the department takes on board the thinking behind the amendment.
However, for the reasons I have stated, I do not think that now is the right time, or (if I may almost quote the noble Lord, Lord Underhill) that this Bill is an appropriate vehicle for this significant change to local authorities' formal responsibilities. I hope that my noble friend will take the point and will seek to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his support of the proposed amendment. I am grateful also to my noble friend for the way in which he has responded to it. I take the point that this may not be the right moment, but it is encouraging to know that the principle is accepted.
In the circumstances, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Allowances payable to members of new authorities.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Elton: I do not wish to do more than move the Motion formally, but I should like to take the opportunity to give notice, which is normal, of an amendment which the Government may wish to table at Report.
Under existing statute, owing to a technical defect in the drafting of the Local Government Act 1985 and the way it works with the Local Government Act 1972, it could happen that in a local election year there could be a period of about a month during which the London fire and civil defence authority and other joint authorities, though not ILEA, were without elected members. The legal position is the same in the metropolitan counties, but the difficulty is less because only a third of the district councillors retire in any one year. The Government are therefore consulting urgently the local authority associations on what, if anything, needs to be done about this. My purpose now is merely to alert your Lordships to the possibility of a Government amendment at Report stage.
I should also apologise for the fact that we agreed so quickly and the Committee were so kind in its agreement to, among others, Clause 7, that I did not at that stage tell the Committee that we intend to make a small amendment to subsection (4) of that clause which will add to the protection for borrowers. It is technical, but I accept that I should have made it in the context of the clause. It relates to subsection (4) which provides a procedure for validating transfers of mortgages. If a local authority inadvertently overlooks a borrower's withdrawal of consent to a transfer, the subsection provides that the transfer can none the less be valid.
I shall not go further than to draw the Committee's attention to the area of our concern and to say that there are two even more minor changes to subsection (4), to require that the certification referred to in that subsection will form part of the transfer agreement, and to make provision for consents to which conditions have been attached. These are really very technical matters, but I have always tried to act with extreme propriety on these occasions so that I can leap upon noble Lords who risk to demean themselves in a more flagrant manner. I am sorry that I have not quite done so because I missed the opportunity on clause stand part. I beg to move.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  NORTH DOWN COAST: RADIOACTIVITY MONITORING
  NORTH DOWN COAST: RADIOACTIVITY MONITORING
  MOORED VESSELS: RATES LIABILITY
  MOORED VESSELS: RATES LIABILITY
  LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION: SIGNATURE BY UK
  LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION: SIGNATURE BY UK
  UN DEVELOPMENT FUND FOR WOMEN: UK CONTRIBUTIONS
  UN DEVELOPMENT FUND FOR WOMEN: UK CONTRIBUTIONS
  FALKLAND ISLANDS: LAND PURCHASE
  FALKLAND ISLANDS: LAND PURCHASE
  SERVICE POLICE: CODES OF PRACTICE
  SERVICE POLICE: CODES OF PRACTICE
  EEC: SPANISH ACCESSION AND FISHERIES POLICY
  EEC: SPANISH ACCESSION AND FISHERIES POLICY
  DEER: RITUAL SLAUGHTER
  DEER: RITUAL SLAUGHTER
  SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT: PAYMENTS TO UNEMPLOYED
  SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT: PAYMENTS TO UNEMPLOYED
  CHILDREN'S SPECTACLES: VOUCHER SYSTEM
  CHILDREN'S SPECTACLES: VOUCHER SYSTEM
  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT REGULATIONS: AMENDMENT
  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT REGULATIONS: AMENDMENT
  "PROPOSED CHANGES IN SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT SINGLE PAYMENTS REGULATIONS "NOTE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
  "PROPOSED CHANGES IN SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT SINGLE PAYMENTS REGULATIONS "NOTE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE