Sitting of 21 January 1986

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
POOLE BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
Order for Third Reading read.
Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
BERKSHIRE BILL [Lords]
Order for consideration read.
To be considered upon Thursday.
SWANSEA CITY COUNCIL (TAWE BARRAGE) BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  LOTHIAN REGION (EDINBURGH WESTERN RELIEF ROAD) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the provisions of paragraph (4) of Standing Ordee appr 243 (Joint committees on petitions) be applied to the Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Lords as the Joint Committee on the Lothian Region (Edinburgh Western Relief Road) Order Confirmation Bill. —[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Leightonasked the Paymaster General how many full-time employees there were in employment in 1979, 1983 and 1985, respectively.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark): Estimates of full-time and part-time male employees in employment are not separately available for these dates. In June 1979 there were 18,768,000 male employees and full-time female employees in employment. The corresponding estimates for 1983 and 1985 are 16,626,000 and 16,490,000 respectively.
    Mr. Leighton: Do the figures not show the full enormity of what has happened, the destruction of 2·5 million full-time jobs since 1979 and, in the past two
    168
    years, the destruction of 750,000 full-time jobs? The only growth in recent times has been in a secondary labour market of an under class of female part-time labour with no employment protection, low pay, no holiday pay, no sick pay, and no pension rights. That is accompanied by a continued relentless destruction of full-time jobs.
    Mr. Clark: That is exactly what the figures do not reveal. The hon. Gentleman is presumably drawing on the expert acquaintance of such matters that he has acquired in his distinguished service as Chairman of the Select Committee. He has chosen to use the arcane statisticians' definition of employees in employment instead of the more usual definition of the employed labour force. Had he chosen to use the employed labour force, which is the usual category by which the figures are judged, he would have seen that the number of jobs has increased by 709,000 since 1983, and that the total lost since 1979 has been just over million.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that there were 1,800,000 in self employment in 1979? There are now 2,500,000. That is an encouraging increase, because if each unemployed person creates a good business, he can employ more people. That is a major area of employment growth.
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is entirely right and doubtless it is for that reason that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) deliberately selected that category, which excludes the self employed from his total.
    Mr. Wainwright: Will the Minister stop the misleading practice, when preparing the figures of employment, of treating men's part-time jobs as the full equivalent of men's full-time jobs? Is there any reason why the House should continually be misled by that failure to distinguish?
    Mr. Clark: A job is a job. I am surprised to find the hon. Gentleman, speaking as he does for the Liberal party, adhering to that rigorous Stakhanovite doctrine held by so many members of the Opposition that everybody should be fully working the entire time.
    Mr. Yeo: Will my hon. Friend join me in rejecting the implications behind some supplementary questions that part-time work is in some way inferior to other forms of work? In practice, part-time work provides welcome and satisfying opportunities for employment. It makes an important contribution to the economy as a whole and is often very much welcomed by employers.
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right. The majority of those who work part time do so from choice and not from pressure.
    Mr. Evans: Do not the carefully selected figures that the Minister has presented to the House show clearly the employment disaster that has struck the United Kingdom as a result of the Government's economic policies? As the Minister is keen to boast about self-employment, will he provide the figures showing the growth in self-employed labour known as "lump labour" in the construction industry, which has been rapid over the past two years?
    Mr. Clark: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has to make these ritual declarations once a month. Those who are self-employed, proud of their status and conscious of the expanding opportunities that they give others—many

    169
    of them are offering employment as their businesses grow and flourish—will resent the aspersions that the hon. Gentleman is casting upon them.

    Tourism
    Mr. Bevanasked the Paymaster General what progress has been made in Government policy towards tourism since the publication of the document "Pleasure, Leisure and Jobs".
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): The Government are continuing to place a high priority on encouraging the development of tourism and on maximising the industry's potential for growth, job creation and enterprise. Since the transfer of responsibility for tourism policy to the Department of Employment in September, we have announced a substantial increase in the financial provision next year for the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board, bringing their total provision to £40 million.
    Mr. Bevan: I am delighted to hear of the further progress that has been made following the report to which many of my colleagues and I contributed as members of the party tourism committee. Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to give details of precisely where the money will be distributed to benefit areas of high unemployment such as my own, greatly increasing tourism activity.
    Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his initial remarks. Discussions are currently taking place with the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board to decide how we will split between them this money and section 4 tourist assistance. We intend to concentrate a substantial part of the money in areas where we can develop tourist attractions and where unemployment is higher.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: In meeting the two aims that the Minister has enunciated, will he reject the findings and recommendation of the Select Committee that the United Kingdom tourist boards should be merged into one?
    Mr. Trippier: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have received the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. Our considered response will be available in the near future.
    Mr. Butterfil: What steps does my hon. Friend intend to take to alleviate the appalling delays that are being encountered by early-morning travellers at Heathrow, where passengers are treated almost like cattle?
    Mr. Trippier: If they were cattle, we would probably be prosecuted. My hon. Friend has made a valid point and identified one of the 32 action points that are highlighted in the Young report apprised entitled, "Pleasure, Leisure and Jobs: The Business of Tourism". I have recently had a meeting with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, and I am fully apprised of the importance of the matter to which my hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the House.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Valuable as tourist jobs are, they do not compensate for the loss of industrial jobs. What is the Minister doing to convince his right hon. and hon. Friends to save the steel industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman is using an ingenious device to raise a matter which is not connected
    170
    directly with the substantive question. The issue which he has raised is one of balance. The Department of Employment is concerned with all these matters. I suggested in my main reply that we have a sector that has enormous wealth-creation and employment-creation potential. Perhaps that has been overlooked in the past. We are now intent on developing that potential to the full.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amoryasked the Paymaster General why he uses the number of people drawing unemployment benefit as a definition of the unemployment total.
    The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): We have no administrative means of producing quickly, accurately and at reasonable cost each month the precise number of people without jobs who are actively seeking work, which would be my definition of unemployment. As the best monthly snapshot measure of that number, we can produce statistics based on records of people claiming benefits. In practice, these statistics usually prove to be broadly in balance with the figures produced by our less frequent survey estimates of the number of people unemployed.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the number drawing benefit include many people, such as married women with children and people who take early retirement, who are not actively seeking work? Should not the published official statistics for the unemployment total reflect more accurately the number of people actually looking for work?
    Mr. Clark: In considering the figures one has to bear in mind that at the time of the last survey about 940,000 people claiming benefit had not recently been seeking work, but about 870,000 people not drawing benefit say that they would take work if it were available. As a result, the figures produced each month and the results of the periodic detailed surveys are roughly equivalent. There is no cheap and easy way to be more precise than that.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Does not the fact that many unemployed people are not drawing benefit prove, as we have said many times, that the figures are falsified and do not represent the true level of unemployment?
    Mr. Clarke: I invite the hon. Gentleman to study what I have just said. From the number of claimants one must deduct the number who do not appear to be seeking work, perhaps for good reasons, but one must add the number not receiving benefit but seeking work. The result is about 3 million. It serves no useful purpose for the Opposition to load on top of the official figures all kinds of categories of people to produce the inflated figure of 4 million to which so many Opposition Members refer.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the labour force survey figures merely confuse the issue? Does he agree that the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. HeathcoatAmory) is much more serious, because many people not receiving unemployment benefit are classified as unemployed because benefit has been disallowed? Does he agree that we shall never have meaningful unemployment figures until a work test is instituted, as envisaged in the Beveridge report, on which the welfare state is based?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend rightly points to the confusion and attempts to clarify the position. The key point is that there are too many people out of work and seeking work. That is why the Government are actively pursuing steps to increase the number of new jobs created. It serves no useful purpose to inflate the unemployment total, as the Opposition do. It is important to bear in mind that all those claiming benefit should be available for work. That is the test of eligibility for benefit, and the Government are entitled to take steps, as we are doing, to ensure that benefit is paid only to people genuinely available for work.
    Mr. Foot: Does the Minister admit that for several years the Opposition have been asking questions about the unemployment figures and the Minister has been saying that that is not fair and that we should ask about the number of people in employment, but now that we put down questions about employment he says that that is even more unfair?
    Mr. Clarke: Questions about employment have just been answered very clearly by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. We welcome as many questions as possible about employment and the creation of new jobs, because our best estimates are that about 709,000 new jobs have been created since the last general election.
    Mr. Watts: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that out of the 3 million unemployed only 379,000 are registered at jobcentres? Does he further agree that the jobcentres are hampered in seeking to fill the vacancies for skilled labour that many employers have, especially in my constituency in the Thames valley? Will he carefully consider a further pilot scheme to require the unemployed in areas of low unemployment and clear skill shortage to register at jobcentres so that the jobcentres can actively seek to match the unemployed to the vacancies?
    Mr. Clarke: Registration at jobcentres is now voluntary, and only just over 400,000 choose to register. As more jobs are now being notified to jobcentres, in a number of pilot areas we have launched proposals to get in touch, first, with the long-term unemployed to bring them to the jobcentres so that jobs, training, job club membership and so on can be offered to them. This has been very successful in a number of areas.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Postmaster General accept—[interruption.] Does the Paymaster General accept that if there is any confusion about the figures being inflated, it is because the Government spend all their time deflating the figures by massaging them downwards? If the Government used the previous criteria for those who are registered as unemployed, unemployment figures would be about half a million more than they are now.
    Does the Paymaster General accept that the December unemployment figures—his registration figures—are the highest ever recorded? Would he care to guess whether the January figures will be a further record of mass unemployment resulting from the Government's policies?
    Mr. Clarke: I have been entirely clear about our figures. It is no good the hon. Member complaining about the inadequacy of the figures, when every time that we seek to improve them he accuses us of fiddling them. There is no point in the hon. Gentleman, as he consistently
    172
    does, seeking to inflate those figures in bogus ways to produce the figure of 4 or 5 million, or whatever figure that he uses in his speech.
    The December figures follow three successive months in which the total was falling. We shall wait to see what the underlying trend is. The trend during the past six months seems to be the best that we have had for a long time. With the economy growing at its present rate, I expect the outlook for 1986 to be very good.

    Local Enterprise Agencies
    Mr. Colvinasked the Paymaster General what steps he proposes to take to encourage large firms to second some of their executives to local enterprise agencies.
    Mr. Trippier: Business in the Community is taxing the lead in encouraging an increase in secondments to local enterprise agencies from large firms. Such secondments can qualify for tax relief. The Government fully support BIC's efforts in this area.
    Mr. Colvin: I am sorry that the "Pastemaster General" is not answering this question. Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that without the help of big business "oak trees", the small business "acorns", which are catered for by enterprise agencies, would be unlikely to take root? Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to The British American Tobacco, Co., which is assisting the Solent enterprise agency to get off the ground? Without its aid the agency would probably not have prospered. Will he use his best endeavours to encourage other big businesses to help enterprise agencies in the same way?
    Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend is right. I join him in complimenting BAT on the way in which it has sponsored the Solent enterprise agency by providing a secondee. I pay a warm tribute to the growing number of large firms which are seeking to help small businesses, indirectly or directly, in this way.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that we have been setting up an enterprise agency in King's Lynn? Will he tell the House what he plans to do about seconding more civil servants to local enterprise agencies? Does he agree that a spell at the sharp end of the private sector would do their career development much good?
    Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend has been giving us a month-by-month account of the progress of his enterprise agency. I am glad that he has drawn the attention of the House to the agency, which comes into operation this week.
    We welcome the fact that civil servants can be seconded to enterprise agencies. When I became a Minister two and a half years ago, we did not have civil servants seconded to enterprise agencies or to BIC. There are now eight such civil servants, who are not confined to the Department of Employment. We even have a secondee from the Treasury, so it must be a good idea.

    Average Earnings
    Mr. Maplesasked the Paymaster General what has been the underlying increase in average earnings over the last year.
    Mr. Alan Clark: The underlying increase in average weekly earnings in the year to November 1985 was 7·5 per cent. This should not be confused with the average

    173
    increase of pay settlements, which will be lower as the figure for earnings includes overtime, bonuses and similar factors.
    Mr. Maples: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in present circumstances, both figures are too high, and that although averages can conceal a great deal, it is vital that individual businesses do not grant pay awards which increase their real unit costs? In that respect, should we not learn the lesson of the United States, where recently millions of new jobs have been created when real average earnings have fallen?
    Mr. Clark: I appreciate the expert knowledge which my hon. Friend, as the author of a booklet on the subject, brings to the matter, but it is inappropriate for a Minister to say that any wage increase is too high, as an abstract concept. It is not for the Government to intervene in bargaining between employers and employees. None the less, my hon. Friend is perfectly right to draw attention to unit costs and productivity, on which our competitiveness rests.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that one reason why the increase was about 7·7 per cent. was that the Government gave the green light to those at the top end of the salary scale last year when they awarded a 19 per cent. increase to those earning top salaries? As a result, executives and other types managed to rope in another 17 per cent. during 1985. Is it any wonder that the average has increased to more than 7 per cent.? The trouble is that those at the bottom end have been hammered by the Government since 1979.
    Mr. Clark: The Top Salaries Review body is completely independent, and the House would take a poor view of any Government interference in its deliberations. The hon. Gentleman's arithmetic is rather confused. The recipients of those awards were so few in number that they could not possibly affect the statistical average of the increase in earnings.
    Mr. Baldry: Since pay in British manufacturing industry is increasing twice as fast as that in Japan and the United States, it can only mean that our manufactured goods will become consistently less competitive, which means that fewer are made, fewer are sold and there are fewer jobs. How do we stop this national lunacy of pricing ourselves out of work?
    Mr. Clark: There is much truth in what my hon. Friend says, but I would not wish to be associated with any dirigiste intervention in the bargaining between employers and employees. Employers must see the sense of my hon. Friend's argument reflected in their order books.

    Wages Councils
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Paymaster General how many workers are currently covered by wages councils; and what proportion are under 21 years of age.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: About 2·75 million workers are covered by wages councils. Of these, approximately 20 per cent. are under 21 years of age.
    Mr. Powell: Is the Paymaster General aware that my union—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—has expressed much anxiety about the suggestion that the Government might amend or abolish
    174
    the wages council for shop workers? Is he also aware that the Shops Bill, which is now in the other place and which deals with the introduction of Sunday trading, will remove controls over young people working in shops? They can no longer benefit from wages council protection. Will the Minister tell the House what proposals the Government have in mind?
    Mr. Clarke: I am happy to repeat that it is the Government's firm intention to introduce a Bill this Session to reform the wages councils. We propose to reduce the powers of the wages councils so that they can specify only one basic rate and one overtime rate. We also propose to remove employees under the age of 21 from the scope of wages councils. Our motive for doing so is that we believe that, by setting young people's wages too high in relation to adult wages, and too high in relation to the value that they add to a business, we are making more youngsters unemployed than we need to. The reform will increase the potential for more youth employment.
    Mr. Grylls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the argument in favour of removing wages councils, at least for those aged under 21, has been won and established in the public mind, even if not in the mind of the Opposition? If wages councils destroy or deter the creation of new jobs, they are ineffective and we had better get rid of them anyway. On both counts, it would be much better to get rid of them.
    Mr. Clarke: I trust that we have won the public argument. When we introduce the Bill we shall discover the extent to which we have won the parliamentary argument. I agree with my hon. Friend's arguments and conclusions. The wages councils have quite unintentionally reduced the number of jobs that are made available to young people in this country.
    Ms. Clare Short: Can the Paymaster General explain why the Government intend to weaken the protection that is afforded to 3 million workers, including ½ million young workers, who are paid very low wages? According to the "New Earnings Survey," since 1979 the top 20 per cent. of workers have increased their pay above the average, but the bottom 20 per cent. had pay increases that were lower than the rate of inflation. They have, therefore, suffered a net drop in income. This proposal will ensure that they are paid even less.
    Mr. Clarke: My first priority is the interests of the 3 million or so people who are unemployed, in particular the young unemployed who are included in that total. If the wages councils continue to stipulate extremely complex pay arrangements in very important trades, and continue to set for young employees pay rates that are too high in relation to pay rates for experienced adults, the effect will be to reduce the number of jobs that are made available to young people in this country. The wages councils are therefore out of date in those respects and it is high time that we reformed them.

    Northern Region (Job Clubs)
    Mr. Fallonasked the Paymaster General whether his Department will establish more job clubs in the northern region.
    Mr. Alan Clark: The Manpower Services Commission at present runs 30 job clubs, four of which

    175
    are located in the MSC's northern region. Initial results are very encouraging, and about two thirds of the people who have joined job clubs have found jobs. Provided that evaluation confirms this, I have asked the commission to make plans for a rapid expansion to establish a national network of 200 job clubs by the end of this year. These plans will certainly include proposals to open a number of additional job clubs in the MSC's northern region.
    Mr. Fallon: I am very grateful for that most heartening answer. Is my hon. Friend aware that this experiment is proving to be very successful? Does he agree that personal, in-depth counselling is of far more assistance to the long-term unemployed than any amount of artificial indignation that may be expressed by the Opposition?
    Mr. Clark: Yes. It has been one of the most successful of the Government's initiatives. The number of people who find jobs after having been on one of these courses in the northern areas is, on average, about three quarters of those who attend such courses. In March 1985 I visited the first experimental job club in Durham, and I was so impressed by what I saw that the Department put in train this considerable expansion.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will not the recent rate support grant settlement under which the Government are imposing a 35 per cent. rate increase upon Cumbrians wipe out at a stroke all the benefits of the enterprise incentives that have been introduced by the Government during the last few years? Are they not creating unemployment on the one hand and introducing on the other a number of palliative measures, such as job clubs and enterprise allowances?— [Interruption.] That is absolutely in order, if the Minister would only listen and stop protesting. He will have an opportunity to answer the question. Is it not true that the enterprise allowances and the other so-called incentives will be wiped out by the rate support grant settlement?
    Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman has probably been having a nap and has confused the subject and the day upon which his question should be put. Whatever extraneous circumstances may prevail, experience shows that those who go through the job clubs are better suited to place themselves in the employment market than those who do not.
    Mr. Dickens: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the widespread introduction of job clubs. Is it not a fact that those who join job clubs to learn new skills and interviewing techniques are the kind of people for whom employers are looking?
    Mr. Clark: Yes. They are more likely to be the people for whom employers are looking when they emerge from job club courses than they were when they went on to those courses. It is an established, regrettable truth that those who have been out of work for a very long time lose self-confidence. They lose familiarity with the labour market. They also lose the ability to project their personality and their skills. It is to help them to recover their self-confidence that job clubs have been instituted.
    Mr. Evans: Is it not time that the Minister admitted that what the long-term unemployed want, many of whom are over 50 and have been unemployed for three, four or five years, are jobs, real live jobs? As long as this Government are in office, it is obvious that they will not
    176
    get jobs. Will the Minister confirm what my hon. Friend suggested earlier, that the December figures for unemployment are the highest ever recorded?
    Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman paints in far too pessimistic a colour. The Government are engaged on a much broader initiative of contacting long-term unemployed people. That initiative embraces many different types of action, of which job clubs are only one part. There is the job-start scheme with its £20 grant and the personal contact initiative. Many such initiatives are being favourably received and successfully implemented.

    Youth Training Scheme
    Mr. Spencerasked the Paymaster General what is the total funding for the youth training scheme in England in the current financial year.
    Mr. Trippier: We have made available £710 million for the youth training scheme in England in 1985–86. Including Scotland and Wales, total funding is £834 million.
    Mr. Spencer: Is my hon. Friend aware of the Leicestershire employment and education project on Constitution hill in my constituency? That is a YTS project and provides basic training for disadvantaged young people from the inner area. It has a high success rate and has contributed to a reduction in unemployment in my constituency of some 6·2 per cent. since September 1984.
    Mr. Trippier: I am pleased to learn that there has been such a significant fall in the level of unemployment in my hon. and learned Friend's constituency, and I am grateful to him for paying such a warm compliment to the Leicestershire employment and education project. As he suggests, there is now ample evidence, not only in his constituency but throughout the country, that the YTS is effective in providing for a real need.
    Mr. Caborn: Is the Minister aware that in the inner cities there are major problems with YTS, particularly in the voluntary sector? Many people in the inner cities are worried about the new arrangements for funding and about their ability to provide the type of training that has hitherto been provided. Many people, particularly in the caring services, will not go into any type of training, and they will be a major problem, particularly for the inner cities. Will the Minister give consideration to representations from organisations such as NACRO and others?
    Mr. Trippier: I will certainly give serious consideration to the point made by the hon. Gentleman and draw his remarks to the attention of the Manpower Services Commission. The number of premium places under the new scheme is designed to meet the needs of young people with particular training needs for whom employer-based places will not suffice. I told the hon. Gentleman that at a meeting that I had with him, but if he wishes to come back and explore the ground further, I shall be happy to do so.
    Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend knows that I am an enthusiastic supporter of the YTS. Will he accept that one of the ingredients in the demoralisation of school teachers is the feeling that a great deal of the work that they would otherwise do is being taken over by the training scheme? Will he give me an assurance that he will look carefully

    177
    at closer liaison between schools and school teachers and people doing a similar job under a different budget with a different title in the youth training scheme?
    Mr. Trippier: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks in the second part of his question, but I am not sure that I agree with the first part. This is Industry Year, and it gives us a golden opportunity to improve links between industry and education, which perhaps should have been improved 30 years ago. As a result of the initiatives taken by the Department of Trade and Industry and followed by the Department in which I am a Minister I hope that the situation will improve. I do not accept that YTS courses are in any way displacing the work that should be carried out by the teaching profession.
    Mr. Foot: Is it the case that part of the burden of the youth training scheme is being transferred to local authorities? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what the figure is? Does he realise that that is most unfair, because the heaviest burden falls on some of the local authorities that have the highest unemployment? Will he look at the whole of this proposition to make sure that the full burden of the funding is carried by central Government?
    Mr. Trippier: The right hon. Gentleman is somewhat misled. The change of emphasis in YTS is to place more of a responsibility on employers rather than on local authorities. The principal reason for doing that is that they have a vested interest in the trainees who come out at the other end of the scheme. While I am on my feet, I can hardly miss the opportunity to refer to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's constituency has seen a fairly dramatic fall in the level of unemployment over the last 12 months—8 per cent.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Can my hon. Friend confirm that that part of the funding that goes to the young people is a training allowance and not a wage? Can he tell the House what he is doing to help the young people themselves understand that in the face of misleading propaganda, some of it coming from the Opposition Benches?
    Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is, of course, an allowance and is not meant to be a wage. We are trying to increase awareness of that fact wherever we can, through publications and the production of videos. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to say from this Box that that is correct.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Minister recognise the excellent contribution made to the youth training scheme by voluntary bodies? Is he aware that the rules and the way that they are applied, particularly to the number of premium places mentioned earlier, are likely to mean that there will be no B1 schemes run by small voluntary bodies, and that those in Yorkshire with which that I am acquainted are already talking of closing? Will the Minister consider again the whole question of how the rules apply to smaller voluntary bodies which have been able to provide a variety of schemes, which the larger ones cannot provide?
    Mr. Trippier: I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I shall consider the matter again. I cannot believe that there will be no premium places available in any part of his constituency with any voluntary training association that has been set up. It is important for me to stress that
    178
    some £40 million was spent last year on unfilled places. As guardians of the taxpayers' money, we cannot consider that as responsible expenditure.

    Health and Safety
    Mr. Prescottasked the Paymaster General how many fatal accidents and serious injuries were reported by the Health and Safety Executive for the last year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures for the year ended 1978.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: In 1984, 432 fatal injuries to employees were reported; 499 were reported in 1978 under the legislation then in force, which did not cover all sectors of employment. In 1984, 12,246 major injuries to employees were reported. Comparable figures for 1978 are not available. I should point out that the 1984 figures are provisional.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Paymaster General accept that the great improvement in safety in industry is due largely to the inspectors in the health and safety operations since the Health and Safety Executive was set up? In those industries not covered by the Health and Safety Executive accidents and injuries have increased. Does the Paymaster General accept, therefore, that a reduction of 200 in the number of safety inspectors as a result of cuts in the Civil Service can only lead to an increase in accidents and deaths in industry?
    Mr. Clarke: Our better record is a result of ever-improving consciousness of the need to achieve good practice by employers and employees and of the good work of the inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive? The number of inspectors is down at the moment because of wastage and a large number of retirements. Recruitment of inspectors is taking place in all relevant areas.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Dormandasked the Paymaster General what is the total number of unemployed; and how many have been unemployed for at least one and two years respectively, at the latest available date.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On 10 October 1985, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,276,900, of whom 1,351,900–41 per cent. of the total—had been unemployed for over one year, and 823,100 for over two years.
    Mr. Dormand: Is not the most damning condemnation of the Government's policies the number of long-term unemployed? The figures that the Minister has just read out are disgraceful. As we have constantly been told about the success of the Government's economic policies, will he say when they are likely to bring down the number of unemployed?
    Mr. Clarke: New policies are producing a rapid rate of creation of new jobs. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our first priority among the unemployed must be to tackle the problem of the long-term unemployed. That is why we are trying out in pilot areas the schemes that I described a few moments ago. We are approaching each of the long-term unemployed in those areas, we are offering them individual advice, referring them to jobs, to training and to job clubs, and providing a new allowance

    179
    to supplement the pay of those who have to take a low-paid job as their first job. The combination of the present growth in the economy and the growth in new jobs, plus those special measures for the long-term unemployed, should bring great hope to many of them.
    Mr. Alexander: When my right hon. and learned Friend announces the monthly unemployment figures, will he consider announcing at the same time equivalent figures for our partners in the EEC? As our figures are usually better than those of other EEC countries, why do we leave it to the Opposition to put the worst possible slant on what we are doing?
    Mr. Clarke: We try to make useful comparisons of that type, but people always take more notice of the unemployment figures than of many relevant comparisons that could be made with overseas. Since the last election here, the creation of new jobs in the United Kingdom has far exceeded the rate at which they have been created in the rest of the EC put together. We should be more aware of that achievement.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Butterfillasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Butterfill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the pleasure that will exist in many parts of the House over they fact that, for the first time in seven years, a Prime Minister of Israel is visiting a British Prime Minister? Will she use this opportunity to discuss with him ways in which our two democratic countries can improve their co-operation to combat the scourge of international terrorism?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are very much looking forward to the visit of Prime Minister Peres. Terrorism will of course be one of the subjects that we shall discuss, but my hon. Friend would not expect me to go into details. I stress that we attach great importance to this meeting.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I first associate myself closely with the Prime Minister's latter remarks?
    Will the right hon. Lady give an assurance that she will do everything in her power to prevent a rise in interest rates, in view of the additional burden that that would impose on British industries doing their best to compete?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously the Government do not like increases in interest rates, but they are bound to take action to ensure that keeping down inflation remains our top priority. Markets this week have been unsettled by the fall in the oil price, but the Bank of England has maintained its dealing rates.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is it not the case that the Prime Minister must be the only person left who believes that she can fight inflation by pushing up interest rates and by imposing on industry the nutcracker of high domestic interest rates and a high exchange rate? What has the Prime Minister got against British industry?
    The Prime Minister: British industry has had an extremely good year, with record profits, record investment and excellent exports.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister keeps making misleading claims. Investment in manufacturing industry in Britain is 18 per cent. lower than it was six years ago. Although manufactured exports have increased by 13 per cent. during the past six years, manufactured imports have increased by 45 per cent. I ask the Prime Minister again, what has she got against British industry?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman ran away from many industrial problems, such as restrictive practices and the behaviour of trade unions during the winter of discontent. Yesterday's figures show that industrial production in the third quarter was 2 per cent. up on the second quarter and that manufacturing output was 1 per cent. up. Gross domestic product is at an all-time record.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend think that it is right or sensible that men and women running small businesses should have to pay about 16 per cent. to borrow money when there are over 3 million unemployed and enormous unused resources? Will she bear this in mind as the clamour rises for even higher interest rates?
    The Prime Minister: It is hardly clamour for higher interest rates. As my hon. Friend has occasion to know, the interest rates are to a considerable extent partly due to the commercial judgment of the banks in the City, and he knows that we cannot disregard that.
    Mr. Steel: Since the Prime Minister recognises the unacceptability of the domestic rating system and is so strongly pledged personally to abolish it, why is it that in the meantime she loads extra expenditure on to the brokendown system, and particularly on to the ratepayers in the counties?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have been in for, or will have read, a considerable part of the debate yesterday. He knows full well that the rate support grant settlement for next year involves a modest shift in grant from the shire areas to London and other metropolitan areas, which, unfortunately, does cause discomfort to the shire counties. He knows also that I am no advocate of the present system, and that is why we shall be putting forward proposals, I hope by the end of the month, in a Green Paper to change it.
    Mr. Forsythasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Forsyth: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to pay tribute to the skills and courage shown by the master and crew of Britannia in rescuing our citizens from the fighting in South Yemen?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly do so. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will be making a statement after questions, but I am sure that the whole House would like to congratulate the officers and the men of Britannia and of HMS Jupiter and HMS Newcastle and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Brambleleaf, and the crisis unit at the Foreign Office, which did such excellent work in identifying the people who needed to be taken off from Aden.
    Mr. Maddenasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Madden: Can the Prime Minister say when she will honour her promise to give Government money to Bradford City football club to help rebuild its ground at Valley parade?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that I made a promise to do that. As the hon. Member will be aware, we are at present considering whether we should give money to Bradford football club. In the exceptional circumstances—[Interruption.] I hear various things coming from hon. Members in a sedentary position. We made a contribution to the disaster fund, and quite rightly. We are considering the question raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Has my right hon. Friend had her attention drawn to the article in the magazine Jane's Defence Weekly, stating that Soviet trained agents have been infiltrating the ranks of the Greenham Common women and that they have been trained to carry out acts of sabotage in time of tension and war? Does my right hon. Friend have any information to contradict that report?
    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend is aware, we do not comment on specific reports, but we are very much aware of the dangers that special forces in the country would present at times of crisis or in wartime. That was precisely why we had Exercise Brave Defender last September, in order to see how we should properly protect sensitive installations.
    Mr. Evans: Has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to read today's London Standard, which carries a front page story stating that the Government are planning new curbs on unions and further anti-trade union legislation? Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to deny that outrageous story, which will cause anger and dismay among trade union members who have just carried out highly successful ballots to maintain trade union political funds?
    The Prime Minister: I saw the article and anticipated the question. May I make it quite clear that this Government have done more than any other to ensure that union bosses are accountable to their members. There are further steps that can be taken. We have not yet reached any decisions and, before doing so, will be consulting further.
    Sir Anthony Grant: To revert to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), does my right hon. Friend not think that it would be extraordinarily incompetent of the Soviet Union if it did not seek to infiltrate Greenham Common? Can she confirm that top priority will be given to the security, not only of Greenham Common, but of the Molesworth base in Cambridgeshire?
    The Prime Minister: I know of my hon. Friend's particular interest in that base. Brave Defender was carried out to see how we could ensure the defence of all-important installations, including that one.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: What would the right hon. Lady say today to those unemployed young people from my constituency who visited her last year and who are still unemployed, to the 10,000 unemployed in my constituency and to the tens of thousands who will lose jobs throughout the country as a result of the massive rises in rates and interest rates that are in the pipeline?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman refers to the group that he brought to see me a year ago. I had several employers there to see the group. I made inquiries before I came to the House today and I was told that all but four of the group have been offered either training or employment.
    Mr. Foxasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fox: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that once the law to allow Sunday trading comes into operation she will give some support to flexible licensing hours, and thus bring the country into line with Scotland and the Palace of Westminster?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Shops Bill has yet to come to the House and proceed through its stages. I am aware that a number of people would like to consider flexible licensing hours, and if my hon. Friend wishes we shall give consideration to that in due course. However, one should not do anything to suggest that flexible licensing hours are equal to or in any way the same as those of the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the right hon. Lady intend to ignore the vast correspondence that she has received protesting against the Shops Bill? Will she at least refrain from putting a three-line Whip on what is a matter of conscience?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman comes from a part of the country where there is no limitation on Sunday trading. However, he wishes to stop us south of the border from having the same privilege. As he knows, we do not discuss Whipping matters in the House.
    Mr. O'Brienasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the Prime Minister aware of the serious unrest among members of the Royal College of Nursing following the appointment of district managers from outside the service, and of the effect that that is having on the morale of nurses? Will the Prime Minister prevail upon her colleague the Secretary of State for Social Services, with a view to him examining this serious problem so that he can appoint nurse-managers from within the service, to whom nurses would be responsible and by whom they would be managed, to ensure proper patient care?
    The Prime Minister: I visited a hospital on Friday, and I did not find what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. Most people in the National Health Service realise that it is important to get good management. Managers are

    183
    sometimes nurses or doctors, but it is important that the right person to be a manager is chosen, whether that person has previously been an administrator, a nurse or a doctor.
    Mrs. McCurleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. McCurley: Will my right hon. Friend consider using her personal influence to urge the Scottish striking teachers to negotiate an end to this damaging strike, which is hurting pupils and lowering the profession in the esteem of the public?
    The Prime Minister: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. We deplore the further industrial action because of the harm that it is doing to pupils and the great distress that is is causing the parents. I join her in hoping that the strike will soon end, and that we shall be able to come to some agreement on terms and conditions of service also and that we will be able to get a better system of appraisal so that we can pay better teachers more.
    Mr. Loyden: Can the Prime Minister say what benefits will accrue to the northern regions of this country, and to Scotland and Northern Ireland, arising out of the
    184
    agreement that she signed yesterday with the French President, particularly regarding the regeneration of industry and jobs?
    The Prime Minister: That would depend upon how many of the orders for equipment and materials went to Scotland, but about 50,000 man-years' work will be involved in that project and I hope that that will spread very well over the country.
    Mr. George Gardinerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gardiner: After giving such a commendable impetus to plans for a tunnel under the English Channel, may I ask my right hon. Friend to instil the same sense of urgency into the Department of Transport regarding a far more modest project for a tunnel under the River Thames at Dartford — thereby removing the most atrocious bottleneck on the M25 —especially since private risk capital is available for this venture too?
    The Prime Minister: I very much take note of what my hon. Friend says. I have occasion to know that area very well. I particularly note that he believes that private sector capital would be available for such a project.

Yemen
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the action being taken to secure the safety of British subjects and others in the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen.
On 13 January fighting broke out in Aden. The ferocity of the fighting presented grave risks to the safety of British subjects. In those circumstances, and with the full agreement of Her Majesty the Queen, the royal yacht Britannia, which was just leaving the Red sea, was ordered to remain off Aden, and Her Majesty's ships Newcastle and Jupiter, with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Brambleleaf, were ordered to Aden at full steam in case they were needed for an evacuation.
The situation in the country continued to deteriorate and the level of fighting approached that of a civil war. After close consultation with the Russians and French, both in Aden and in capitals, it was agreed that evacuation was necessary and that, as far as possible, our efforts should be co-ordinated. On 17 January, Soviet merchant vessels lifted off from Aden about 1,000 people, mostly their own nationals. On the same day, the royal yacht took off 450 people, 38 of them British—44 nationalities altogether. Eighty-one French nationals were then transferred to a French ship, and the rest of the evacuees were taken on Britannia to Djibouti. The royal yacht then returned to the area and on 19 January lifted off a further 209 people from an area 35 miles from the capital. Eighteen of these were British. These have since arrived in Djibouti, 'after transferring to HMS Jupiter. I am now very pleased to be able to add that Britannia has this morning picked up a further 15 British nationals from Little Aden. Britannia is maintaining close contact with the vessels of the other nations involved, and remains offshore nearby to take on board further parties of British and other foreign nationals as soon as conditions permit.
So far, no British subjects have been hurt. However, a number of British subjects still remain in south Yemen and we are continuing to work out with other Governments the best ways of evacuating these widely scattered communities.
On the evening of 17 January, when the embassy and residence had been rendered unihabitable, the ambassador, Mr. Arthur Marshall, decided that he should withdraw all members of the embassy. At the end of the evacuation, he accompanied those on board to Djibouti but then returned on Britannia to the area, where he will remain with a member of his staff while the evacuation continues. Another member of his staff is on board HMS Newcastle.
The success of the evacuation so far would not have been possible without the help given by a number of Governments, and in particular the Governments of Djibouti, the USSR and France. This has been a remarkable demonstration of what can be achieved through close international co-operation, and I take this opportunity to thank them warmly for their assistance.
I should like to express my gratitude to all the staff of the Ministry of Defence and of the Diplomatic Service, at home and abroad, who have been involved in this operation. I should particularly like to thank our honorary
186
consul in Djibouti, Mr. Christopher Reddington. I know too that the whole House will join me in praising the calmness and efficiency of our ambassador in Aden, his staff, and their families throughout this difficult period.
Their example has been matched by the fortitude of the British evacuees, who helped to organise the evacuation of hundreds of other nationals and who set an example of disciplined behaviour throughout.
This is the first time that the royal yacht has been involved in a operation of this sort. It has received magnificent support from HM ships Newcastle and Jupiter, and Royal Fleet Auxiliary Brambleleaf, with its Merchant Navy crew. I should like to pay tribute to Rear-Admiral John Garnier and all the officers and crew involved for the courage and professionalism that they have shown in carrying out the operation in conditions of danger and difficulty. We can all be proud of them.
Mr. Donald Anderson: We and the British people as a whole can be proud of this magnificent rescue. We rejoice that no British subjects have been injured or killed in spite of the ferocity of the fighting, and we join wholeheartedly with the Foreign Secretary in thanking and paying tribute to those of our people—the military, Admiral Garnier, the diplomatic staff, Mr. Marshall and those with him — who played and are playing such a wonderful part to ensure a successful outcome.
The Foreign Secretary must be aware that the rescue amounts to probably the highest point of British-Soviet co-operation in a practical sphere since the end of the second world war. We hope that the spirit of good will will act as a precedent and will spill over into other fields of our bilateral relationships with the Soviet Union. However, the Soviet Union has learnt the cost, as have other peoples, including ourselves, the Israelis and the Americans, of unilateral intervention in a middle east country.
I ask the Foreign Secretary, to report to the House in specific respects. Was the matter of the rescue raised in his discussions yesterday with Mr. Ryzhov, the Soviet Deputy Minister? On the best estimates available to him, how many Britons remain in South Yemen? Can he say how long it is expected that the royal yacht Britannia will remain close by and available for action? What is the Foreign Office reading of the position regarding who is in charge in South Yemen? Is it the Foreign Office view that the difference between the factions there is essentially on ideological lines, or is it more based on personal and tribal factors?
Finally, are there any anxieties about the troubles in South Yemen spilling over into neighbouring territories, and possibly posing a threat to security in the region as a whole?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the kind way in which he has joined me in paying tribute to all those involved in the operation, and add my word of thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces for his support throughout.
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the degree of co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union on this occasion. One cannot presume from that high degree of co-operation that everything else will be handled in the same spirit, but I hope that it will not be the last occasion for improving relationships in this way. I was able to raise the matter with Mr. Ryzhov last

187
night, to thank him for the co-operation that had taken place, and to express the hope that it would continue in practical terms on the spot. It is worth reminding the House of what Admiral Garnier said this morning when he paid tribute to the fine atmosphere of international co-operation. He said that
"the French, the Soviets and us are talking regularly, pooling our information, and everyone here is dedicated to the hope that we can get the remaining people off."
The hon. Gentleman asked precisely the questions which one would want to ask. It is not possible to be sure about the number of British subjects still left in the PDRY, but our inquiries suggest that the figure is likely to be about 40. Her Majesty has expressed her willingness for Britannia to remain for as long as there is a need for it to do so.
It is not possible for me to offer any clear view on the outcome, because the situation is still very confusing, but it appears that the conflict arises from differences of a tribal kind rather than a political or ideological kind. So far, the problems have not spilt over into other neighbouring countries. If they did, it would naturally be a cause for concern. We are keepng in close touch with all those countries in the neighbourhood.
Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is refreshing to find the whole House able to unite in congratulating all those involved in this splendid operation? Does he agree that it has proved the utility of the royal yacht not only as a hospital ship on this occasion but as a facility which is extremely useful for us to have? It has proved itself in many other ways not only from an ideological point of view but as a fitting facility for the head of a great Commonwealth country?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with my hon. and learned, Friend's first comments and with his tribute to the value of the royal yacht, with its particular suitability for an occasion of this kind and its value in a much wider representational capacity.
Dr. David Owen: I congratulate all those concerned, particularly the Soviet and French Governments. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this shows the value of being able to deploy the Royal Navy east of Suez? In view of the announcement of the 7 per cent. real terms cut in the defence budget, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman use his influence to ensure that the Royal Navy surface ships are not cut back and that their present minimal numbers are fully maintained?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can well understand the right hon. Gentleman's interest in this aspect. It illustrates the value of having this kind of capability available in so far as it is compatible with the continuing and difficult task of judging the pattern of priorities on defence expenditure more generally.
Dr. John G. Blackburn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of early-day motions 322 and 323 which refer to Britannia? Will he send a signal to the admiral conveying the sentiments expressed in those early-day motions and pay a warm and generous tribute to the skipper and crew of the Diamond Princess, a British registered cargo ship which is reported to have saved some 600 people in the past 24 hours?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly be willing to pay tribute to any vessels or individuals for the part that they have played, once that is established. I certainly join in the sentiments to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention in early-day motions 322 and 323. They pay a deserved tribute to those concerned in this rescue. I shall see that that tribute and my hon. Friend's sentiments are conveyed to the rear admiral and those with him.
Mr. David Winnick: I, too, associate myself with the splendid work that has been undertaken. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the faction fighting in Yemen is a sharp warning to the Cabinet not to allow their disagreements to get out of hand?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman can always be relied upon to make an inaccurate observation on almost any occasion.
Mr. John Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the whole nation looks with great pride and gratitude on the achievements of the Royal Navy during the past few days? It notes once again the usefulness of the royal yacht, with its supporting small ships. It should be grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary for the way in which he masterminded the whole business.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am even more than usually grateful to my hon. Friend for the generosity of his tribute. The actions and decisions of those on the spot deserve particular thanks on this occasion.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, as the rescue appears to have been a huge success, some of us are a bit curious about why the Prime Minister has not taken full advantage of it? Have arrangements been made to get her out there on the deck of Britannia with the television cameras? Perhaps the right hon. Lady could be seen shaking hands with the Soviets—perhaps a member of the KGB or even one of those who associate with the same group that has figured prominently in Jane's Defence Weekly? What a wonderful picture would be painted!
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Only the hon. Gentleman would have used this occasion to illustrate his capacity to play the game of consequences in a profoundly inconsequential fashion.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Some of the preceding comments look a little odd beside the enormous relief felt by those who experienced the rescue in extremely dangerous circumstances. Was not great courage shown by those in the Diplomatic Service who assisted in getting the evacuees to the beaches and by those in the small boats who came from Britannia to take them off the beaches? Did not the BBC overseas service also play an important and necessary part in the rescue?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for returning our discussion to the proper note of seriousness and thankfulness. He was right to pay tribute to all those concerned and to the BBC world service, which has played an important communication role on this and other occasions.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Britannia's versatility on this occasion is impressive and welcome to a wide section of our community, which wants Britannia to play

189
a wider role when the Queen does not require her? Does my right hon. and learned Friend have other roles in mind for HMS Britannia?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It would not be for me to specify other roles. I certainly endorse my hon. Friend's comments. Britannia is particularly suitable for this type of role, because she is a non-combatant vessel designed to handle a large number of people and well equipped with the necessary boats.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: May I add my congratulations on the successful operation in evacuating so many people from this unhappy territory? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman's desk yet had a chance to analyse the likelihood of whether the Administration likely to take over in PDRY will continue to welcome the opening to the West that the previous Administration were adopting?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that it is too early to speculate on the nature of the Administration that may take over or on any difference in its direction. As I said, the dispute appears to arise more from personal and tribal conflicts of a traditional kind than from ideological variations.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in congratulating the state of Djibouti on the speedy help it has rendered not only to the royal yacht Britannia but to the other ships that came in to take off so many people? Will he congratulate those people in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who so speedily commandeered the royal yacht? Will he expand on the relationship with the Soviet Union in this case, because obviously the co-operation was unusual?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that my hon. Friend has exactly the right insight into the relationships between the Foreign Office and the royal yacht. I join with my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Djibouti Government for their particularly helpful attitude in receiving and handling thousands of evacuees and assisting in their repatriation. We are particularly grateful to President Hassan Goulad Aptidon for his help. Contact on this matter has taken place sensibly and practically between the embassies on the spot and between Foreign Ministries at this end directed from Moscow and Paris. This is how one would have expected the operation to proceed. One hopes that it will afford an insight into the way in which matters will develop in other respects.
Mr. John Wilkinson: We are all rightly proud of the courage and efficiency of those involved in the evacuation. Is not the Soviet Union likely to benefit from what has transpired because Mr. Ismail was allowed to return to Yemen as a conscious policy act on its part? Although there may be some short-term turbulence, perhaps even bloody turbulence, the Soviet Union's influence in that part of the world could be enhanced rather than diminished.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend's speculation may well be right. However, it would take a relatively optimistic Soviet adviser to perceive any clearly cheerful conclusion from the circumstances in which hundreds of Soviet citizens have been evacuated.

Stanley Royd Hospital
3.50 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Stanley Royd hospital inquiry report. I am this afternoon publishing the report of the committee of inquiry into the outbreak of food poisoning at Stanley Royd hospital, Wakefield.
Stanley Royd is a large hospital in Wakefield for mentally ill and psychogeriatric patients. In a major outbreak of salmonella food poisoning which began on 26 August 1984, 355 patients and 106 members of staff were affected. Food poisoning caused, or contributed to, the deaths of 19 patients. At the time of the outbreak and subsequently, a number of allegations were made of errors in the control of infection, of poor standards of hygiene in the hospital kitchen and of other shortcomings.
I announced in September 1984 that I was setting up a public inquiry into the outbreak under the chairmanship of Mr. John Hugill QC. The other members of the inquiry were Professor Rosalinde Hurley and Mr. Patrick Salmon. The committee heard oral evidence between February and May 1985. It submitted its report to me last month. I am most grateful to the chairman and members of the committee for all their work on this complex inquiry.
The report gives a detailed account of the background to the outbreak and its course and of the actions taken by National Health Service staff.
The committee concludes that the cause of the outbreak was salmonella which was probably brought into the kitchen in contaminated chickens, and that cold roast beef was the most likely vehicle of infection. The infection was able to multiply because the beef was not properly refrigerated. The committee found that a number of unhygienic and unsatisfactory practices had grown up in the hospital kitchen.
The report pays tribute to the work of the junior doctors on duty during the early days of the outbreak and the care given by nursing staff on the wards. Those staff were working under very difficult conditions and their efforts were in the highest traditions of their professions.
The committee makes criticisms on a number of matters. In particular, it comments on the failure to ensure satisfactory management of the kitchen at the hospital. It criticises medical and nursing management and in particular the failure to seek, or accept offers of, help from outside specialists, both in the investigation of the outbreak and in the treatment of the patients affected by it. The regional health authority and some officers at regional and district level are criticised for failing fully to inform themselves first-hand of the situation once the outbreak had occurred.
Since the outbreak, Wakefield health authority has made a number of improvements in the kitchen and its management. I am now instructing it and the Yorkshire regional health authority to consider all the points raised by the report and to report to me urgently on the action they have taken and propose to take in response to them. That response must cover the position of those people whose conduct may have contributed to these tragic events, and the steps taken to ensure that such events do not recur.
The report identifies serious failures of supervision and management. General managers have now been appointed by the Yorkshire regional health authority and Wakefield

191
health authority. As in all authorities, these managers carry clear and personal responsibility for securing effective action.
A number of comments were made on the position at Stanley Royd prior to and during the inquiry. One of these concerned finance. On this the report says that it was not its
"view that the question of financial restraints or constraints above the level of the region were relevant to any of the issues which we had to consider and, in taking this view, we are supported by the evidence given by witnesses from the Yorkshire regional health authority".
Another suggestion was that Crown premises like hospitals should be subject to the general food legislation. However, the report states that in the case of Stanley Royd the evidence did not support the need for the abolition of Crown immunity. The report says:
"We find it impossible to recommend any change in the law on the vexed question of Crown immunity where the entirety of the evidence given to us by the professional environmental health officers was to the effect that the sanctions of the criminal law would not have been employed in respect of the kitchen at Stanley Royd, even if they had been available."
The Government will nevertheless continue the urgent review of Crown immunity for hospital kitchens, including the suggestion in the report that a "Crown notice" form of procedure should be initiated.
The majority of the report's formal recommendations are aimed at improving standards of hygiene in hospital kitchens and improving the investigation and control of any future outbreaks. The committee recognises that the departmental guidance on food hygiene in hospitals is basically sound and recommends that health authorities should be reminded of its terms. We had already done that before the report was received.
In addition, I am urgently reviewing departmental guidance to health authorities on the steps that they must take to ensure proper food hygiene in hospitals and to ensure that environmental health officers are encouraged to visit, and that proper regard is paid to their recommendations. In doing so, I shall take full account of the Stanley Royd committee's recommendations.
I am referring the recommendations about the arrangements for the control of infection and the handling of outbreaks to the hospital infection working group. This group was set up last summer to advise me on the revision of departmental guidance on control of infection and I am asking it to give me the highest priority on contingency plans for dealing with outbreaks of infection—plans that will ensure that specialist help is brought in as soon as it is needed.
There can be no doubt at all about the continuing need for proper provision of public health and community medicine advice within the management structure of the Health Service. The functions of the specialty of community medicine include not only the control of infectious diseases but the assessment of the needs of populations for health care, the planning and evaluation of health services and responsibility for prevention and health promotion.
I have therefore decided that it would be right to establish an inquiry into the future development of the public health function, including the control of communicable diseases, and the specialty of community medicine in England. The inquiry will be a broad and fundamental examination of the role of public health doctors, including how such a role could best be fulfilled. The inquiry will be chaired by the Government's Chief
192
Medical Officer, Dr. Donald Acheson, and I expect to receive its report before the end of the year. Details of membership will be finalised shortly. In the meantime, we shall take every step possible to prevent a recurrence of these tragic events.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that this tragedy represents the culmination of a damning catalogue of manifest negligence in this case, and brings to a head the scandal of appalling insanitary and even lethal conditions in so many hospital kitchens throughout the country?
On this specific episode, will he confirm that the magnitude of the outbreak—27 deaths in all and two nurses on the critical list—was due to four serious failings that should never have happened? Does he agree that when the duty doctor advised the use of barrier precautions there was, astonishingly, no barrier equipment available to the staff? There were no gowns, masks. gloves or shoes for the purpose.
Will the Secretary of State confirm also that when staff asked that the nearby Snapethorpe hospital—an old isolation hospital which had been closed during the cuts—should be used to isolate infected patients, especially the elderly and frail, management rejected the request, and, as a result, only three of the 32 wards escaped infection? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in such a situation the normal instruction is that staff should return to work only after three consecutive negative tests? At Stanley Royd, however, because of staff shortages, which the reports fully recognise, the staff were told to return to work before they were over the illness and, in some cases, while they were still giving positive tests.
Will the Secretary of State also confirm that the health authority sought to minimise the situation at the time to the extent of restarting admissions halfway through the outbreak, although on the first night of readmissions three more patients died and admissions had to be stopped again? What specific action is the Secretary of State taking to prevent each of those four causes of disaster from recurring at Stanley Royd or elsewhere?
The Secretary of State said complacently that, since the outbreak, Wakefield health authority had made a number of improvements in the kitchens and in management. Is that not a wholly inadequate whitewash when previous salmonella outbreaks had occurred at Stanley Royd in 1974 and 1979, when a district medical officer had described the kitchens as "a culinary disaster area" seven years before the tragedy, when plans to upgrade the kitchens had been continuously postponed since 19'78 and when help specifically offered to the hospital by the communicable diseases surveillance centre had been categorically turned down?
Is the Secretary of State further aware that this episode, while particularly tragic, is far from unique? There are now about 40 outbreaks of food poisoning in hospitals every year and hospitals are now the third highest source of food poisoning in the country. Is the Secretary of State aware that illness from bacterial food poisoning in hospitals has increased fourfold since 1981 to more than 1,000 cases per year and that deaths from that cause have risen over the same period to more than 50 per year?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the latest reports—a year ago—of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers revealed that 60 per cent. of hospital kitchens currently breach food hygiene regulations and

193
that 97 hospitals would be prosecuted were it not for Crown immunity? As the Department of Health and Social Security has the list, will the Secretary of State publish the names of the 97 hospitals, because the public are entitled to know? Will he accept that, where repeated surveys of hospital kitchens have found vermin infestation, open gutters, foul smelling grids, bird droppings and insecticide spraying during food preparation, the only effective way to protect patients, visitors and hospital workers is to abolish Crown immunity?
Is it not a medieval anachronism that a café with cockroaches is prosecuted but a hospital escapes, although frail, elderly patients are particularly vulnerable to lethal food poisoning? If 27 people can die in a hospital which the report claims would not be prosecuted, how many deaths are we risking in the 97 hospitals that would be prosecuted tomorrow if the Secretary of State fulfilled his responsibility to the nation by lifting the unjustified and unjustifiable immunity?
Mr. Fowler: There is absolutely no question of complacency on the Government's part. Neither is there any question, as anyone who has read the report would know, of any attempt to whitewash the seriousness of the outbreak. What the House should concern itself with—I recognise that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was seeking at least in part to do this—is to decide what action should be taken to prevent such tragedies from occurring again.
The causes of the outbreak are set out very succinctly on page 106 of the report. It states that the main problems were human errors compounded by failures of supervision and management. The report makes clear that all the rules and principles of good catering practice were known and the outbreak occurred because the rules were ignored. The failure to follow the rules arose partly through the failure of supervisory grades to supervise, and that failure stemmed from the failure of the management to manage and check. The hon. Gentleman will know, having read the report, that it sets out a number of illustrations and examples of where the management process had fallen down. At that stage, of course, general managers had not been appointed in the health authorities in question. That improvement has since taken place.
The hon. Gentleman asks what action will follow from the report. The people who are criticised in the report and the chairmen of the authorities have seen the report for the first time today. I shall be inviting the chairmen of the authorities to meet me this week and I shall discuss with them the action that must be taken. That talk will also cover individual responsibilities. As the hon. Gentleman will know, disciplinary action is a matter for the authority, and it would be wrong for me to comment on that as I have an appellate function in that respect.
The question of barrier nursing is dealt with in paragraph 76. The report sets out the grave difficulties that exist in a hospital of this kind and paragraph 76 ends by stating that:
"To speak of barrier nursing against such a background is absurd."
Further study of the report will provide an answer to the hon. Gentleman.
The report states quite clearly that finance was available both to improve the kitchens and to replace them by
194
building new kitchens. That is now being done. It was a complete failure on management's part that that was not done before. I accept that that is the case. One of the reasons was that no one was ultimately responsible for the decision not being taken.
I accept the comments of the hon. Member for Oldham, West and I know the feelings of the Opposition and of many of my hon. Friends on the matter of Crown immunity. There is a serious issue to examine, but it is clearly fair to stress that the report repeats on three occasions that the existence of Crown immunity would have made no difference in the handling of this particular case. The reason for that is that it was not the physical conditions of the kitchen that were at fault but the procedures that were being used. For example, the pan wash was found to be blocked by cutlery. That has nothing to do with the physical conditions, but it has everything to do with the procedures being followed. We shall consider both Crown immunity and the new proposal in the report for Crown notice and we shall report to the House on our consideration of those matters.
Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the staff of Stanley Royd hospital, which is in my constituency? I know the results of the work that the staff had to undertake, some times beyond their usual call of duty, in an attempt to combat the problem. The House ought to record its appreciation for the staff who worked under those conditions.
I hope that the Secretary of State will refer to another cause for concern—the delay in the presentation of the report. A number of people who live in the area and work in the hospital repeatedly asked me when the report would be published. There is genuine criticism about the length of time that the report took to be presented.
The Secretary of State referred to the regional health authority's role and I hope that he will take cognisance of that. Paragraph 180 refers to the kitchen and paragraph 190 refers to the under-staffing of the kitchen. Paragraphs 251 and 252 refer to the health authorities' attitudes to the need for a new kitchen or for reorganisation of the kitchen. Paragraph 252 states that the area health authority wished to take over the responsibility for providing a new kitchen but was not permitted to do so by the regional health authority.
Paragragh 288 states:
"We also find it quite incredible that, apart from expressing regret and sympathy about the outbreak, the Region did not discuss the problem, the causes, or the action being planned or taken, at any meeting thereafter. It was as if it had nothing to do with the RHA. If it had not, then the usefulness and relevance of this body would seem dubious."
In the light of that, will the Secretary of State consider whether it is not time for the regional health authorities to be abolished and for responsibility for running area health authorities to reside at local level?
Mr. Fowler: On the last point, I should not wish to go on record as supporting that, but I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the statements made in paragraph 288 of the report and the fact that the management, control and effective leadership that the public had a right to expect were not provided at that time. I believe that the solution is to consider the responsibilities of the regional health authority and to make it clear, as we did prior to the report, that we expect the regional health authority not to act in the way described in paragraph 288.

195
On the other points, I gladly repeat what I said in my statement. I believe that the public generally and the whole House wish to pay tribute to the nursing staff, junior doctors and other staff who worked extremely long and hard to ensure that the outbreak was contained.
As for delay, the report was received only last month. It has been printed and the Government clearly wanted to make an initial response, so I do not think that there has been any undue delay in bringing it before the House.
The finance for a new kitchen was available—there is no question about that—but the regional health authority did not process it as it should have been processed. The new kitchen should have been built long ago.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Despite what my right hon. Friend has correctly said about the availability of capital expenditure, does he agree that paragraph 190 states specifically that the cleaning schedule for the kitchen fell behind due to shortage of staff? Although the report makes it clear that there would not have been prosecution if Crown immunity had not applied, does he agree that that does not affect the principle of the matter? Will he therefore give a clear assurance that he will support the excellent Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)?
Mr. Fowler: I can certainly give a full assurance that the Government will continue urgently to review the whole issue of Crown immunity and the proposal for Crown notice put forward in the report. I believe that it would be wise for the House to pause and consider the proposal for Crown notice as well as the issue of Crown immunity. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and the Government are at one in wishing to have the causes of this type of outbreak contained. The Government are therefore considering the matter urgently and with determination to ensure that no future outbreak takes place. The other part of the report also deserves study as it makes it clear that lack of management and supervision contributed substantially to the outbreak. I accept that a shortage of catering staff is also noted, and that is one of the points that I shall wish to take up in my discussions with the chairmen.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Does the Minister accept that, instead of pausing to consider Crown notice, the House should condemn one of the most disgracefully complacent ministerial statements ever to be made in this Chamber? The Secretary of State is directly responsible for the deaths of those people in Wakefield, and his suave easy-going manner will convince no one to the contrary. In the past six years there have been 211 outbreaks of food poisoning in hospitals, in which 3,969 people have been poisoned by salmonella bacteria and 279 people have died. The Secretary of State cannot dispute that because those are his own figures given in reply to questions from me. The Government are in the dock on this and they are to blame because they have refused to abolish Crown immunity and health authorities hide behind the fact that they cannot be prosecuted. Will the Secretary of State admit that he is responsible and that, regardless of what the report says, the only way to solve the problem is to abolish Crown immunity, prosecute negligent authorities and provide the funds needed to end this scandal once and for all.
Mr. Fowler: First, I regret very much the tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, which did not live up to the high standards that we expect of him. The Government are not refusing to abolish Crown immunity, but we believe that it is sensible to have regard to an independently commissioned report. In this case, the report states that the abolition of Crown immunity would not have tackled the fundamental cause. With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman should address his mind to those issues as well.
The Government and the House must consider why the outbreak occurred. The reasons are set out in the report. The main problems were human error compounded by failure of supervision and management. Whatever we do about Crown immunity, we must tackle that problem, otherwise the right hon. Gentleman's words will mean precisely nothing.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend publish the list of more than 90 hospitals which would be liable to prosecution but for Crown immunity so that the public at large may have at least the protection of that warning as to the kind of institution they will be entering? As environmental health officers have been pressing for 14 years for this specific relief from Crown immunity, could the urgency with which the Government are reviewing this particular area be advanced to the extent of allowing us to know by 7 February where the Government stand?
Mr. Fowler: I cannot promise the latter. However, I do not intend that the review should be an extended one. I shall let the House know of the outcome as soon as I can. I shall provide as much information as we have available to the House and to the public.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Does the Secretary of State agree that this devastating report is an absolute disgrace in 1986? I speak with some emotion, because the 19 deaths arising out of the salmonella outbreak at Wakefield included my brother-in-law. I visited the hospital in the early days of the outbreak. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) in paying tribute to the hardworking staff who worked, at considerable risk to themselves, to put an end to the unfortunate incident. However, it is no good looking back and having sympathy. Those unfortunate people are gone.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the report clearly shows that there was neglect in some quarters? The report suggests that if Crown immunity had not been operating, that may have made no difference. It would, however, have been an added safeguard. There is no reason why Crown immunity should not be lifted. There should be a statutory obligation by which local health inspectors are allowed into hospitals to carry out additional inspections. If not, why not? If there is nothing to cover up, there is nothing to fear.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the cause of one of the biggest problems, which should be abolished, is that of housing people in Victorian workhouses such as the Stanley Royd hospital. I plead with the Minister not to wait for further inquiries. There is sufficient evidence. He should abolish Crown immunity immediately and allow independent health inspectors into those hospitals so that they can make a further check on the disgraceful conditions that existed in that hospital.
Mr. Fowler: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the outbreak. I agree with him that the report tells a story of neglect at several levels. No one who has read the report could be satisfied or happy about the position. However, the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is wise for the Government to consider the report's proposals, even though the proposal on Crown immunity is contrary to what the hon. Gentleman wishes.
Environmental health officers have, and will continue to have, absolute and free access to hospitals. That is essential. It is equally important that the catering procedures and practices are such that, irrespective of the inspectorates, catering establishments and kitchens are run in a proper way. The hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a function of good supervision and good management, all of which broke down in this case.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is hysterical nonsense for the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) to suggest that the Government are in the dock, as though they had invented Crown immunity?
Would it not be a great success for the Government to realise that it is nonsense to hide behind Crown immunity, when they should be protecting people? The Government may not be hiding behind it in this case. But is it not proper justice in this modern age that people should be protected, whether it be from the Crown or from villains?
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. We are discussing how that protection should be provided. Apart from the matter of Crown immunity or Crown notice we must tackle the cause of the problem, which, in this case, has been the failure of supervision and management.
Mr. Walter Harrison: In his statement the Secretary of State congratulated the chairman. Will the Secretary of State identify to which chairman he was referring? He can read his statement to see that he has congratulated a chåirman, but there are three chairmen involved—the chairman of the inquiry, the chairman of the health authority and the chairman of the regional health authority. The Secretary of State should identify the chairman who merits congratulations.
The statement uses the words "human error" and "prosecution". The words "lack of occur about five times, but what is never mentioned in all the references to the lack of administration, of supervision and of everything else, is the lack of adequate finance to run a proper Health Service. I refer you to paragraph 266—[HON. MEMBERS: "You?"]
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member is being questioned because he is drawing me into this matter. He should address his remarks to the Minister.
Mr. Harrison: I thought that I saw the Minister mumbling and I am rather sensitive about such things. Paragraph 266 of the report states:
"There can be no doubt but that neither the Wakefield Health Authority nor the Regional Health Authority have sufficient funds available to bring everything within their jurisdiction up to the best possible standard immediately."
The Secretary of State and his Department have had reports about inadequacies in the hospital. It was drawn to their attention that funds were required. What happened? The regional health authority and the Wakefield health authority received global sums, but it is like the chap who
198
gambles with the three eggcups and must decide which one hides the money. Priorities have been discussed. The regional health authority chairman got a flap on and turned down the proposals not because of the facilities that were required. I have met four or five Ministers about this. Ministers tried to spread out the money in Wakefield, but it was completely inadequate and hospitals were closed. Snapethorpe could have treated patients with infectious diseases, but it was closed because funds were cut.
Mr. Speaker: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a deep and personal interest in this matter, which is quite right, but I ask him to put his question.
Mr. Harrison: I thought that I had qualified my question by asking why the Secretary of State had not taken these matters into consideration, Mr. Speaker.
Snapethorpe was closed through lack of funds, and I am still fighting that battle.
Regarding human error, the Secretary of State is responsible. If there is a prosecution, the first person to be prosecuted should be the Secretary of State. The "lack of which is mentioned five times in the report, should refer to lack of funds, funds that his Department has failed to allocate to Wakefield. Since you wish me to wind up, Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that the Department should conduct another reappraisal of the moneys that it has allocated to the Yorkshire region so that the problems can be dealt with.
Mr. Fowler: May I answer the right hon. Gentleman's first question, which he asked some time ago. In my statement, I said that the inquiry was chaired by Mr. John Hugill, and that the other members of the inquiry were Professor Rosalinde Hurley and Mr. Patrick Salmon. I said:
"I am most grateful to the chairman and members of the committee for all their work on this complex inquiry."
"I am not sure whether I could have made it much clearer, but I am grateful for the opportunity of repeating it.
As to lack of finance, I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to paragraph 284 of the report, which states clearly that the committee did not believe that financial restraints or constraints above regional level were relevant to any of the issues that it considered. As to the regional health authority and the delay in the building of the new hospital, I have made it clear that I deplore the delay. The report makes it clear that the delay has been caused by people failing to take decisions. We hope—this is our aim—that the position will be improved after the introduction of a general management process.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call those hon. Members who have been standing, but I ask for brief questions.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Secretary of State aware that although Stanley Royd hospital is in Wakefield and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), it serves a much wider area and there is great concern about what happened 18 months ago? My constituents want more information about what happened. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement and the report, although I have not yet had an opportunity to read it. After we have digested the report, we shall want another debate on the Floor of the House so that we may ask the Secretary of State more questions. Before then will he undertake that

199
when he receives replies to the questions that he says he has asked, he will give that information to the House? If he does not, the report by itself will not be enough.
Whatever the problems with Crown immunity—they have arisen in previous Administrations and they affect the entire Government service—are not hospitals a special case? If this incident had occurred in a BUPA hospital, criminal proceedings could have been brought and Crown privilege would not have applied. Should we not change the system so that what is good enough for BUPA patients is good enough for Health Service patients?
Mr. Fowler: I agree that the case against Crown immunity is much stronger when it comes to hospitals than in almost any other area. For that reason, my right hon. Friend and I are reviewing the matter urgently. I also agree that this is a serious matter, and I do not wish to leave the House in any doubt about the Government's determination to tackle it. I and my right hon. Friend will do everything that we can to keep the House informed of all developments.
Mr. Alec Woodall: This is one of the most depressing reports that I have ever read. I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that we need a further debate on a 140-page report. Does the Secretary of State accept that I am disappointed that he did not refer to paragraphs 307, 308 and 309 under the heading, "The Press and Media"? Does he agree that it was disgraceful that a reporter and a photographer, one wearing and one carrying a white coat to disguise themselves, smuggled their way into the hospital, and that other reporters badgered patients and staff in an attempt to trivialise and dramatise the affair?
Paragraph 190 of the report states that the kitchen was understaffed. Does the Secretary of State accept that if the kitchen is understaffed before privatisation, it is likely that the position will become even worse if privatisation is forced on local health authorities? The paragraph states that there was 35 per cent. absence due to sickness and accidents. Is that not unacceptable in a hospital of that sort with so many patients?
Mr. Fowler: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the future policy of contracting out. It has nothing to do with this case. I shall discuss with the health authority chairman staffing in the kitchen, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the basic problem was not staffing, but that laid-down and well-understood procedures were simply not followed. That was largely responsible for the outbreak.
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the press and the media. I hope that the newspapers concerned will study paragraphs 307, 308 and 309. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will find it objectionable that patients at that hospital should have been so approached. The report makes some criticisms, and the press should study them.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State accept that the entire National Health Service community will attach much importance to what the Government do about this report? Therefore, it is doubly important that he takes the appropriate action now. I have not had the advantage of reading the report, but it seems from the right hon. Gentleman's statement
200
that there was a management and supervisory malfunction. Does he accept that that will not be the case in the vast majority of the 40 to 50 outbreaks that we suffer each year, but that they will have been caused by a lack of resources? Far from giving guidance and reiterating his guidance, will he now insist that health authorities appoint hospital kitchen inspectors with authority to ensure that those supervisory functions are correct, and will he give the health authorities the resources to carry them out? May I also ask him—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly, please.
Mr. Kirkwood: The Secretary of State said that the inquiry into the control of communicable diseases would be restricted to England. Can it not be extended to Scotland?
Mr. Fowler: The public health inquiry will be carried out by the Chief Medical Officer, but it will have lessons for Scotland, too. The report makes it clear that a lack of general finance did not cause this outbreak, and I know of no evidence on which the hon. Gentleman could base his argument. A management and supervision failure led to the problems that we are discussing.
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Is it not interesting that the report should have been published the day after a televison programme exposed the danger and the filth in many hospital kitchens? Despite what the Secretary of State said today, is it not true that this terrifying disaster could be repeated at any time in any hospital? All the authorities represented on the programme last night said that the prime causes of the outbreak were a lack of funds and the continuation of Crown immunity. In those circumstances, will he give a categorical undertaking that the Government will introduce legislation' this Session to abolish Crown immunity?
Mr. Fowler: I cannot give the undertaking for which the hon. Gentleman asks. I have asked for an urgent report from the health authorities featured on yesterday's Granada programme, and I have made it clear to the health authority chairmen that whatever action is needed should be taken without delay. I shall talk to all the regional health authority chairmen next week at a meeting in Birmingham. The evidence in the programme is challenged by some district health authority chairmen, and I think that we should delay making a final decision on the matter until we consider more closely the points that were raised.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Stanley Royd incident has highlighted the real problem within the National Health Service? He is charged with the full responsibility of making sure that everything is put right. I warn the Secretary of State not to block any private Bill in this House proposing the abolition of Crown immunity.
Mr. Fowler: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He has raised the general responsibility issue. I hope that in his turn he will support the introduction of general managers at regional, district and hospital level so that we may get better and more effective decision taking.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Despite the comments that the Secretary of State quite rightly made about the report highlighting general management problems at various levels, is he aware that the report also refers to the nurses in paragraph 292 and says:

201
"Furthermore, we heard how the nurse staffing position at Stanley Royd was one of the least favourable in the country and had been so for years."
When that statement is read in conjunction with the statement quoted by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and others about the lack of supervisory staff in the kitchens, do they not suggest to the Secretary of State that funding problems have a part to play in the explanation, despite his protestations this afternoon?
Mr. Fowler: No, I do not think that that is the case. When the hon. Gentleman looks at the report he will see, for example, that the district was underspending on its Stanley Royd nursing budget. As for the nurse-patient ratio, that has improved overall since 1979 in terms of both trained and untrained nurses.
Mr. Frank Dobson: To help the House to get this hospital into perspective, will the Secretary of State confirm that it was built in 1818 when Napoleon was alive and that it was called the West Riding paupers lunatic asylum? Does he have some sympathy for the staff who are trying to provide services for patients in those circumstances? Will he confirm that when it was last calculated for hospitals of this type, the average spending was £40 per patient per day, but that at Stanley Royd it was only £25 per patient per day? Will he also confirm that in paragraph 274 the report says that the committee had already
"identified two areas in which additional expenditure was required, first in the level of nursing staff, and second in the catering facilities and staff."
The catering manager is also reported as having said that she understood from her predecessor that it was no good asking for extra equipment because no money was available.
Will the Secretary of State also confirm that after the previous salmonella outbreak in 1979 at Stanley Royd
202
there were four years of bumbling incompetence, including, if he reads the report carefully, that of his own officials, not just the regional and district officials? Will he confirm that that continued for four years and that they argued not just about design and necessity but about availability of finance? Will he also confirm that the report contains no fewer than four pages of criticism by the environmental health officers of the standard of the kitchens? Will he further confirm that there are two pages in the report where the committee says that although it does not believe, on the strength of the evidence available to it, that Crown immunity should be abolished, it accepts that it leads to a difference of approach by the officers to inspections of hospital premises and other premises? Does not the Secretary of State agree with most sensible people that the source of this problem springs from that difference of attitude?
Mr. Fowler: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can claim the support of the inquiry's report on everything that he has said and then come to that conclusion. The inquiry's report suggests not that Crown immunity should be abolished, but that there should be a new system of Crown notice. This means that where there is Crown immunity a notice is served on the health authority by the environmental health officer. That is the proposal that is contained in this report. The hon. Gentleman's description of this hospital was right. It was built in the 19th century. But again the report of the inquiry makes it quite clear that it was not the inherent physical defects in the hospital that were responsible for the outbreak but other factors. The conclusions are set out on page 106 of the report. It says:
"All the rules and principles of good catering practice"
were known. The fact is that those rules were not followed. I hope that, whatever differences there are between the Opposition Front Bench and the Government, we can get more effective management into hospitals because it is in everybody's interest that these kinds of outbreaks should never occur.

Interest Rates
4.46 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the imminent further increase in interest rates."
Indeed, the money market rates have increased since Question Time began this afternoon.
The matter which I seek to raise is urgent because real interest rates are already at their highest level in our history, and up to three times higher than the rates in the economies of our major industrial competitors. A further escalation in interest rates will be disastrous for investment and employment, and a catastrophe for mortgage holders, who are already paying the highest real mortgage interest rates ever recorded in Great Britain.
My next point is that the Government are directly responsible for these matters and are answerable for them in the House of Commons. The Government's responsibility for the crisis is not in doubt. First, it is the Government who have made the British economy peculiarly dependent upon the price of oil—the direct trigger for the catastrophe that we now face. Secondly, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Mansion house speech and later, have both asserted that an artificially high control rate is necessary for monetary control and that they will hold interest rates at whatever level and will escalate interest rates to whatever level is necessary to hold the exchange at the artificial level that is necessary to protect their monetary policy. They have asserted that they will hold interest rates high, regardless of the other consequences for the real economy.
204
Therefore I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, two sentences in summary. The first is that the imminent additional increase in interest rates will be deeply to the detriment of the real economy and the householders of this country. The second is that the imminent increase in real interest rates is a matter which is directly within the responsibility of the Government. Indeed, it has been managed, manipulated and encouraged by the Government. In those circumstances, it is, in my view, essential for the House to debate this issue before the Government's folly does yet more damage to the real economy.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have argent consideration, namely,
"the imminent further increase in interest rates."
The right hon. Member and the whole House know that I am required to take into account the various factors that are set out in Standing Order No. 10. I have listened with great care to what the right hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.
Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the many considerations that you have to take into account and what you have described as the many implications of this application. I do not argue with your judgment in any way. I merely say that it will be necessary for the House to examine those many implications when the interest rate goes up tomorrow or the day after.

Westland plc
4.49 pm
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with my undertaking to the House yesterday, I have looked at the speech made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last Thursday, and in particular at the passage in that speech in col. 1167 of the Official Report which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) alleges to be a quotation from an official document.
The passage in question describes what happened at a meeting on 17 October last between the Secretary of State and Sir John Cuckney. The passage is couched in reported speech, and as such is in the appropriate form for a paraphrase of the minutes of the meeting on which it is doubtless based. Therefore, I rule that it is not a quotation.

Privilege
4.51 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek your guidance on a matter of privilege.
Late last year I was invited to give evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Sub-Committee, which is examining the relations between civil servants and Ministers following the Ponting case. I was sent a questionnaire, to which I responded at length, and in the course of my reply I drew attention to the document issued by every Prime Minister to all Ministers entitled "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", and I attached a photocopy of that document, sent to me by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) when he formed his Administration in April 1976. However, because that document is classified as confidential I laid claim to parliamentary privilege for it, both in respect of its status as evidence submitted to a Select Committee, and for myself as a member of the House, in submitting it.
This document lays down in great detail the rules which hon. Members of this House, who happen to be Ministers or Parliamentary Private Secretaries in any Administration, are required to obey, and yet the nature and extent of those rules are kept secret from other Members and from the public. Because one of the questions to which I was invited to respond related to the operation of the Official Secrets Act, this particular document was, and is, directly relevant, and constitutes an integral part of my submission. I am due to give evidence, in public, tomorrow afternoon.
Last night I received a letter from the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) who is Chairman of the main Committee, referring to my evidence and to the document, which he points out
"is classified as 'Confidential' and subject to the 30 year rule".
His letter continues:
"The Committee has not yet decided whether it would be appropriate or not to report and publish this in whole or in part. Consequently, if in the course of oral evidence you wish to refer to, or quote from the annex, the sub-committee propose to hear such evidence in private."
Thus, Mr. Speaker, if I refer to or quote from a document which is absolutely central to my evidence, the public hearing may be terminated, hon. Members of the House, who are not members of the Sub-Committee, but who are present, and the public may be excluded. Ministers, civil servants and others sometimes give evidence in secret for reasons of state or commercial confidentiality, but I do not know whether there are any precedents for Select Committees hearing evidence from private Members in secret.
However, I accept that it must be entirely a matter for the Sub-Committee whom it invites to give evidence, whom it hears, whether to hear them in public or private, and what it does with any evidence submitted. Similarly, it must be entirely a matter for me to decide whether I should agree to give evidence in secret on the question whether the present Official Secrets Act should be allowed to protect the type of rules imposed by successive Prime Ministers on other Ministers. If I agreed to do so, I might myself be in breach of the privileges of the House if I subsequently disclosed the nature of the evidence which I had given in secret session.

207
These are not questions that I can put to you, Mr. Speaker, but the questions which I submit concern the whole House, and you, Sir, relate solely to the status of the evidence submitted to Select Committees by Members, where that evidence is heard in private, when it may neither be alluded to nor published in the report of the Committee. The evidence I submitted was explicitly sought by the Sub-Committee, not volunteered by me.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on these questions. First, is evidence submitted by Members to Select Committees privileged? Secondly, are Members or others who submit such evidence to the House protected from prosecution under the Official Secrets Act? Thirdly, will you authorise me to place a copy of my evidence in the Library of the House, an act which requires your approval, and which would constitute publication? Fourthly, what is my position if I publish my own evidence in full, and claim privilege for it?
I appreciate that these are difficult questions on which I cannot expect a ruling today, but I would be grateful if you could give a ruling before my appearance at the Sub-Committee tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the questions, because it has enabled me to look into the matter.
He has asked for guidance on a matter of privilege. It is not the function of the Chair to take up the time of the House by giving guidance to Members on matters of privilege or procedure, because hon. Members can obtain such advice outside the Chamber. That deals with the right hon. Gentleman's questions Nos. 1, 2 and 4. His third question was about my authorising him to place a copy of his evidence in the Library. I will look into the matter and let him know my findings.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker., Have we not reached a tidy state of affairs? Over the past few days, documents have been leaked right, left and centre. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to whom you referred in your previous ruling, was paraphrasing from Cabinet documents. One thing led to another, yet here we have a Back Bencher who wants to submit evidence to a Select Committee that is dealing with open government, and he has been told he has to give his evidence in secret. The whole thing is a farce.
Mr. Speaker: What goes on in a Select Committee is not a matter for me, and the hon. Gentleman knows that.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I regret that he was not in the Chamber at the time, but I have dealt with it and I have nothing to add.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I apologise for not being here. I was in a meeting of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, where indirectly it might be said that the matter that I am about to raise was being dealt with.

Select Committee on Defence
4.58 pm
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The point of order I wish to raise concerns the membership of the Select Committee on Defence, which has been meeting since 4.30 this afternoon. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, one of the members of that Committee is the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall). The hon. Gentleman sits on the Committee as a Member of this House, and he is also a parliamentary adviser to British Aerospace. Last weekend, because of his unique position, the hon. Gentleman was able to arrange for a joint statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the chairman of British Aerospace in order to, let us say, defuse what at that time was a rather embarrassing public row.
I want to raise the matter of the hon. Gentleman's membership of that Committee, in the context of the Committee's current investigations. "Erskine May" says on page 684:
"In the nomination of Members to serve on select committees neither the House, nor, where the nomination is entrusted to the Committee of Selection, the Committee of Selection, is bound to consider whether Members are personally interested in the matter or bill referred to the committee, and no objection can be raised in this respect to the composition of the committee".
That means the Committee of Selection is not in a position to examine whether the hon. Gentleman's membership of British Aerospace would in any way influence his judgment as a member of that Committee. One would have thought that you, Mr. Speaker, would have alluded in your reply to the fact that the Select Committee cannot deal with the problem that arises, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. Member for Arundel still represents British Aerospace and is paid to do so.
On page 684 "Erskine May" goes on to say:
"But it is not the practice for a member of a select committee to take part in any Enquiry while the affairs of any body in which he may be personally interested are under investigation".
I submit that the affairs of British Aerospace are, in part, under investigation. Basically, what "Erskine May" means is that it is not the practice for hon. Members to involve themselves in those inquiries, but the hon. Member for Arundel is today sitting upstairs in a Committee which is dealing with precisely these matters. You, Mr. Speaker, might consider making a statement, if not a ruling, that in the light of the precedent in "Erskine May" the hon. Member for Arundel might wish to consider his position, in so far as it is not the practice of the House for him to be involved in any investigation of that nature.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to point out that I wrote to the Clerk of the Select Committee on Defence yesterday about the issue. I am surprised that the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) is in Committee upstairs. I have not had a reply to my letter.
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are probably not aware that two or three years ago Sir Albert Costain was a member of a Select Committee that was investigating the building of a children's hospital in Glasgow, which had cost many millions of pounds and which within a few years started to fall down. The principal contractor for that hospital was Costains. Sir Albert honourably said that although he was not directly involved he would, to

209
maintain his own integrity, walk out of the investigation. He was a man of great honour and integrity. I hope that the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) will do the same as Sir Albert did.
Mr. Speaker: I think that I can dispose of the matter now. That is a matter for the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall).
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) quoted "Erskine May". I say to him and to the other hon. Members who have raised the matter that the position from their point of view is clear. If they wish to make a complaint of this nature about the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall), they should make it to the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which, as hon. Members will see from Standing Order No. 107, is set up specifically to deal with matters of this kind.
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully appreciate the difficulties where there is a ruling and a difference in practice. We have a difficult problem before us. The hon. Gentleman—I emphasise "hon. Gentleman" because I am in no way impugning the integrity of the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall), for whom I have the greatest personal respect—acted as an intermediary in trying to resolve the peculiar problems that arose because of one letter from British Aerospace and a complete volte face in a further ambivalent letter that appeared last weekend. It seems utterly improper that the hon. Member should be sitting to adjudicate on a matter to which he was a party.
May I extend this a stage further and ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give us advice, though not now? It goes wider. I do not think that we can wait for a decision of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, when we remember that a further Committee of perhaps far greater importance is about to be established, namely, the Hybrid Committee which will deal with the Channel tunnel. What guidance can you give as to the possible composition of that Hybrid Committee when one bears in mind the controversy that there was over a Select Committee on Transport because some of its members had interests which were not declared?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think you should be placed in the position of allowing double standards to operate here. This must seem strange to a person outside this building, because, when a Member of Parliament is named, a chief of police escorts him from the building within three minutes. On one occasion the Serjeant at Arms attempted to escort me from the Chamber. Given those examples, why is it impossible to ensure that the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall), who is obviously breaking the rules, is told, not to leave the building, but to get off the Committee? Why can that not be done?
Mr. Speaker: We are only wasting time on the matter, because it can be done. I did not appoint the hon. Member for Arundel to the Select Committee. He was appointed by the House. I have no power to take him off that Committee. The House well knows that. It is a matter for the House. Under our procedures we set up Committees specifically to deal with issues of this kind. I have already
210
said to the hon. Member for Workington that his right course is to draw the matter to the attention of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I say again that it is not a matter for me, because I did not appoint the hon. Gentleman to the Committee.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel that we are making ourselves somewhat ridiculous in the eyes of people who think that as a legislative assembly we should be able to deal with these things as they arise. I do not know how we can resolve this problem, but matters like this arise from time to time. May I suggest that this subject might be taken on board by the Speaker's Conference?
Mr. Speaker: That is as may be, but it is hypothetical at the moment. I say again that I am being put in an impossible position if the House expects me to adjudicate on a Member's conduct. I did not appoint the hon. Member for Arundel to the Committee. The House appointed him to the Committee, and the matter is in the hands of the House. The simple way to resolve this problem is through the usual channels.
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): May I intervene, since charges are very easily thrown around in these circumstances? It has been asserted that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) is breaking the rules. I should like to seek confirmation from you, Mr. Speaker, that he is not breaking the rules.
Mr. Speaker: That is true. The hon. Gentleman is not in any way breaking the rules. He was appointed by the House to the Select Committee, and the hon. Member for Workington has fairly pointed out in his quotation from "Erskine May" that the question of his remaining on the Committee and his activities on it are entirely a matter for him.
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course, it is not a matter simply of the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) breaking the rules or not. If you rule that he is not, obviously he is not. The point is taken. Is it not important that justice should be seen to be done? I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman has played a dishonourable role, but he negotiated the letter which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry agreed to accept from the chief executive of British Aerospace. You have said that this is a matter for the Select Committee on Members' Interests. Clearly, the Committee will not be in a position to take action until the Select Committee which is looking into the Trade and Industry matter has completed its findings. What purpose would be served then?
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take one more question from the hon. Member for Workington. In regard to what the Leader of the House has said, no doubt the hon. Member for Workington will have given notice to the hon. Member for Arundel that he intended to raise the matter.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes, I wrote to the hon. Gentleman. May I make it clear that I am not accusing the hon. Member for Arundel of breaking the rules. I have not done that. What I have done is to draw attention to the fact that there is precedence for the practice, and it is a practice on which I thought you might wish to comment, Mr.

211
Speaker. If you were to draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the practice, he might feel that it was in his best interests not to proceed as he has done. There is a precedent which I should like to quote in regard to a Select Committee on National Expenditure, which met in 1943:
"Major C. S. Taylor asked the hon. Member for Kidderminster, as Chairman of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, whether he will give an assurance that when any investigations are carried out into the organisation or activities of any private or public company, firm or corporation, no member of the Select Committee who is directly interested in that concern or in any competitive business sits as a member of the committee or sub-committee that is charged with this task?
Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: Yes, Sir, to the limited extent to which the Question applies to the inquiries of the Select Committee, it is our practice"—
note, "practice"—
"that a Member would not so take part."—[Official Report. 14 December 1943; Vol. 395, c. 1402.]
We are talking not about rules, but about practice. My appeal is that you, Mr. Speaker, may wish to guide the hon. Member for Arundel as to practice so that he can remove himself from the embarrassing position in which he has placed himself.
Mr. Speaker: It is not necessary for me to do that because the hon. Member for Workington has given notice to the hon. Member for Arundel that he intended to raise the matter. The hon. Member for Workington has said that the hon. Gentleman is not acting in any way outside the rules. It is my function to see that the rules are maintained. There is no way in which I can help the hon. Member for Workington. It is not for me to comment on matters of this kind. The Select Committee on Members' Interests was set up specifically to deal with matters of this kind, and I cannot do anything about it.

Protection of Minimum Retirement Age
5.10 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to secure a guaranteed minimum retirement age for men and women of sixty years, subject to certain conditions, and for connected purposes.
Most of us are aware of the existence of sex and racial discrimination. There are laws in existence to attempt to combat those types of discrimination but there are no laws to deal with discrimination against people because of age. There is growing evidence that this type of discrimination occurs mainly in employment. Compulsory retirement is the most obvious way that age is directly related to employment. It is important to realise that job discrimination in the employment market begins at a much earlier age than 65 or 60, in some cases at 35. This is why I stress that people should be able to work, if they wish, at least until the age of 60.
Age discrimination affects those who are trying to get jobs and those whose present jobs are at risk. The numbers in both groups have risen sharply since 1979. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that discrimination against people in employment or seeking employment on the basis of their age should be made illegal.
A year ago, at a factory in my constituency owned by the Japanese firm Hitachi, the management invited the workers aged 35 or more to take so-called voluntary redundancy. The management told them in no uncertain way that British workers were over the hill at 35. In a letter to all its employees the company said that older workers cause problems through sickness, slower reactions, poor eyesight and resistance to change. The company also invited these old-timers, in their late thirties, to leave the company to make way for younger people. It offered a ta x-free payment of £1,800 to those taking up its invitation. The company also gave the workers the chance to nominate a 16-year-old school leaver to take their place. The letter to the workers, or "company members", as the Japanese like to put it, pointed to the continuing losses at the south Wales factory and maintained that one problem standing in the way of increased efficiency was the age profile of the workers. Eleven employees took up the offer.
Hitachi is not alone in being averse to older workers. According to the Trades Union Congress, in the private sector there has been a huge increase in voluntary early retirement as an alternative to redundancy. In many cases the voluntary nature of such arrangements is open to question and it is clear that many older members feel under pressure to make way for youngsters when they would prefer not to retire.
Age discrimination has been accelerated in recent years by the massive increase in unemployment since 1979. Job adverts frequently impose upper age limits. Long-term unemployment among older workers has increased since 1979 by 300 per cent. and those caught in the trap are likely to suffer the consequences for the rest of their lives. Surely age and experience are qualities which should not be tossed lightly aside. Indeed, on the basis of age limits now set by many employers, many Members of this House would no longer be at work.
It is not surprising that a number of countries have laws which preclude or limit the use of chronological age as an

213
automatic exclusion factor in retirement and employment practices. In Britain, the majority of those living exclusively on state benefits, including pensions, are not far removed from poverty. The problems of long-term unemployment concern the over-50s rather than school leavers and it is understandable that demands for the removal of discriminatory practices, based solely on chronological age, have become more insistent in Britain.
However, practices concerning recruitment, training and promotion use age enthusiastically despite its lack of objectivity. An advertisement which appeared in the press recently stated:
"It is unlikely that anyone outside 35 years of age will have the necessary experience or drive essential for the rapid achievement required."
If a person is over 35, he is beyond the pale. Imagine the same advertisement saying "It is unlikely that a woman or a black person will have the necessary experience or drive essential." No one could put such an advertisement in the papers. If he did, it would be illegal. Why is the first version allowed? If some employers can get away with it, others will try to do the same.
Young people are cheaper to employ and it can be argued that they can get lower rates in their first year because they are supposed to be training. There are also cases of indirect discrimination, applying the requirements or conditions apparently equally to both sexes, with the result that one sex is less able to comply.
One of the most recent cases of indirect discrimination is that of Belinda Price, who married early and left her job to bring up her young family. She later qualified as a mature student and then applied to join the Civil Service as an executive officer. She was refused entry to that level because the age limit was 28 and she was 32. An industrial tribunal found this service condition "indirectly discriminatory", because more women than men rear children during the traditional recruitment years. The Civil Service has since raised the age limit to 45 in this grade. The Civil Service has declared itself to be an equal opportunities employer, but it is again defending a rigid age limit of 32 years for those applying for entry to the fast stream administrative grades of the Foreign Office, despite the fact that only one woman in 140 is in the top three grades.
214
In his book "40-60: How We Waste the Middle-Aged", M. P. Fogarty says:
"…at whatever age, chronological age turns out to be a poor predictor of performance in a wide range of activities. People at any age are individuals, differing within their overall capacities and in their profile of individual capacities. If one is looking for a woman or man who can put up a certain level of performance—whether high, average or low—on a certain task, one is likely over a very wide range of tasks to have to search all groups to find the right one."
In 1949, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights argued that the association of age with discriminatory practices results in
"detrimental distinctions which do not take account of the particular characteristics of individuals."
Over the years a number of countries have responded, but so far the United Kingdom has enacted no relevant legislation—although, on at least four occasions, attempts have been made to deal with this matter by private Members' Bills. There has been a recognition of age dicrimination or agism—the holding of a particular image of someone on the basis of formal age—in France, West Germany, Sweden and the United States which have legislated against it. In the United States the trend seems to be running against compulsory retirement. A law came into effect in New York State last year which does away with age discrimination at any age in the public sector. This year New York State expects to abolish it in private employment.
Age discrimination can have as serious personal and economic effects for an individual and society as racial and sex discrimination. For this reason, I argue, there is a need for legislation, and I hope that the House will support me.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Ms. Jo Richardson, Ms. Clare Short, Mr. Richard Caborn, Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Dr. John Marek, Ms. Harriet Harman, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. Roland Boyes and Mr. John McWilliam.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd accordingly presented a Bill to secure a guaranteed minimum retirement age for men and women of sixty years, subject to certain conditions, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 February and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

Orders of the Day

  Atomic Energy Authority Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The objective of the Bill is to put the finances of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority on to a trading fund basis, and for connected purposes. Hon. Members will recall that I said that legislation would come forward on these matters when I made a statement on the Government's decisions on the AEA review on 11 February 1985.
  As is customary, I should like to start by explaining the background to the Bill. As hon. Members will know, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was created by the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954 with a wide range of responsibilities for nuclear matters. It was initially almost entirely funded by the Government. Since then, the authority has undergone a number of significant changes. The Science and Technology Act 1965 gave it the power to carry out non-nuclear research and development as required by the Secretary of State. The Atomic Energy Authority Act 1971 hived off the radiochemical activities of the authority to what is now Amersham International, and the fuel manufacture, enrichment and reprocessing work to British Nuclear Fuels plc. Under the Atomic Energy Authority (Weapons Group) Act 1973, the weapons group of the authority was transferred to the Ministry of Defence.
  The context in which the authority operates has also changed significantly. In 1954, the authority effectively was the nuclear industry. Since then, other centres of expertise have grown up with the design, construction and operation of the United Kingdom's nuclear power stations. In 1984, more than 18 per cent. of electricity supplied in the United Kingdom was nuclear. This contribution should reach as much as 25 per cent. by the end of the decade when reactors currently under construction, or being commissioned, are fully operational. These reactors have required a corresponding development of fuel fabrication and reprocessing facilities, where important export orders have also been obtained.
  Nevertheless, the authority is still a very major force. It employs some 14,000 staff and has gross expenditure of about £400 million per annum. About half its income has recently come in the form of a grant-in-aid from the Department of Energy for nuclear research and development. The remainder comes mainly from contract work on nuclear research and development for other United Kingdom customers such as the electricity supply industry BNFL and from customers for non-nuclear research and development. A large part of the authority's work is therefore already under contract and is held in very high regard for its scientific and technical excellence.
  It is against that background that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy set in hand last year a wide-ranging overall review of the role and activities of the authority, including whether its present relationship with the Department of Energy remained appropriate. The terms of reference were:
  216
  "to examine the main programmes of the authority, with reference to the character, funding and accountability for these programmes and their bearing on the role of the authority; to consider, in the light of the review and of other factors, whether changes were required in the role and accountability of the authority, and in its relationship with the Government: and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Energy."
  My right hon. Friend published an extensive summary of the review's conclusions and recommendations on 3 October 1984, and I announced the Government's decisions to the House on 11 February last year.
  Mr. John Evans: Many employees in the industry are worried that the Secretary of State did not publish the review committee's report in full. Why did the Secretary of State not publish the full report? If representations are made to him during the Bill's passage through the House, will the Secretary of State publish the entire report?
  Mr. Goodlad: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, as did I in reply to a question asked by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), that the conclusions and recommendations were the main part of the review, and it is not customary to publish a confidential internal piece of advice.
  It might be helpful if I remind the House of the key points. The Government consider it prudent for the country to have a range of electricity supply options and continue to attach importance to the safe and economic development of nuclear power. The authority's role as a research and development organisation underpinning the nuclear industry, exploring how the technology might develop, and providing independent advice to Government therefore remains a key one.
  The Government have endorsed the two guiding principles recommended by the review team. The first is that the authority should move to a fully commercial basis of operation as a further spur to efficiency; and, secondly, that defined customer-contractor relationships should be applied as far as possible to its work. The group concluded that privatisation of the authority either in whole or in part was not a realistic option at present. I should like to take this opportunity to reiterate what I said on 11 February last year, and which my noble Friend Lord Gray confirmed recently in another place—that the Government have no intention of privatising the authority.
  The Government have decided that more of the authority's work should be funded by the nuclear industry, that the Department of Energy's funding of nuclear research and development should move closer to a customer-contractor basis and that the authority's operations should be placed on a trading fund basis from 1 April 1986 with powers to borrow.
  As a trading fund, the authority's charges to all of its customers will include an element of profit, and clear financial objectives will aid the measurement of success. The authority will prepare a profit and loss account and be able to carry surpluses and deficits forward from one year to the next. It will thus have increased flexibility and greater discretion over the use of internally generated funds, which will help to finance an agreed capital investment programme. Remaining capital requirements will be financed through borrowing. I shall outline the new financial framework that we propose in a little more detail shortly, but first I should like to emphasise three points, concerning nuclear safety, the AEA's independence, and accountability.

  217
  I deal first with safety. In reaching decisions on the review's recommendations, the Government recognised the authority's crucial contribution to the development of civil nuclear power and high nuclear safety standards in Britain. Safety is paramount and the authority will continue to play a major role in the United Kingdom in nuclear safety research and development. The Government and the generating boards attach importance to the authority's independent capability in this area. The Department of Energy will therefore continue to fund a substantial programme of thermal reactor and general nuclear safety research by the authority. In 1986–87 this funding is expected to total more than £20 million.
  The next matter of importance is independence. I should like to reassure hon. Members that, although other parts of the nuclear industry, particularly the generating boards and BNFL, will be placing more contracts with the authority in areas of research and development most relevant to them, that does not imply a reduction in the authority's independence. It is sometimes asserted that the authority will be dominated by the Central Electricity Generating Board. The House may therefore like to know that even when the transfers of funding that I announced on 11 February last year have been taken into account the proportion of the authority's total turnover accounted for by the CEGB is still expected to be less than 15 per cent. The authority will have a range of customers and will not be beholden to any particular interest group.
  Underlying research is another area where the authority's continued independence is of key importance. Such research underpins all that the authority does, just as the authority underpins the nuclear industry. By consciously devoting resources to a broad and interdisciplinary programme of underlying research during the past 30 years, the authority has been able to keep at the forefront of technological change. The research has been of enormous benefit to its customers over the years and is the seedcorn for the future.
  Through a levy on other programme charges, the Department of Energy will still make a very significant contribution to the funding of the authority's underlying research programme, which will amount to more than £16 million in 1986–87. Other customers will also contribute but the content of the programme will remain firmly under the authority's control. The Government consider that these arrangements will enable the authority to continue a vigorous and independent programme, as it is essential that it should.
  The third important matter to which I referred is accountability. I should like to repeat the assurance that I gave the House on 11 February last year. There will be no loss of accountability for expenditure on nuclear research and development as a result of the move to a trading fund. In fact the Department of Energy will, as well as remaining the authority's sponsor in Whitehall terms, become accountable to Parliament as the authority's customer in a way that it was not before. My Department will in future provide funding against programme letters setting out the Government's objectives in each area of research. We will be monitoring the work done and the money spent by the authority against the milestones and estimates in these programme letters, with the objective of ensuring that the taxpayer obtains value for money.
  Viscount Cranborne: My hon. Friend said that the Central Electricity Generating Board might exert undue influence as a result of the changes that he proposes. Can he give us any further guarantee of redress to make sure that if the CEGB exerts undue pressure the authority will be able to bring some heavy guns into its camp to resist such pressure, particularly perhaps from his Department?
  Mr. Goodlad: I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in the affairs of the authority, particularly because of Winfrith in his constituency. I have to say to him that I do not think that a guarantee of the sort that he suggests will be necessary, but I shall examine carefully what he has said.
  The Government have decided not to build up an unnecessary apparatus for control and monitoring within the Department to duplicate the resources of the authority. The programmes will continue to be funded from money voted by Parliament through the Estimates procedures, and the authority's accounts will continue to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. My Department will therefore remain accountable on policy and overall programme specification, and the authority will answer on its technical advice and efficiency of programme execution.
  The programme letters will cover such research and development areas as the fast reactor, advanced gas-cooled reactors, pressurised water reactor safety, general nuclear safety, fusion, radioactive waste management, nuclear materials management, radiological protection and others. The programme letters will be settled each year following discussion between the authority and the Department, assisted by expert technical advisers.
  One of the operational areas covered by the programme letters is the authority's existing waste management and decommissioning operations. The Government have in the past accepted that they would pay the costs of meeting waste treatment and decommissioning liabilities at the time they arise. Although the authority's operations are being placed on a trading fund basis, the Government will continue 'to accept responsibility in principle for the costs which the authority will incur arising from programmes carried out before 1 April 1986, and from future departmentally funded programmes. Expenditure will be monitored and controlled through the appropriate programme letters.
  Turning now to the Government's decision to place the authority on a trading fund basis, I shall outline in a little detail the changes that we propose to the financial framework for the authority. First, the authority will have powers to borrow and a revised capital structure, including commencing capital debt, reserves and provisions. We regard a commencing capital debt as a sound feature of this revised capital structure. Full and detailed consultations have taken place with the authority and the Treasury both about the size of the debt and about the other elements of the financial framework. It is expected that the debt will be set at about £80 million. Uncertainties inevitably exist when looking to the future, but, assuming a broad continuation of the authority's existing business prospects, forward projections suggest that the authority should be left with a modest profit after payment of interest on its debt.
  The trading fund's opening current cost capital employed is likely to be in the region of £250 million. The

  219
  commencing capital debt will therefore represent about one third of this and the balance will be represented by reserves and provisions. A clear financial target has been agreed with the authority. Over the next three years, it will aim to run the business so as to achieve an annual average return of 5 per cent. on current cost capital employed. Reporting profits, before interest at this level, while still remaining competitive, will be a challenge for the authority in the early years of the fund, but not, we believe, an unrealistic one. The financial target will, of course, be reviewed in the light of the authority's trading performance in the initial three-year period and the latest assessment of future prospects.
  Overall, the Government expect the new framework to encourage the authority to maintain its excellent scientific and technical reputation, while responding effectively to the increased market and commercial pressures. The attitude of all those working in the authority is crucial to the success of the trading fund, and I pay tribute to the constructive way in which the preparations for it have been put in hand. In particular, I would like to thank Mr. Arnold Allen, the chairman of the authority, for his distinguished and effective leadership during this period.
  Many of these changes—important though they are—do not require legislation, but placing the authority on a trading fund basis with powers to borrow does, because under the 1954 Act the authority has no such powers, and as an already established body the provisions of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 cannot apply to it. The nine clauses of the Bill therefore provide for the main structure of a trading fund without affecting the essential functions set out in the 1954 Act. In brief, their purpose is as follows.
  Clause 1 provides for the assumption by the authority of a commencing debt. This will be a debt related to the value of the authority's net assets at the start of the trading fund. The commencing debt will take the form of a notional loan from the national loans fund, deemed to be made on 1 April 1986, and repayable with interest. The period of repayment will be agreed between the authority and the Secretary of State. A commencing capital debt is a standard feature of trading funds. It reflects the fact that the Government have, in the past, grant-aided the authority so that it has been able to build up its asset base to its present levels. The commencing debt, and the interest on it, is to be repaid by the authority out of its trading profits. I have already described how it will fit into the authority's overall capital structure and financial framework.
  Clause 2 defines the authority's borrowing powers. It allows for borrowing from the national loans fund in sterling, and for borrowing from elsewhere in any currency if the Secretary of State, with Treasury approval consents. The purposes for which the authority may borrow are to discharge its functions and meet its obligations, or those of any subsidiary that it might set up. As a trading fund, it is intended that the authority should fund its capital requirements, including working capital, from internally generated funds and borrowing. The amount the authority can borrow will be subject to the overall limits set in clause 3 and to an annual external financing limit set by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury after consultation with the authority.
  Clause 3 imposes an initial borrowing limit of £150 million on the authority, prescribes what is to count
  220
  towards the borrowing limit, and allows for the limit to be increased by order to £200 million if Parliament approves. Such an order would be subject to affirmative resolution. Clause 4 empowers the Secretary of State to lend to the authority and sets out the procedures governing such loans. Clause 5 permits the Treasury to guarantee borrowing by the authority from non-Government sources, and sets out the arrangements to be followed if any such guarantee is called. Clause 6 provides that the authority carry out capital investment and other developments only within plans approved by the Secretary of State.
  Clause 7 provides that compensation may be paid to members of the authority for loss of office, for which there is no provision in the 1954 Act. This clause also repeals, as anachronistic, a section of the 1954 Act which requires the Secretary of State to lay a statement before Parliament when the salaries of members of the authority are altered.
  Mr. Evans: Can the Minister tell us why the terms of the 1954 Act are regarded as anachronistic—that the terms and conditions and salaries of board members should be laid before Parliament so that they are clearly visible? Will he tell the House also the reason for a new clause which will allow compensation to be paid to any member of the board whose appointment is terminated? Does this not in effect put the present Secretary of State and subsequent Secretaries of State in a position to hire and fire, and to appoint people who better suit their requirements? It seems a peculiar clause to write into a Bill of this nature.
  Mr. Goodlad: On the contrary, it is not a peculiar clause. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is no. The answer to the first question is that information about the salaries of members of all boards of statutory and other bodies is set out in the booklet "Public Bodies" published annually by Her Majesty's Stationery Office on behalf of the Management and Personnel Office. Copies of this are placed in the Library of the House. Information on the ranges of salaries of authority board members can also be found in the authority's annual report and accounts, which are laid before Parliament in accordance with the 1954 Act.
  This is a small Bill, but it is also a significant one. The effect will be to make the authority more like a nationalised industry, and to give it a greater scope for development than grant-in-aid arrangements can provide. The Government consider it to be the logical outcome of the evolution in the role and activities of the authority over the last 30 years. I should like, at this point, to emphasise again the contribution of all those who work in the authority. Their skills and dedication are the authority's most important asset. The success of the trading fund will owe much to their ability to meet customers' needs and to push forward the frontiers of technology.
  We believe that operation as a trading fund, within the financial framework that I have outlined, will provide a sound basis for the future. The authority will be able to contribute still further to the development of civil nuclear power and non-nuclear technologies, while continuing to provide a source of expert advice to Government on a wide range of issues. I believe that the proposals provide an incentive for all concerned, and I commend them to the House.
  5.40 pm
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: Our debate will be marred because hon. Members have not had access to the full Manley report, which is one of the reasons for the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) made an intervention about that. The Department of Energy was given every opportunity to produce the Manley report, because I tabled a question asking for it to be laid before the House before we debated the Bill. The Minister has some explaining to do. Why is there such obsessive secrecy in the Department of Energy? If it does not release the report, a lasting impression will remain that the Government have something to hide.
  To some extent, we endorse the Minister's views. The Bill is not an innocent or mundane Bill; it is important. However, we are also suspicious about it. With a new Bill involving an establishment with at least 14,000 staff and 2,800 qualified scientists and engineers, housed in about 10 sites all over the country, and with a gross expenditure of around £400 million per annum, we need to know a great deal. Legislation may be inanimate, but, faced with such figures, the subject becomes more material. The people and the skills that they have are of the highest importance. That is why we shall want to hear something about the authority's best asset—its work force—and how it will fare under the Bill's proposals.
  Mr. David Maclean: The hon. Gentleman has asked how the work force would fare under the Bill. However, how would the work force fare if the motion that the last Labour conference passed by a 1·5 million majority, calling for a halt to the nuclear power programme and the phasing out of existing plants, came into effect?
  Mr. Eadie: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman makes his own speech in favour of nuclear energy when we have a debate about that. At the moment, we are discussing the Bill, and I shall be dealing with the staff later.
  One of our main suspicions about the Bill is that its provisions for putting the authority on a trading fund basis simply pave the way for future privatisation. In the other place, the Minister said:
  "Privatisation of the authority is not a realistic option at this stage."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 November 1985; Vol. 468, col. 527.]
  On 11 February 1985, the Under-Secretary said in the House that there were no plans to privatise the AEA. In the Second Reading debate of 19 November, my noble Friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, at col. 537 of Hansard pressed Lord Gray of Contin in an intervention, and got an assurance that the AEA would not be privatised in the lifetime of this Parliament. We want the Minister to put on record the Government's intentions on privatisation.
  Will the hon. Gentleman also assure us that we shall not have privatisation by the back door? Can we have an explanation of what is meant by clause 3(3)? Part of it states:
  "If a body corporate ceases to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Authority, the Secretary of State may, having regard to the extent to which the amounts taken into account for the purposes of subsection (1)".
  Clause 3(3) is about the possibility of denationalisation of a subsidiary of the AEA. Does that mean that the authority can be privatised piecemeal? The clause gives the impression that the authority may dispose of a wholly owned subsidiary without reference to Parliament. The
  222
  Minister will recognise that the matter was raised in the other place on Second Reading. I am not too sure whether it was dealt with or answered satisfactorily. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to this later.
  When I questioned the Minister on 11 February 1985, he assured me that a change of trading fund status would mean that there would be no change in accountability to Parliament. However, we did not have a Bill then, only a statement, and there is a whale of a difference. I hope that, under the Bill, commercial confidentiality will not be wheeled in as an excuse for weakening Parliament's role in nuclear matters and keeping from it information that is necessary and vital for its oversight of the authority's affairs.
  I have an example of this from the Department of Energy. Commercial confidentiality is preventing me and my constituents from getting information from the Government and the NCB about how much Lothian Estates was paid for houses and subjects in the Lewton grange area when the NCB lease expired in 1982. This is a classic example of a cover-up.
  Parliamentary control will be affected by the Bill in one way, contrary to what the Minister has said. Clause 7(2) provides that the duty to lay statements of remuneration and so on of members of the authority is repealed, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North pointed out. Members of Parliament often glean a good deal of information from statistics about salaries and conditions of members of boards. In addition, I notice from the annual report that six members of the board are due to retire this year, and one retired in December last year. No new chairman has been appointed since the retirement of the present chairman was signified on 30 December 1985.
  Mr. Evans: I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates my concern, and I share his, about this issue and about the number of board members who are about to retire. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is some concern among the staff and workers in the industry about the fact that some people on the highest salaries retire or leave the board for one reason or another and then subsequently reappear as consultants, often at very high fees. Surely we should be given more rather than less information about board appointments and people who are hired.
  Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend has raised a good point. There are people who retire from Government service generally at what may be described as a comparatively early age and on adequate pensions and who then go on to other jobs and enjoy higher salaries. Something must be done about this. There should be a self-denying ordinance, if not a denying ordinance, to prevent this from happening.
  The Government's record on appointments to all types of board is not a good one. The main qualification of new appointees seems to be that they are either sympathetic to or supporters of the Tory party. We are entitled to ask how the Government propose to appoint or reappoint members of this board. I hope, too, that the Government will let us know who its new chairman will be. I hope that it will not be another merchant banker from the City. We should be told who it is to be before the Bill completes its stages in Parliament. The Minister has a lot of explaining to do on clause 7(2).
  One of the most important parts of the Bill is that which deals with the authority's finances. Clause 3 sets the authority's borrowing limit at £150 million, which may,

  223
  by order, be increased to £200 million. The borrowing limit is to include the authority's commencing capital debt. What does that entail? At one time, it was thought that it might be £50 million or £100 million. I notice that the hon. Gentleman concurs with the Minister who spoke in another place, because today he has mentioned a figure of £80 million.
  Clause 1 refers to consultation with the authority and the approval of the Treasury. As experienced parliamentarians, we know what that means. It means that the icy hand of the Treasury will be on the authority from the start. We are entitled to ask the Minister to state the rate of return expected from the authority. In his speech, he gave some figures. He knows, of course, that 5 per cent. is what is mooted. It is alleged that, based on the likely calculation of its assets, the authority could be surcharged at £13 million from the start. What sort of financial start does that give the new authority? We all know—the Minister referred to this in his speech—that if the rate of return is set too high it could affect staffing levels and indeed salaries, which could be squeezed as the authority strained to meet an unrealistic rate of return.
  Another aspect is the risk to research if an unrealistic rate of return is set. I hope that in Committee we will return to this whole question of research.
  The Minister must give not only an explanation but some assurances on the issues that I have raised.
  Turning to the effect on the fusion programme, the Minister may not be aware of it but I was the Minister responsible for the fusion programme coming to Culham. It was the first joint EEC programme that came to the United Kingdom. I know that this is not the time to discuss the details of fusion technology, but we have heard that the Government may not be as committed to this programme in future as they have been in the past—and how committed they were in the past, I am not very sure. The Minister must take the opportunity in winding up to be as informative as possible about this.
  Perhaps the Minister could also fit into his reply more information about the fast breeder reactor programme, which was dealt with in surprising detail by the Minister in the other place. Even since that time, November 1985, it has become much more important because Dounreay has become a focal point of discussion in Scotland since the proposal to have a fuel fabrication and reprocessing facility without a full-scale planning inquiry. We are entitled to an explanation of how it is envisaged that the programme will be managed, and whether greater control of it will pass from the proposed new Atomic Energy Authority to the Central Electricity Generating Board.
  This is of great importance to the debate because the chairman of the CEGB, as I understand it, is more or less running around the country saying, "Please privatise us." That would have consequences for this Bill. To some extent, it would make nonsense of what the Minister had to say about safety and about the relationship between the CEGB and the Atomic Energy Authority.
  Returning to the composition of the authority's board, it should be seen as completely independent and free of pressure from commercial interests. Its commitment should be to the organisation and its objectives. That being so, part-time members who have a beneficial interest in organisations which have formal contractual arrangements with the authority should not be permitted to serve on the new board. I hope that the Minister will tell us today that the Government take the same view.
  224
  I referred earlier to another important aspect, the people who work for the Atomic Energy Authority. As they have told me, they undoubtedly feel that their jobs and their conditions of service would be at risk from commercialisation. When the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was established in 1954 and when British Nuclear Fuels was hived off in 1971, employees were given a guarantee that their terms and conditions of service would be no worse than those of other civil servants.
  The 1953 White Paper even promised salaries
  "not seriously out of scale with those paid by other public corporations".
  That promise has certainly not been kept. Government pay policy has held salaries down, with the result that the authority is losing professional and scientific staff and is unable to recruit replacements. The people working for the authority need to be assured that their terms and conditions of employment are maintained. Salaries should be at a level at where staff of all grades can be recruited and retained. We need an assurance that the Department of Energy will not impose cash limits on the authority's wages and salaries bill which will cause an unjustified contraction of staffing levels. The staff must not be made sacrificial lambs on the Government's altar of commercialisation.
  Nuclear safety cannot and must not be jeopardised by the drive for commercialisation. The public is entitled to expect that the AEA's contribution to nuclear safety will not be compromised by the Government's preoccupation with commercialisation, or the new customer-contractor relationship between the authority and the CEGB. We need an absolute assurance from the Minister of that. He has a duty to outline the safeguards that are intended to ensure that nuclear safety will not suffer as a result of the Bill.
  The Minister's reply to some of my questions will determine our attitude to the Bill and its progress through the House. We do not intend to obstruct its Second Reading, but I give no commitment about what our attitude will be at future stages before the Bill leaves the House.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Simon Coombs: I welcome in principle the creation of a trading fund arrangement for the Atomic Energy Authority. Indeed, many aspects of a public corporation are envisaged in the Bill. Obviously, I welcome the creation of genuine financial objectives—the introduction of the profit principle into the company's operations, and the opportunity which that gives to provide a disciplined and commercial approach to its customers.
  None of that in any way influences one in saying that the authority during the 31 years of its existence has enjoyed an outstanding record on research into nuclear power. Nevertheless, during those years there have been so many changes that it seems appropriate that the Government should have instituted an inquiry into the work of the authority, and advanced the proposals in the Bill. The changes have included hiving off what is now British Nuclear Fuels plc, and what was Radio Chemical Laboratories and is now Amersham International. Both became trading fund organisations, and Amersham International went one stage further along that well-trodden path and became a private company.
  When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, will he say something more about that in respect of the authority?

  225
  RCL went into the private sector as Amersham International, but BNFL has not. Clearly, what the Manley report said in private is of interest. I would not disagree with Opposition Members who suggest that the Government could have been a little less coy about the contents of the evidence that was not released. The summary of the report stated:
  "privatisation of the Authority as an entity, while possible in principle, is not in practice a realistic option at present."
  Conservative Members who in principle are in favour of privatisation feel entitled to ask why that was said, and why the Government are not prepared to consider the further development of the company into a private one.
  Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the Government have not published all the evidence because the arguments against privatisation were, obviously, compelling? If they had been in favour of privatisation, not only would the Government have produced the report, but they would have privatised the UKAEA.
  Mr. Coombs: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to guess the contents of the report, as I am. However, I seek the truth about the matter, and then we could discuss it. I should like the Minister to say something more about the subject when he replies. I seek to draw his attention to the authority's anomalous position in that it will operate in competitive markets in a halfway-house position which could make it difficult to compete with private companies.
  The Bill proposes a change in the funding for both the major reactor research programmes, although the fast reactor programme's change of funding is to come later. Either way, the extra cost will fall on the generating boards, and ultimately on their customers. That must have an effect on prices, however small, and it is important that the Government explain it clearly to the public. They should not simply say how the changes will affect prices, but should spell out positively the benefits that the public enjoy from a nuclear power programme which is properly researched by the authority.
  I wish to concentrate on two aspects of the authority's work inasmuch as they will be affected by the Bill—the research programme to improve the efficiency of nuclear power generation, and safety. In several respects we see the potential for improvements— in efficiency in the development of reactors, the improvement of fuel, and the recycling of fuel. All stand to benefit the generating boards, which will be major customers of the authority. Clearly, it is in their commercial interests to support these programmes in order to remain competitive, not only with other fuels in the United Kingdom, but in world markets for electricity generation.
  I shall give the House some examples. It has been estimated that a 5 per cent. improvement in the efficiency of the reactors of the present generation would yield £50 million per nuclear power station. It has been estimated that five years' additional life per reactor would be worth a total of £600 million. It is being estimated that a 10 per cent. improvement in the efficiency of fuel would generate £15 million per annum of additional income. When we consider the fuel recycling research programme we see that if the fast reactor programme is successfully introduced on a commercial basis, the recycling of plutonium and depleted uranium—that is the isotope known as uranium 238—could generate an improvement
  226
  that would be represented by the equivalent of one tonne of uranium 238 equalling 1·5 million tonnes of coal. Mathematicians in the House may care to consider the implications of that ratio. Clearly, the Government will benefit also because nuclear power must be a vital element in their overall fuel policy for the future, and it is important that the Government should demonstrate their commitment in that respect.
  Reference has already been made to underlying research—what I should like to refer to as "initiative" research—which involves knowing what the customer needs before he gets around to asking for it. Should the cost of that research be borne by the large customers of the authority, by those customers that it wins in a competitive environment, or by the Government? The answer seems to be a combination of all three, although I accept that the first is logical and that the third is inevitable, I ask the Government to think about the effect that increased overheads to fund the underlying or initiative research programme might have on the kind of bids that the authority would be in a position to make in a competitive environment.
  I should like to point out to the House, as if it needed to be reminded, that safety is of critical importance in the lives of us all. BNFL, the generating boards and the authority need sizeable investment in safety research, which of course is in the hands of the safety and reliability directorate within the authority. As a good employer and for the sake of public relations, it is important that the industry maintains the highest standards of safety and that it should be seen to be playing its part in achieving them. The Government are involved, particularly through the nuclear installations inspectorate, and I am pleased to note that £20 million has been earmarked for this purpose. We have to accept, whether we like it or not, that there is still a great deal of public concern and confusion, even fear, about the use of civil nuclear power. I think that the resistance that is borne of that confusion and fear is one of the prime reasons why the United Kingdom lags behind other countries in its nuclear capacity.
  A table published in October 1985 shows that in 1985 France was estimated to have generated 65 per cent. of its electricity from nuclear sources, Belgium 55 per cent., Taiwan 46 per cent., Bulgaria 29 per cent., the Federal Republic of Germany 25·5 per cent. and Japan 24 per cent. The United Kingdom is still well down the list at 20–5 per cent. That is a disappointing figure for the United Kingdom and one which I know the Government seek to have improved. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the Sizewell B inquiry has been held up for so long, and one can only hope that the results will be published in the near future.
  People still say, "Yes, that is all very well, but what if something terrible were to happen?" Those of us who believe that the nuclear industry has an important part to play clearly have a public relations exercise to perform and that can be based only on the maintenance of the highest standards that the available technology of the day will allow. However, the public is entitled to an explanation that the advantages of nuclear power far outweigh the disadvantages. It is cheaper, and a brief prepared by the authority sets this point in context. It explains that a single bar electric fire consuming 1 kilowatt of energy can run on one pound of coal for one hour, on one pound of oil for one and a half hours, on one pound of uranium from

  227
  one of the present generation of reactors for two and a half years and on one pound of uranium from the fast breeder reactors of the future for 150 years.
  I invite the House to compare one pound of coal for one hour with one pound of uranium in a fast reactor for 150 years to see the value in terms of a reduced cost electricity supply. It is not only cheaper, but cleaner. Those of us who are concerned about the conservation of the environment and can see the problems of acid rain must surely appreciate that this is a power source which does not pollute the atmosphere, and the minimal risk associated with the nuclear industry—much as it is overplayed by some opponents—is a risk well worth taking for the benefits that will accrue.
  It is wrong to compare the military and civil uses of nuclear energy. Few people today have not benefited from radioactivity, especially in medicine. I hope that, for those reasons, the Government will be seen to support safety research up to the hilt.
  I welcome this Bill as a fresh beginning for the work of the authority. It might be appropriate to suggest not only a new start in commercial terms but even a new name, as the title "Atomic Energy Authority" smacks more of 1954 than of 1986. Something along the lines of "British Nuclear Research" would emphasise the modern tasks that we ask the authority to undertake, and might be more appropriate for its future development. Under whichever name, the quality of the work done by all the staff of the authority ensures that it will have a healthy future—no doubt, aided and abetted by the Bill.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) has, I think, illustrated the importance of this measure and the nuclear industry. The House will be grateful to him for that.
  I have two immediate constituency interests in this industry. The first arises from the fact that we have contractors and designers of nuclear installations, and the second from the fact that over the last couple of years there has been the proposal for dumping nuclear waste at Billingham. That was the other side of the coin. Thankfully, that threat has now gone away, but it illustrated to the people of our area the difficulties as well as the benefits that flow from this industry.
  I begin by joining other hon. Members in paying tribute to the work of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. It has a good reputation for great professionalism, and it has made a major contribution over the years. In this controversial matter it has managed to maintain that reputation for professionalism throughout, and I think that we should all pay tribute to it for that. We support the Government's proposal for the establishment of a trading fund for the authority, but, having said that, I want to make it clear that we should strongly oppose any suggestion, such as that made by the hon. Member for Swindon, that it should at some future stage be privatised.
  A case can be made for a trading fund, because it brings with it the right combination of commercial behaviour, customer and public responsiveness and accountability. On those grounds, the Bill's proposals and the development of the authority as a trading fund will help to make the authority's activities more efficient. The Bill will make it responsive to commercial and public pressures, and accountable to the public. We welcome the proposals and will support them in their passage through
  228
  the House, but because of the authority's strategic nature and the degree of public concern about the industry, we should reject the idea of privatisation.
  I should like to refer to public concern about the nuclear industry, which is a combination of confusion, fear and genuine misunderstanding of the dangers. It is often difficult to disentangle those different attitudes. There is no doubt— the United States illustrates this In the clearest way—that public concern is an important factor in the industry's future.
  As the hon. Member for Swindon said, it is vital that the authority's work on nuclear safety, especially nuclear waste research, is maintained and supported by the Government. Until we have lanced this boil of the dispersal of nuclear waste, it will, understandably and rightly, continue to act as a brake on the industry's development. I urge the Department of the Environment to proceed apace with the Department of Energy and the other bodies involved to come up with firm proposals and carry them through as speedily as possible, taking public opinion with them as far as possible. This will bring about progress in the industry and will mean that people will rot be worried—as they are in the United States—to such an extent that a major brake is applied to developments.
  The Bill proposes to establish a new financial structure for the authority. This consists of the financing of capital debt and loans given by the Government through the Public Works Loan Board to provide a commercial structure for the financing of the body. This imposes a rather rigid requirement. Will the Under-Secretary of State consider the proposition that was made in another place that part of the capital should consist of public dividend capital? This would provide flexibility and greater freedom for the management than would a loan.
  Will the Under-Secretary of State consider also the proposal that was made in the other place to widen the scope of the authority's activities to include other aspects of energy research and promotion of new fuels and power sources? It is difficult to distinguish between the different sources of energy and different fuels. There is a tremendous overlap in energy research. We believe that this is an aspect, especially on the conservation side, where the authority's expertise could make a major contribution that would help the Government and. the whole country.
  Another aspect of concern is consultation with staff— both those in trade unions and those who are not unionised. The change over seems to provide an opportunity for management to draw staff into the fullest possible consultations on the authority's activities. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on the proposal to ensure that that consultation occurs.
  There is a widespread feeling that in the past the authority and the Department of Energy have been more reticent than they might have been in publishing information. One reason why so many fears abound is that there is not as much openness in Britain as there often is in other countries. Inevitably this leads to suspicion and lack of trust when information on developments in the industry comes from the publication of the facts and details in other countries rather than from the authority and the Department. I appeal to Ministers to ensure that the authority is as open as possible—as open as security or, more likely, commercial reasons, allow—in publishing information and giving as much information about their activities as they can.

  229
  I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will comment on those points. We look forward to considering the Bill in Committee, when we can test these matters in more detail with amendments.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Robert Jackson: A substantial proportion of the 14,000 staff of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority live and work in my constituency at Harwell and Culham, and on their behalf I welcome the Bill. For them, it constitutes a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is to prove the cost-effectiveness of their work in a more competitive and commercial trading environment. The opportunity is to take advantage of the loosening of the bonds of Treasury control that the Bill represents.
  The best way to look at the Bill is to see it in its historical perspective. Like all dynamic institutions, the authority is in a process of continuing evolution, and the Bill marks an important—but not a final—stage. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State referred to a number of landmark dates— the establishment of the authority in 1954, confined simply to nuclear research and financed exclusively by the Government; the broadening out into non-nuclear research areas after 1965; the hiving-off in 1971 of some of the authority's commercially successful developments; and the removal of weapons work in 1973.
  The Bill is a further stage in this evolution. It reinforces the trend to broaden the financial basis of the authority's work from the Department of Energy to the nuclear industry as a whole. It strengthens the trend to research and development in the authority on a customer-contractor basis. It builds on the experience and management capability that has been developed in the authorities over the past 30 years to enable it to operate more commercially, to carry forward its surpluses and deficits from year to year, and to borrow subject to an overall limit.
  I dwell particularly on the evolutionary character of these developments because, at the time of the commissioning of the Manley report, there was a great deal of speculation about the possibility of radical changes in the authority. We detected some echoes of this in the speech of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). I am pleased, but not surprised, at the vote of confidence that the Manley report appears to have given to the authority, and at the confidence in the authority which the Government show in the Bill.
  Having welcomed the Bill, I shall make three points about it. First, I hope that the Government will not lose sight of its fundamental purpose— to enable the authority to maintain and improve its work in developing and transferring technology to industry. I understand that the authority is not dissatisfied with the proposed financial starting arrangements, for the capital base and for the proposed return on capital. So I hope that we shall not have in Committee the discussions that occurred in another place on that point.
  But I believe that these financial arrangements must—I am sure that they will—be kept under review so that, as the authority, the Government and the authority's customers gain experience of the operation of the trading fund, these financial arrangements will not get in the way
  230
  of the rational progress of the organisation and its work. The same may be said of the range of responsibilities conferred on the authority by this and previous legislation. This was also the subject of a proposed amendment in another place, but I do not believe that a change is necessary and I am glad that the hon. Member for Midlothian did not press the point in his speech. I understand that the authority is confident that it can operate successfully within the present broad limits of its responsibilities, but, as with the financial arrangements, I think that this matter should be kept under review so that, after the new trading fund comes into operation, it does not find that it is inhibited in pursuing commercially viable research and development opportunities.
  My second point concerns the authority's underlying research programme, much of which takes place at Harwell. I do not share the scepticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) about this work. It costs £20 million plus a year, and of course this is a time of excessive financial constraint in resources for science.
  I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the early-day motion on the "Save British Science" campaign now before the House. Consequently the authority's research budget has attracted the beady eyes of other scientists. But I was privileged to take part in what I believe was the first ever visitation of Harwell and Culham by the Advisory Board on Research Councils in 1983, and all the grand panjandrums there assembled were, I am glad to say, impressed by what they saw. I understand that negotiations about the proposed levy to finance the authority's underlying research are virtually completed. I hope that BNFL and the CEGB, as well as the Department of Energy, will show the right support for this work.
  Thirdly I wish to focus on the position of the authority's staff, many of whom are my constituents. I support the idea of employee participation mentioned by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) and I think that the authority will stay in the vanguard of progressive employers in that regard. But I think that it is dangerous to overload the new trading fund with additional requirements just as it is getting off to a delicate start.
  On the other hand, I believe that the hon. Member for Midlothian is right about the important issue of pay and conditions. I see problems emerging, especially in the ability of the authority to "recruit, retain and motivate" staff of the right calibre. I can testify to the fact that motivation is high; but the ability to retain good staff is declining. Over the past two years there has been a sharp increase in the quit rate at the Atomic Energy Authority, and it has doubled at Harwell over the past two years, expecially among the younger staff and notably in computing and electronics. The difficulty of retaining staff spills over into recruitment, because there is a loss of the skilled and experienced staff required to train recruits who are often taken in with inadequate training from the schools or universities.
  I welcome "supplementary payments" as a way of addressing this problem, but they cannot be extended and multiplied indefinitely. I am pleased to say the they are not yet the subject of resentment within the authority—but they could become so. There is also a danger that we shall end up with a byzantine pay structure. More important is the introduction of unified grading. This will end the existing pay discrimination between administrative, professional, technical and scientific grades.

  231
  I was pleased to be able to give some parliamentary support to that work, but I am disappointed about what appears to be the long lead time that is being envisaged for the introduction of unified grading. I understand that four years is envisaged for engineers and five years for the scientists and scientific officers. I think that this is too long, and I hope that the Government will attempt to shorten that time.
  The Bill and the whole concept of a trading fund challenge all those who work in the Atomic Energy Authority to take full advantage of the greater freedom they will have to operate commercially. In due course, this new freedom is bound to raise the question of the costs and benefits to the authority and its employees of the long-established link between authority and Civil Service pay and conditions. That link has no statutory basis. It is a matter of custom and practice, and I believe that there may be advantages for all concerned if the link were to be phased out. That could offer greater flexibility to management and the prospect of greater reward for the staff. Of course we must enter the caveat that, in a commercial situation, salaries can fall as well as rise in value.
  The main point is that in a commercial situation closer links can be established between performance and reward. That is what the Bill and the trading fund it establishes are all about.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. John Evans: I express sceptical neutrality about the Bill. Two miles from my home in the village of Culcheth sits the headquarters of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and, together with the headquarters of BNFL, there are thousands of people employed in the industry who work on that site, including my son. The headquarters was in my constituency for 10 years, until parliamentary redistribution. Although it is no longer in my constituency, many hundreds of my constituents work at the Atomic Energy Authority. I frequently meet the workers—manual, non-manual, scientific and others—at the Daten social club in the village, and it is fair to say that the view of the work force at all levels in Culcheth and Risley is one of sceptical neutrality.
  There is some pleasure at the fact that the authority is not being privatised, although there is some bewilderment as to why the Manley report was not published in full. I raised that matter in an intervention with the Minister. I think the main reason the report was not published was that the Government decided that it was not in their interest to publish it because the arguments against privatisation were strong, if not overwhelming. It would probably have given us ammunition to use against other privatisation measures.
  It is a pity that the report has not been published. The people who work in the industry are upset that it has not been published, because non-publication precludes a full and proper debate in Parliament and in the country about not only the future of the authority but the future of nuclear power. That is a pity, because one of the reasons for the declining support in the concept of nuclear power is the inordinate secrecy and bureaucracy that surrounds the industry. It is no good the Minister shaking his head. I have met that time after time, not only under this Government but under my own. I shall be even-handed in my criticism of the Department of Energy and not merely make a party political point.
  232
  The excessive use of the Official Secrets Act 1911 bedevils the industry. There will be no change in that respect. All the employees of the industry will still be covered by that Act but the nuclear power industry requires more openness and less secrecy. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) about the debate and vote at the Labour party conference. He seemed to want to make a debating point. He should be as concerned about the vote as I was because many unions which have always voted in favour of nuclear power are moving away from it. That is to be deplored. The reason for the shift in attitudes should concern us all, because there is a growing fear about the future use of nuclear power in the country.
  The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) described the proposal to bury nuclear waste in Billingham as a threat. He did not tell us why it was a threat. It is that sort of fear which people are beginning to express, and on which they are not receiving answers that is damaging public support for nuclear power.
  Many issues could be raised on the Bill. It is a tragedy that the House rarely debates nuclear power. The last major debate in which I took part was in 1974 when we debated the choice of a nuclear reactor. We have not debated the issue from that day to this. It cannot be said that the House bores itself or involves itself heavily in a subject that is of great concern to all our constituents.
  I am concerned about the fact that the Bill will reduce parliamentary scrutiny. I am worried about clause 7 for I suspect that we shall lose the power of parliamentary scrutiny in other areas. That is likely to happen at a time when there should be much more parliamentary scrutiny of the activities of the nuclear power industry.
  I am concerned about clause 6, which appears to give enormous powers to the Secretary of State to direct the new authority. I am not sure whether the actions of the Secretary of State will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, but perhaps the Minister will tell us when he replies. The clause will strengthen the Secretary of State's powers and weaken Parliament's.
  The Minister has told us that there will be an annually agreed programme letter between the authority—presumably its contractors—and the Department of Energy. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether Parliament will get a glimpse of the letter. Parliament and the people are entitled to know the contents of such documents.
  Will the Bill clear up the doubt and uncertainty that has bedevilled the nuclear power industry for so many years? I suggest that the industry has been clouded and bedevilled with doubt since the 1960s, when the initial AGR programme was first agreed. Since then we have had nothing but twists and turns. There have been a succession of Secretaries of State under different Governments but no Secretary of State has cleared up the doubts and uncertainties about the industry.
  We are nowhere near the integrated energy policy that we used to talk about 20 or 25 years ago. In that context, I suggest that the Bill represents a lost opportunity of considerable proportions. It could have formed a key role in the creation of a new energy authority that would have led to an integrated energy policy. Surely that would have been better for the nation and the people. It would be far better to establish an energy authority which would move

  233
  towards the introduction of an integrated fuel policy than to continue the piecemeal methods that have been adopted so far, which include privatising British Gas, crucifying the coal industry over the past two or three years, leaving the North sea depletion rate to market forces and the measure that is before us, which will establish a hybrid organisation for the Atomic Energy Authority.
  If we were prepared to move towards such an energy authority, the UKAEA would have tremendous responsibility in the light of its expertise in so many areas, apart from those that relate directly to nuclear power. It has the ability and the skilled scientific and engineering forces to allow it to develop new techniques in biofuels and wave power. A new area could be opened up to us if we approached these matters with some imagination rather than what appear to be excuses on the part of Department of Energy Ministers due to their inability to privatise the authority.
  If we moved down that track, we would be able to kill a notion which has developed over the past three or four years, which is that the Government are determined to increase the capacity of the nuclear power industry so that the coal industry can be wound down. The Minister will probably deny that that is the Government's intention, and he will probably be right to do so, but he cannot deny that the feeling which I have described has grown considerably over the past few years. It was seen as an additional reason for the resolution which was agreed to at last year's Labour party conference. There is a feeling that nuclear power will be used by the Conservative Government to help further to run down the coal industry. That is not true, and it has never been true, for there is a great future for coal, but the future of the coal industry would be better served if there were a clearer understanding among the public of the part that nuclear power will have to play in our energy policy.
  It is essential that the research and development capability of the authority is not hindered in any way. It must be accepted that R and D is extremely expensive and that it rarely results in a return of capital, but I trust that there will be no suggestion that the vital research and development that goes on within the authority will not be diminished by any reduction of the funds that are made available to it by the Department. Such a reduction would be a disaster for the authority and a further nail in the coffin of public confidence in the industry.
  The disposal of nuclear waste is paramount in the minds of many. Various methods have been used in the past—dumping at sea, storage tanks and burying within dry land sites—but they are proving increasingly unacceptable to many people. It is all very well to talk about foreign countries and the percentage share of nuclear power of their energy industries, but the evidence is that the populations of other countries are becoming increasingly concerned about waste disposal. There must be further massive research into disposal. We shall not solve the problem by trying to find a few more dry land sites where the waste can be buried, unless we can find a desert somewhere which is population-free.
  For far too long the work force of the authority has been subject to the whims of various departmental decisions, and often to the whims of the authority's board and the decisions that it has made. It is essential that the wages, terms and conditions of service and job security of the
  234
  employees, both manual and non-manual, are safeguarded. I trust that the proposed new format for the authority will not initiate a rush to privatisation methods that will lead to putting all the cleaning staff, canteen staff and maintenance staff out to private contractors, who will pay lower wages and offer inferior conditions.
  I should be grateful if the Minister would say something about those who have no great skills and no degrees as well as those who are highly qualified scientists, or others who work at the highest levels within the authority. We must realise that the lifestyle and the quality of life of those with lesser skills and qualifications depend on their employment, and continued employment, within the authority.
  If the Bill is suitably amended, I suspect that it will prove to provide a new dawn for the authority. Handled correctly—I doubt very much whether it will be—it could mark a new beginning. The authority needs a new beginning, because for too long it has been stifled. I hope that it will enjoy one, but I rather suspect—I hope that I am proved wrong—that the Bill is the first step in what the Government hope will be a successful march to privatisation once they have the measure on the statute book.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. David Maclean: Civil nuclear power has become an essential and established part of Britain's energy requirements. By 1984, more than 18 per cent. of electricity supplied in the United Kingdom came from a nuclear source. Jobs in the United Kingdom nuclear industry—I use the term in its widest sense—total about 100,000. I make no apology to the hon. Member for St. Helen's, North (Mr. Evans) for introducing a political note when I questioned the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). It is ironic that they should question some of the minutiae of the Bill and the detailed terms and conditions of employment for the Atomic Energy Authority's staff.
  If the motion passed by an overwhelming majority six months ago at the Labour party conference takes effect, we shall have no nuclear power programme. All nuclear plants will be phased out. That is a political fact and I make no apologies for mentioning it. There would certainly be no concerns about the details of safety as there would be no nuclear power.
  When the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) says that we will not divide the House and we will monitor the progress of the Bill, he should make it clear whether that "we" refers to the Social Democratic party or to the whole of the alliance. As I understand it, the Liberal party policy is to phase out nuclear power and have fluidised bed systems.
  The hon. Member for St. Helen's, North (Mr. Evans) is correct when he says that there have been doubts and uncertainties for many years under all Governments. These doubts and uncertainties are not fuelled by Conservative Members who believe in nuclear power and how essential that is. It is fuelled by the doubts expressed by Opposition parties and their intrinsic hostility to nuclear energy.
  The proportion of nuclear electricity in this country will exceed 18 per cent. and reach 21 per cent. when the three new nuclear power stations most recently linked to the national grid reach full power. There will be a further increase to 25 per cent. when stations now under construction are completed.

  235
  All of that has been achieved within an excellent record on nuclear power so why is there a need for a change? There are sound commercial advantages to the Bill. The move towards a more commercial style of management will offer the industry greater opportunities both for its own development and for the work it undertakes. The plan contained in the Bill will mean that cash surpluses earned by the authority will be invested in the future of the organisation's business. The main sphere of the authority's work will continue to be research and the support of the United Kingdom nuclear power programme, and it will also continue to act as the main adviser to Government.
  A balanced energy strategy for the United Kingdom must take full account of the need for diverse fuel supplies, and that is crucial in view of the events of the past two years. We all know that it would be unwise to base Britain's electricity generation upon a single fuel. At the moment the United Kingdom electricity system is dominated by coal-fired generators. Under such circumstances there is a definite need and an important role for a cost-effective nuclear component. Nuclear power, as we all know, offers a safe, clean, cheap and secure source of electricity. Most major electricity utilities in the world have decided that nuclear technology is the most cost-effective means of meeting future generation needs.
  Nuclear research and development will become increasingly important as the world energy market expands and as nuclear power will not be the only possible solution to energy needs. Therefore, it is essential that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is at the forefront of any progress made in that important scientific field.
  That brings me to several important questions which I hope my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy will consider in his summing up. These questions relate to Dounreay. I have a personal interest in Dounreay as I have family in that part of the world. I also have a constituency interest as I believe that most of the fuel moved between Sellafield and Dounreay may be transported through my constituency.
  The fast reactor and the fuel cycle project are vital to this country. I believe that £100 million worth of business is tied up in that research project. Britain is at the forefront of that technology although, as one wag said at the nuclear forum I attended recently, we ought not to be in the forefront, we should be second and therefore do it better. That is why the Americans are so successful.
  My particular questions concerning Dounreay are as follows. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the project will be an integrated European collaborative project or is there any possibility that the United Kingdom may try to go it alone?
  Will my hon. Friend comment on people's worries about discharges into the Pentland firth? Will the discharges be as low as at Sellafield, or will they be as low as they will be at Sellafield? My hon. Friend will know that millions of pounds are being spent at the reprocessing plant at Sellafield on drastically reducing discharges into the Solway firth and the Irish sea.
  Will my hon. Friend comment on the transport of nuclear fuel? Will there be any substantial changes to transport arrangements, whether by land, sea or air which already exist between Dounreay and Sellafield and which have worked most effectively without any hazard for the past 30 years?
  The Dounreay project is very important to Britain. I hope my hon. Friend will deal with these questions and
  236
  that he thinks it appropriate to deal with them in relation to the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend can allay some of these worries which are causing unnecessary anxiety locally. If he manages to do that then both sides of the House should welcome this admirable Bill.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Eadie: I had thought that the Minister was going to reply first. I wanted to hear his answers to the points that have already been raised.
  Some Conservative Members seem to act in the spirit of the best anti-nuclear lobby in this country. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) that those Conservative Members would frighten the people of this country to death when they start to talk about privatisation and passing over research and development and technology into the hands of private industry.
  It is wrong to say that people are not concerned about the effluent associated with nuclear power stations. One is living in cloud cuckoo land if one imagines that there is a great enthusiasm on the people's part about nuclear power and that they are not concerned about the hazards and dangers of nuclear power.
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has been doing a lot of research and development work. People have some confidence in that organisation because of its record, but then Conservative Members say that we should consider passing the whole thing to private enterprise. At least the Minister did not say that but it is important that he makes some comment on that.
  Of course there should have been some discussion in the Bill about the non-nuclear research aspect of the activities of the authority. The whole question and philosophy of research and development, the idea that one can have research and development on the cheap, that one can forecast the developments that will arise and that they will be cheap, and the philosophy that one can always back winners is wrong, because if one always backs winners there will be no research and development. The purpose of research and development is to make discoveries. Sometimes there are disappointments and work and research must commence again.
  As my hon. Friends have said, there is a good opportunity to change the whole direction of the authority in the Bill. There may be an opportunity in Committee to improve the Bill. We may have the chance to lay to rest for ever the ghost of privatisation and give the enthusiasm which the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) mentioned through the authorities to the people who work there. I must say that I have not seen that great enthusiasm in the people that I met.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Goodlad: I should like to take up the more important points raised in this helpful debate. Hon. Members have mentioned the publication of the Manley report. As the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) will know from his very distinguished term of office in Room 1255 at the Department of Energy, it is not normal practice to publish confidential advice to Ministers. The conclusions and recommendations of the report are summarised fully in the press notice issued by the Department of Energy on 3 October 1984, a copy of which

  237
  was placed in the Library of the House. We should not have been able to have such a full, interesting and helpful debate today without that report.
  The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) mentioned the ghost of privatisation and asked me about the significance of clause 3(3) of the Bill which gives the Secretary of State power to reduce the authority's borrowing limit if a body ceases to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the authority. That does not have the sinister intent that the hon. Gentleman may imagine. As he can see from clause 3(1), the borrowings of any wholly owned subsidiary of the authority count towards the borrowing limit but those of any body in which the Atomic Energy Authority has less than a 100 per cent. stake do not, unless the borrowing is guaranteed. That is in line with general nationalised industry practice.
  The authority has no wholly owned subsidiaries at present, but if, for the sake of argument, one was set up to exploit a nuclear invention and it was decided that some private venture capital should be introduced to help the development and to aid the transfer of technology, the company would cease to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the authority and under clause 3(1) the borrowings of such a company would cease to count against the borrowing limit, even though the authority remained a shareholder. The Secretary of State might then wish to reduce the authority's borrowing limit by an amending order.
  With regard to the chairmanship, the Secretary of State is concerned to ensure that the best possible person is appointed to succeed Mr. Allen. The role of the chairman is important, especially in view of the changes being made in the authority's operations. The urgency of the matter is fully recognised and I expect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make an announcement shortly, certainly before the start of the trading fund.
  The hon. Member for Midlothian mentioned the authority's fusion activities which started during his tenure of office as a Minister. He also referred to the JET project. The Government remain committed to that project. As I said in my statement early last year, a substantial programme will be maintained at the authority's own laboratory at Culham.
  On pay and conditions for all staff employed by the authority, I agree that these must be sufficient to enable the authority to recruit and retain staff. The contract of employment for non-industrial employees includes a provision that pay and conditions should be no less favourable than those for analogous grades in the Civil Service, due allowance being made for factors peculiar to the authority. It would not be for the Government to suggest any change in those arrangements. They are a matter for the authority and its staff side. I assure hon. Members, however, that the Department has no intention of imposing specific cash limits on the authority's salaries and wages bill.
  Nuclear safety, as I said in opening the debate, is of the utmost importance and it will in no way be adversely affected by the move to a trading fund. The British nuclear industry has an excellent safety record—more than a quarter of a century of safe, civil nuclear power. In no other industry, I believe, has so much time and money been devoted to safety, and rightly so. We expect the authority to continue its contribution to maintaining high standards of nuclear safety in this country. The
  238
  Government attach importance to the authority's independent capability in this area and we expect to fund some £20 million of safety-related research and development by the authority in 1986–87.
  With regard to the 5 per cent. return and its relationship with the commencing date, I confirm that we expect the commencing capital debt to be about £80 million. Servicing a debt of that size and the additional working capital required for the trading fund could cost the authority some £10 million per year, depending on interest rates. The financial target of a 5 per cent. return on current cost capital employed at £250 million would be achieved if the authority could declare a profit of about £12·5 million before interest: it is in no sense a surcharge on the authority. It is merely a target profit out of which the authority will pay interest on its debts.
  The hon. Member for Midlothian and the hon. Member for Stockton South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) and others mentioned consultation on plans and programmes. The consultation arrangements are based on the joint bodies—the authority Whitley council for non-industrial employees and the National Joint Industrial Council for industrial employees. These bodies consider and discuss annually reports on the authority's present and future programmes and take regular reports on programme developments and plans at each establishment. The authority does not expect the operation of the trading fund to require any major changes to its procedures for consultation and negotiation with the staff and trade union sides.
  The new corporate planning procedures associated with the trading fund will require a new approach and the authority recently put detailed proposals to the staff and trade union sides. These allow for discussion of the authority's annual medium-term corporate plan, which sets out detailed business plans for the next five years, and for a staff and trade union side input into the authority's strategic review, to be carried out every other year starting this year, which will determine a broad strategic framework for 10 years ahead.
  The hon. Member for Midlothian mentioned management for the fast reactor programme. I assure him that the change to a trading fund will in no way affect the management of that crucial programme. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the fast reactor reprocessing application, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). I cannot comment on the merits of the specific proposal, which will be the subject of the public inquiry starting in April. Hon. Members may recall, however, the open letter which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the chairman of the authority on 21 May last year, in which he said that the Government considers that the fast reactor, which is 50 times more efficient in the use of uranium than thermal reactors, will be of major strategic significance for the United Kingdom and the world's future energy supplies. The United Kingdom is among world leaders in this technology as a result of the successful research and development programme undertaken by the Atomic Energy Authority at Dounreay.
  The Government also recognise that substantial resources are needed to achieve commercialisation and that some international sharing of the cost is desirable. Since January 1984, the United Kingdom has been involved in research and development collaboration in Europe. To achieve the fast reactor's full potential,

  239
  commercial demonstration is required not only of the reactor but also of the fuel cycle. A demonstration reprocessing plant will therefore be needed. The United Kingdom is a strong contender for that plant and the Government see advantages in siting it in this country subject to the necessary planning, safety and environmental consents being granted. This will enable BNFL and the AEA to build on their long experience in this sphere. It will also provide job opportunities during construction and operation and potentially in the longer term.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border referred to safety. The safety of nuclear materials in transit is a matter for the Department of Transport, but in general safety is inherent in the package design and does not depend for its effectiveness on the method of transport or on routeing considerations. My hon. Friend also referred to discharges. The AEA and BNFL have said in their planning applications that the quantities and activity levels of liquid discharges from Dounreay will not increase as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed plant. Discharges from the permitted establishment at Dounreay are less than 10 per cent. of existing authorised levels.
  The hon. Member for Stockton, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) raised the question of public dividend capital. The AEA does not meet the Government's usual criteria for public dividend capital, which is normally available only to public sector bodies subject to considerable fluctuations in returns due to their trading conditions and the nature of their assets—for example, British Shipbuilders. That is not the case with the AEA.
  The hon. Member for Midlothian and the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) referred to radioactive waste. The Government will continue to ensure that all necessary steps are taken for the safe management of the radioactive waste which already exists and that which may be created in future. The authority carries out extensive research and development programmes on the management of radioactive waste and other nuclear materials and I do not expect the United Kingdom nuclear programme to be affected by inadequate research in that area.
  The hon. Member for Stockton, South mentioned extending the authority's remit to other power and fuel sources. Under the Science and Technology Act 1965 the Secretary of State already has power to require the authority to undertake research and development in specific non-nuclear areas, which could include the production of fuels and power sources. Indeed, a requirement dating back as far as April 1974 already enables the authority
  "to undertake scientific research into the provision, distribution and use of energy resources and associated technology".
  A number of hon. Members asked how much money the underlying research levy would produce, whether it is enough for an adequate programme and whether it will affect the authority's competitive condition. The Department of Energy will be contributing more than £16 million in 1986–87 by a 10 per cent. levy on the nuclear research and development done under programme letters. With contributions from other customers, this should provide funds for an underlying research programme of about £25 million overall, which would be similar in size to the authority's present programme. I do not believe that these arrangements will have a significant effect on the authority's competitive position.
  240
  The hon. Member for St. Helens, North suggested that we should change the authority into an energy authority. We have no such plans. The authority review concluded that there was a continuing need in the United Kingdom for a body of expertise like the authority's. The authority's raison d'etre is high quality research and development. Its expertise has widened over the years since the Science and Technology Act 1965. It now covers many non-nuclear
  areas as well. We see no case for changing the role of the authority into that of an energy authority to run an integrated energy policy for the United Kingdom.
  The aims of the Government's energy policy are clear. There should be adequate and secure supplies of energy available and the supplies should be available in the forms that consumers want at the lowest practical long-term cost. The Government believe that those aims are best secured not by requiring the supply industries to follow an inflexible centrally imposed blueprint, but by responsiveness to market forces.
  I have tried to answer briefly the main points raised by hon. Members. If there are any points that I have missed, I shall endeavour to write to my hon. Friends, who have made knowledgeable speeches, before the Committee stage. I am conscious of the fact that we are trespassing on the time of the next debate.
  I remind the House that the purpose of the Bill is to place the authority on a trading fund basis from 1 April, with a revised capital structure and powers to borrow. We believe that that will encourage a more commercial approach and greater efficiency while preserving the key role of the authority as an independent United Kingdom source of high quality nuclear research and development. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

  Atomic Energy Authority Bill [Lords]

    ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Atomic Energy Authority Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—
    (1) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums required to enable the Secretary of State to make loans to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority ("the Authority"), subject to the limit that the aggregate amount outstanding in respect of—
    (a) money borrowed—

    (i) by the Authority or a wholly owned subsidiary of theirs, or

    (ii) for the repayment of which the Authority or a wholly owned subsidiary of theirs is a guarantor or surety

    other than money borrowed from a wholly owned subsidiary or from the Authority,
    (b) the Authority's commencing capital debt, and (c) sums issued by the Treasury in fulfilment of guarantees of borrowing by the Authority or their subsidiaries,
    shall not exceed £150 million or such greater sum not exceeding £200 million as the Secretary of State may specify by order;
    (2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required to fulfil guarantees given by the Treasury in respect of sums borrowed by the Authority or their subsidiaries;
    (3) the payment of sums into the National Loans Fund or Consolidated Fund.—[Durant.]

  Drug Trafficking Offences Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.12 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill offers us a sharp new weapon in the fight against drugs. Before I outline the thrust of the Bill and the advantages which we think that it will bring, I would like to say a few words about how it fits into our general strategy.
  Because drugs can degrade and destroy human beings in the most pitiless way, there is no strand of public policy more important than the fight against drugs. Our strategy is effectively overseen and co-ordinated by the interdepartmental ministerial group on the misuse of drugs, chaired by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. It is doing an admirable job.
  We have to tackle both supply and demand. Last year we stepped up action on both fronts. On the supply side, the key tasks are international co-operation, effective enforcement and deterrence. The United Kingdom has for many years worked energetically with others to reduce supplies of drugs from abroad. Last October, we announced further grants to help to reduce drug production and trafficking. They were directed particularly at opium poppy cultivation in Pakistan and cocaine production in Latin America. Both customs and the police are targeting substantially increased resources on the drug traffickers. For example, the number of customs specialist investigators has more than doubled since 1979 and is set to increase again. The appointment of a national drugs intelligence co-ordinator, Mr. Colin Hewett, has further enhanced the co-operation between the two services. Our determination to strengthen deterrence is exemplified in the Bill.
  On the demand side, up to £8 million has been set aside for our continuing successful national prevention compaigns, which include television advertising, posters, leaflets for parents, videos for professionals and young people, and action in the schools. Extra resources have been provided to expand treatment and rehabilitation services for drug misusers, including a further £5 million a year through the health authorities from April.
  It is fair to claim that this strategy is producing results. In 1985 customs seized a record £107 million-worth of drugs and smashed more than 70 drug rings. Police seizures have also risen rapidly, and so have convictions for trafficking offences. An independent evaluation of our prevention publicity suggests that it has made young people more aware of the harmful effects of drugs, such as heroin, and has stiffened their resolve to say no to drugs.
  Those are clearly encouraging signs, but the situation remains serious. I would be quite wrong if I did not warn the House that the drugs problem in the United Kingdom could continue for a while to get worse before it gets better. The world is awash with drugs, and we may see an increase in the number of traffickers and misusers. We can reasonably expect price and purity levels to remain fairly static. The number of seizures and arrests are likely to increase as the efforts and effectiveness of the police and customs continue to improve.
  242
  Heroin will continue to be our main problem, and there are signs that as Pakistan has more success in cracking down on the traffickers, so the source for smuggling heroin into the United Kingdom shifts to its neighbours in south-west Asia. The cocaine explosion which has been forecast by some commentators has not materialised, but we need to remain especially alert in view of the massive quantities that are being produced in Latin America. We should also worry about the scale of illegal manufacture and import of amphetamines, which are widely available to youngsters on the streets at affordable prices. Fortunately the "designer" and synthetic drugs which have appeared in the United States of America are still almost unknown in the United Kingdom, although LSD is becoming more common.
  The Bill fits firmly into our strategy. By attacking the profits made from drug trafficking, we intend to make it much less attractive to enter the trade. We intend to help guard against the possibility that the profits from one trafficking operation will be used to finance others, and, not least, to remove the sense of injury which ordinary people are bound to feel at the idea of traffickers, who may have ruined the lives of children, having the benefit of the profits that they have made from doing so.
  Those matters are urgent and imperative—and they stand at the top of our list of legislative priorities. Accordingly, the Bill deals only with drug trafficking offences and not with other profitable types of crime. There is, of course, a case for making corresponding provisions for other sorts of crime. Several hon. Members have already suggested to me that this Bill should do so. The 1984 report of the Howard League committee, chaired by Mr. Justice Hodgson, to which we are indebted for many of the ideas in the Bill, made recommendations —most of which it believed should be generally applied. As a Government, we are committed to the idea of attacking the profits of crime in a way that goes beyond drugs offences, and we shall have to return to the subject. We have, however, judged it best to deal with drugs offences and other offences separately. Perhaps they should also be dealt with differently, but that is a matter for another day. In any case, the Bill has been prepared solely as a basis for dealing with drug traffickers and it should be judged in that light. The Government will want to pause and reconsider before seeking to extend any of the Bill's provisions to other offences.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Hodgson committee recommended that powers should be introduced to enable the courts to confiscate the proceeds of crime, or money representing the proceeds of crime, not in the circumstances which the Bill rightly postulates, but to reduce the prison population? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those constructive proposals in that context should be considered for early legislation?
  Mr. Hurd: There is an argument for that, as one would expect with a proposal that came from the Howard League. We will think hard about it, although not necessarily from the point of view which Mr. Justice Hodgson argued. I suggest that we postpone that discussion to another day and concentrate tonight on this Bill, which deals only with drug offences.
  We need the legislation, because the forfeiture powers in existing law have proved inadequate. The courts cannot

  243
  order the forfeiture of the proceeds of an offence once they have been converted into another asset—a house, stocks and shares, or valuables of any sort. The Operation Julie case was the most notorious example of the courts being unable to deprive convicted traffickers, as they wished, of the proceeds of their offences. Let me give an example.
  In August last year, a group of five offenders were convicted at the Crown court at Maidstone of the importation of heroin with a street value of £2 million. They were sentenced to a total of 146 years' imprisonment. Before passing sentence, the judge inquired into the assets of one of the principals. It emerged that this offender, while awaiting trial, had transferred all his property to his wife. She had then sold the house, put the money into a building society and left the country. The judge was satisfied that the house had been bought partly from the proceeds of drug smuggling, and said that he would have liked to order the confiscation of the money in the building society; he regretted that he had no power to do so.
  The Bill is designed to remedy those defects. It will provide powers for courts to confiscate proceeds even after they have been converted into some other type of asset; it will provide for the restraint of a defendant's property to prevent him from disposing of it before the end of his trial; and in certain circumstances it will allow property placed in other people's names to be confiscated, along with the offender's.
  We have only a short time for the debate, and I do not wish to take up too much of it. The proposals in the Bill were described in a statement which we placed in the Library of the House in November, and they have been widely publicised since then. Therefore, I need not go through the Bill clause by clause. Instead, I shall point out some of the new elements in the Bill to show how they will contribute to our aim of stripping traffickers of their illegal gains.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: It would help the House if the Home Secretary mentioned clause 3. What consideration has he given to the protection of innocent dependants when it comes to stripping the convicted trafficker of his assets?
  Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, I shall deal with that point later. If I do not deal with it to his satisfaction, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will certainly do so.
  Under clauses 1 to 4, the Crown court will in future be required to determine, in the case of every person convicted of a drug trafficking offence, whether he has benefited from drug trafficking and, if he has, to impose a confiscation order to deprive him of the entire proceeds of his trafficking in so far as they can be assessed. This will be in addition to his ordinary sentence, and will apply not simply to the proceeds of the offence of which he has just been convicted, but to those of his entire trafficking career. Of course, those proceeds will not always be easy to assess. That is because what his legitimate income has been, and which of his assets have been legitimately acquired, are matters which are especially within his knowledge and which cannot easily be determined by others.
  Therefore, we propose in clause 2 that courts should be able to assume that the whole of an offender's property, together with any assets which have passed through his
  244
  hands in the previous five years, represent the proceeds of trafficking, except in so far as he shows otherwise. That provision has attracted special attention. This reversal of the burden of proof will apply only after conviction: the prosecution will still have to prove the offender's guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the normal way.
  We have in addition provided in clause 4 that assets which the defendant has transferred to others for less than full value should also be liable to confiscation, if the transfer took place within the previous five years, or if the property can be shown to represent the proceeds of drug trafficking. It would be an obvious and unacceptable loophole if the trafficker could avoid confiscation by putting the proceeds of his offence into the name of his wife, brother or friend. But such third parties — this should deal with the hon. Gentleman's point — must have a right to put their case, and we have specifically provided in clause 9 for them to make representations to the High Court before confiscation is enforced.
  Just as important as provision for a realistic assessment of the trafficker's proceeds will be provision for effective enforcement. We propose in clauses 9 to 11 that all the authority and experience of the High Court should be available for this purpose. If necessary, a receiver will be appointed to realise the available property. I should point out that any of the offender's property will be liable to confiscation, not simply that which is derived from drug trafficking. Thus, if an offender has spent or salted away his drug income, and kept to hand only his legitimate assets, those assets will be seized instead. If an offender is tempted to keep assets beyond the reach of the receiver, he will face up to 10 years' imprisonment in default of payment.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I am worried about the concept of sales for less than full value. One can imagine many circumstances in which a drug trafficker, for reasons of his own, puts his house on the market and tells the estate agent to get as much as he can quickly. That may be a sale for less than full value. In those circumstances, do the provisions of the Bill mean that the purchaser, who will be completely innocent, will have to apply to the court and meet the costs even of a successful application?
  Mr. Hurd: I always hesitate to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman off the cuff, because he always poses pertinent and rather difficult questions. If it could be shown—as it could be in the case which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned—that there was a bona fide transaction, I think that the purchaser of the house would be in the clear. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will reflect on that during the evening and will deal with it in his reply.
  The new powers to confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking are at the heart of the Bill, but they are not all that is required. That is why the Bill includes important new powers to help the police and customs trace the proceeds of drug trafficking, and for the courts to freeze them pending the outcome of the trial.
  Under clauses 18 to 20, the police and customs will be able to apply to a circuit judge for authority to examine bank accounts, financial records, and other important material at an early stage of a drug trafficking investigation — indeed, as soon as they can satisfy the judge that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a named person is involved in, or has benefited from, drug

  245
  trafficking and that the material in question is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation. There is a balance to be struck here, which we have spent some time considering, and we are stopping short of random checks or mere fishing expeditions.
  We must further help to ensure that proceeds are not disposed of before the end of the trial. Therefore, we are introducing into criminal law procedures already tried and tested in civil law. From about the time of the defendant's arrest, clause 6 gives the High Court the power to make a restraint order—similar to a civil Mareva injunction—freezing property which might later be needed to satisfy a confiscation order. It will also be able to make charging orders in respect of land or securities, to the same end.
  Another especially important feature of the Bill is the new offence of assisting another to retain the benefit of drug trafficking—in common parlance, laundering. That is a serious activity, for which we propose a maximum sentence of 14 years' imprisonment. As laundering is defined in the Bill as a drug trafficking offence, those guilty will be subject to its confiscation procedures.
  The Bill relates to England and Wales, but we intend shortly to introduce legislation for Scotland and Northern Ireland, and for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Of course, we must be able to chase proceeds further than that, because they do not stop at the boundaries of the United Kingdom. Therefore, we shall seek the widest possible range of agreements on mutual enforcement with other countries. The Bill will provide the framework in English law for such international agreements.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I understand from the Solicitor-General for Scotland that Scottish judges have some powers to compensate. If those powers are available in Scotland, why is it necessary to introduce such legislation? I do not say that we should not have the legislation, but I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman believes that we need it.
  Mr. Hurd: A hasty consultation suggests that in Scotland there is a power to fine but not to confiscate. That matter needs to be further considered among the Scots. Today we are dealing with a Bill which covers England and Wales.
  I hope that I have said enough about the Bill to show how we have approached confiscation as a system rather than as an isolated procedure. We have not looked at the moment, at the end of a trafficker's trial, when the judge orders how much the offender must pay. The comprehensive approach set out in the Bill begins with the examination of financial dealings early in the investigation. It moves logically through restraint of property pending the outcome of the trial and provides the basis for a realistic assessment of the amount of the trafficker's proceeds after conviction. It ends with the enforcement of the confiscation order against property in the hands of the offender or his associates, in this country or abroad. In some areas, we have had to break completely new ground. In others, we have been able to draw on procedures established in civil law and harness the experience of the High Court for the purposes of this legislation.
  I hope the House will agree that in total we have worked out a machinery which still lies firmly within the boundaries of what we in this counry regard as acceptable
  246
  and just but which will enable the confiscation of proceeds to play a major part in out continuing crucial battle against the trafficker. I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Robin Corbett: The Home Secretary has given his usual accomplished explanation of the need and purpose of the Bill. I make it quite clear to the House that the Opposition do not wish to delay or impede the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and many other Opposition Members have warned for a long time about the growing horrors of rising addiction.
  There has been an explosion in drug smuggling and addiction, especially in heroin and cocaine, during the last four or five years. It is putting a generation of young people at risk and it is doing great social damage. It demands draconian action against those who make fortunes out of this vile, destructive trade. I anticipate that the Home Secretary and his colleagues will agree with me when I say that most young people, their parents, voluntary workers, teachers, those in the medical and caring professions, the police and customs officers are among those who insist that a better attempt should be made to stem the tide of cocaine and heroin that is reaching these shores and finding, in my view, too easy access to them. There must be no easy hiding place for either the traffickers, their money or their assets. Every stringent, sensible step needs to be taken to secure this end. This Bill is part of that process.
  The Home Secretary referred to the Operation Julie exercise. Assets estimated at £750,000 were identified and converted at that stage into French chateaux, Krugerrands and gold bars in a Swiss vault. That case reached the House of Lords, which had to rule, with considerable regret, that the courts had no powers that would enable them to get their hands on these items which had been purchased with the profits from trafficking.
  I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to the committee, chaired on behalf of the Howard League for Penal Reform by Mr. Justice Hodgson, which inquired into the profits of crime and their recovery. I pay tribute also to the work on that committee of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) who served with such independent distinction upon it.
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman did not agree with what the committee said.
  Mr. Corbett: That is why I said that my hon. Friend served on that committee with independent distinction. That report, and the interim report last year of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, provides the basis for the Bill.
  Traffickers take part in this trade because the profits are so gigantic. Great fortunes are to be made from drug dependency. The degradation to which it leads is now openly to be seen on the streets of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol and other big cities. That applies also to glue sniffing and solvent abuse. It is almost as though large parts of our young society are at war with themselves and with society generally. These young, wrecked, hopeless lives bear testimony to where the profits of trafficking come from and what they cost in human terms. The misery, degradation, estrangement from family and home and broken lives result in the walking corpses who

  247
  provide the luxury life styles for the "Mr. Bigs" in the drugs trade. It is almost, with sustained and severe addiction, as though the just living envy the just dead.
  It is not only the profits that attract the traffickers to the fast fortunes that are available. They do it because, like other criminals, they assess the risks and work out the odds on them and others working with them of being caught. It gives me no pleasure to have to say to the Home Secretary that drug smuggling is now Britain's fastest growing industry. In the United Kingdom the odds regrettably favour the drug smugglers because our defences have been dangerously lowered since 1980. Page 141 of the Hodgson report says:
  "Detecting movement of 'dirty money' out of the United Kingdom has become much more difficult since the abolition of exchange control."
  That must be so. To the extent that the Bill remedies that position and provides powers to raid bank accounts and records of financial institutions, I welcome it. It will put right that deficiency.
  Again I have to say to the Home Secretary and his colleagues that, despite any juggling with the figures, there are fewer customs officers now on the front line of our defences. That must almost inevitably mean that more drugs get through. Even impressive seizures by customs —an estimated eight out of every 10 come from cold searches at ports of entry — and drugs seized by the police indicate not so much success in this war but, in my view, failure. I do not put all the responsibility for that upon the Government, but I certainly put part of the responsibility for it upon them.
  Even the best estimates claim that only about one fifth of smuggled drugs are detected. Others would put the figure lower than that. However, heavier hauls by Customs and police may also indicate that more drugs are getting into this country. In other words, it could be a rising percentage of a rising amount. Between 1978–79 and 1984–85 there was an increase of one third in the number of passengers arriving at our air and sea ports. The total was about 42 million. There was also a rise of 9·5 per cent. in the number of cars and drivers and a massive rise in the number of container lorries. The Home Secretary mentioned that there is evidence of increased attempts to smuggle drugs into this country on lorries. However, precisely at the time when this was happening there was a net cut of 11·5 per cent. in the strength of Customs and Excise. I accept that not all these cuts are on the drugs enforcement side, but it is indicative of the Government's approach until now. The number of customs officers has fallen from 28,800 in 1978–79 to 25,300 in 1984–85. There is a target of 25,500—that is, an extra 200 officers—by 1 April 1986 and it is planned that a level of 26,000 should be reached by 1 April 1988.
  I have to remind the Home Secretary that Mr. Sandy Russell, a customs commissioner, told the Select Committee on Home Affairs on 11 December 1985: "next year"—
  that is, 1986—
  "the position on the preventive uniformed force at the ports and airports will be just a little under the figure it was in 1979."
  In practice that means there has been a 30 per cent. cut in uniformed officers, and that is against the background of an increase of about 10 times in heroin smuggling and an increase in cocaine smuggling of three times since 1979.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House the source of his statistics? Is he
  248
  certain that he is correct? I ask because on 12 December last year I put down a written question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking how many customs officers were employed on drug detection duties over the previous 12 months. I accept that the hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that he was quoting overall figures and not just the figures for officers engaged in drug detection duties. In my written question I also asked what number the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated would be so engaged in the coming years. The reply was,
  "1 April 1985, 2,823; 1 April 1986, 3,000; 1 April 1987, 3,300".—[Official Report, 12 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 771.]
  Therefore, the number of officers appears to be increasing, not decreasing as the hon. Gentleman appears to claim.
  Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he has made the point. I do not want to waste the time of the House by bandying figures about. I say he has made the point because no one can deny that from 1979 until lately—let me put it broadly like that—there has been a decrease in the number of uniformed custom officers on duty at ports of entry. Broadly speaking, that means there has been a lowering of customs cover.
  As I said, that has coincided with a 10 times increase in heroin smuggling and an estimated three times increase in cocaine smuggling. I am not trying to make party points about this. I will try to put the point as flatly as I can. I am glad that the customs service seems to have the cash to provide more uniformed officers and more officers on the detection side in order to cope with the increasing amount of drugs, particularly cocaine and heroin, that are being smuggled into the country. That is progress; we can argue in another place about who did what and what they did not do and what they should have done earlier. There will be more officers in place. I welcome that, as I am sure does the whole House.
  Mr. Tom Sackville: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of customs officers in the green channel is not necessarily relevant as long as the green channels are manned? What is important is the number of customs investigators, and that has nothing to do with the number of uniformed officers. If the hon. Gentleman knows anything about the way in which large-scale drug importation is detected, that is what he ought to be saying.
  Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman ought to have a care about what he is saying, because he is going to tempt me into arguments which would be better put at the Committee stage. It is on the record that eight out of 10 seizures at, for example, Heathrow, are the result of cold stops—people coming through the green channel. On the intelligence and investigative side, the number of uniformed officers able to respond to intelligence is quite critical to the catch rate.
  I do not want to start a long discussion about this, because it does not help to get into an argument about whether uniformed people are better than the mobile squads or the investigative officers. I see that the Home Secretary is smiling. I am perfectly prepared to embark on such an argument, but I have an eye on the clock. Both uniformed and investigative officers are important. I sincerely believe—I am trying to put this in a flat way —that the lowering of the uniformed customs presence in red and green channels at ports of entry has not helped

  249
  in the war against drugs. That statement will probably not satisfy the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that we may pursue the detail in Committee.
  There is some evidence, part of which we heard in the Select Committee on Home Affairs, that because of the strength of the defence at airports such as Heathrow more attention by the traffickers is being given to the smaller ports around the east and south coasts as far down as Plymouth. I know the right hon. Gentleman is aware of that but I just want to remind him of it. It must be accepted that customs cover is not at the level we expect for the proper monitoring of the arrival and departure of yachts and other small boats. I do not want to make heavy weather of this point, because I know the Home Secretary is aware of it.
  At the moment there is a review of the work of immigration officers. This is a step before the customs officers come into the picture. The immigration service has accepted cuts and I understand that one of the proposals is to downgrade the status of some of the immigration officers, who are now at executive grade level, to clerical grade level. We in the Opposition are also interested in efficiency, but if proper consideration is not given to the move and adequate training provided before the change is made, we run the risk of lowering the quality of the important on-the-spot decisions which immigration officers are called upon to make at ports of entry. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to take that point on board.
  Hon. Members will agree that in the war against drugs words are not enough. Actions are needed and some of the actions are contained in the Bill. I should like to deal with three or four specific points. The proposed powers of confiscation are in clause 1. We share the view that the drug trafficker needs to be hit where it hurts most, and that is in his assets. There may be problems about the way in which the Bill is drafted, and the Minister may be able to deal with those when he is winding up.
  We are all united in aiming at removing the assets from the "Mr. Bigs" in this game. In that sense we are talking about the wholesaler, but I fear that the Bill will also trap the smaller user-dealer. Many if not most users also deal in drugs. In legal terms they supply drugs to help to finance their addiction, which for an addict is estimated to cost around £9,000 a year. In most cases theirs is a hand-to-mouth existence, and only rarely would the user-dealers have assets of any substantial value. As I read the Bill it is mandatory when someone appears before a Crown court for a sentence for confiscation orders to be made irrespective of the amount of the assets. Is that really the intention? If it is, might it not be more sensible if the Bill were to set a limit below which in relation to the assets, confiscation orders need not be made or, to turn the coin over, a level at which it is mandatory for the court to impose them?
  My second point about confiscation orders is that they can be imposed only in the wake of a drug trafficking offence. What is the position where a person sentenced claims that the assets arose from another illegal activity? Let us instance a bank robbery. In the Bill, confiscation orders relate only to drug trafficking offences, and that is for the reasons that the Home Secretary explained. It would appear that the undetected, uncharged and unconvicted bank robber could have those bank robbery assets left untouched. If that is so, it would seem to be
  250
  unsatisfactory. I am not experienced in these matters, but I am advised that many professional criminals run vertically integrated businesses; in other words, they are involved in a range of criminal activities and it would be difficult to establish with precision which profit had come from which activity. It is unlikely that the villains would voluntarily show the police their profit and loss accounts.
  Clause 15, the laundering clause, creates a new offence in which the burden of truth is put upon the accused. Subsection (3) sets out the grounds for defence, which show how the burden of truth is being moved. We are talking here possibly about a whole chain of people, many of them professionals such as accountants, lawyers, bankers, estate agents and so on. As I read the Bill, it is possible that some or all of those people could be convicted of the handling offence and get a sentence of up to 14 years while the trafficker escaped conviction because of lack of evidence. I cannot believe that that is right or is intended. In practice, it would mean that someone would go to jail because of another person's more serious offence.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: It happens all the time.
  Mr. Corbett: That does not make it right.
  Mr. Carlile: Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that a person who has committed a serious crime should not be proceeded against because there is insufficient evidence against someone who has committed a more serious and related crime? That is an absurd suggestion.
  Mr. Corbett: I was trying not to say that. Let us stick to the drug trafficker. If people were to be convicted of charges of handling and laundering and were to get a sentence of 14 years while the main offender got off, that would be very difficult for many people to understand. I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's point but, if I may say so with respect, it is a lawyer's point and I am trying to put the point of the man on the Clapham omnibus or the Erdington tram.
  Clause 18 deals with the making available of evidence and clause 19 gives authority to search for evidence. The Home Secretary said—in a side comment, I think—that there was no intention of using the powers under these clauses to go on fishing expeditions. The Bill as drafted refers to a constable entering premises and seizing and retaining material. I hope it will be made clear that it will not be any old constable but a constable with enough training and experience to ensure that he knows what he is looking for and that it is strictly related to the suspected offence. In that context there is an obligation upon the Government to ensure that police services have the necessary resources to provide specific training on the handling of financial records. It is not a job that any constable can properly be expected to do.
  The Home Secretary will recall that one of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs was that both civil and criminal proceedings should be used against assets. The Minister will know directly, as do those of us who were on the Select Committee, of the experience in the United States. The Americans, and I believe the Australians too, set great store by the alternative of civil proceedings against assets where they feel that the evidence for a criminal prosecution is not strong enough to stand a reasonable chance of securing a conviction. If the Government considered that and rejected it, may we be told why they came to that view?

  251
  The final point is perhaps the most intriguing. What will happen to the seized assets? To bring it up to date, what would happen if, say, Blenheim palace was confiscated? The Bill is strangely silent on that. In regard to financial and manpower effects, the explanatory and financial memorandum assumes that there will be 100 cases a year involving additional costs of £5·5 million, plus £1·1 million extra for customs and excise staff. Reassuringly it coos:
  "This sum is likely to be more than offset, however, by the revenue from confiscated assets."
  So, taking the most cautious view, the Government anticipate that at least £6·6 million will be raised each year from the seizure of assets. I hope that they are right and that that amount is exceeded. That is fine, but who will get the loot? I expect Ministers on the Front Bench to remain immobile when I suggest that there are no possible circumstances in which the Treasury can by any stretch of its vast imagination make any legitimate case to grab the loot. Clearly, it will not be revenue. It will be cash raised from the seizure and disposal of assets. It will not be money owing to the Treasury, recouped through the courts in default, as it were. It will be a new source of money. I can see the appeal of this to the Government, but I am trying to put down markers.
  The matter becomes important when we consider the victim or the victim's family. There has been a recent prosecution against a convicted dealer. I accept that this is a difficult area because, as I understand the law, it is based on the assumption of an innocent victim. There might be argument about someone who is addicted to drugs being innocent, but what will the position be if a victim or his or her family wants to sue a convicted trafficker? In the event of a successful prosecution, where should the money come from? It would be wrong to suggest that it should come out of the taxpayer's pocket if the Government expect to raise £6·6 million from the seizure and disposal of assets.
  I have little doubt that the Home Secretary will need to consult about this. Will he consider the suggestion that all money raised from the seizure and disposal of assets, perhaps after the settlement of any claims against the trafficker on behalf of a victim or his or her family, should go into a trust fund to help pay for the treatment and rehabilitation of addicts? There would be sweet justice and great merit in using the proceeds of this vile trade, properly seized through the courts, to try to rehabilitate those out of whom the trafficker had made part of his fortune. I hope that that idea may commend itself to the House. We shall co-operate to help the Bill reach the statute book, no doubt with amendments, and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.
  8 pm
  Sir Edward Gardner: I agree enthusiastically with much of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said. I shall not identify those parts of his speech with which I disagreed, to avoid being drawn into a subsidary debate.
  I hope that I speak for the whole House when I say that this is an admirable Bill with admirable provisions. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his colleagues on producing the Bill in its present form —no doubt it will be amended in certain areas—and on the speed with which it has come before the House.
  252
  The House will remember that the Home Affairs Select Committee went to America in the early summer of last year to study the drug problem in the United States. Before the Committee left, we saw my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). He invited us to make such recommendations as we could when we returned and to put them into a report which the Government could consider. As the hon. Member for Erdington rightly said, the Bill is based on that interim report's recommendations. I am sure I speak on behalf of all members of the Home Affairs Select Committee when I say that when we returned to our duties here at Westminster it took a long time to shake off the effects of what we had seen and heard in the United States.
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I have still not shaken them off.
  Sir Edward Gardner: Indeed. It was a deeply disturbing experience. We saw for ourselves what has happened in the United States and we realised that what has ravished American society could one day, very soon if we are not careful, happen here. We noticed the growth in drug taking. Cocaine—the drug of choice, as it is called—has taken over the American continent. It has 12 million regular users in America and each year claims 5,000 new addicts.
  We saw the power of the people who traffick in these drugs. Their economic power is such that they earn between $90 billion and $100 billion a year. Their industry, if one can dignify it with that word, in terms of money, is second only to the motor industry in the United States. The growth of drug taking in America is something of a phenomenon which has happened during little more than five years. The Americans are a deeply alarmed, as we were as observers, at what has happened there.
  The United States has introduced into its civil and criminal law an amendment which enables it to get at drug traffickers and strip these evil men of every dollar, every bit of land and all the vehicles and aircraft that they boast they own. Much of the money that is collected by the courts is used for anti-drug measures. The hon. Member for Erdington drew this to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We were also told that some of the money was being used to build prisons in America to contain people convicted of drug trafficking. That makes sense.
  The effect of the American legislation which enables the forfeiture and seizure of the assets of drug traffickers has been salutary and satisfactory. The Committee therefore recommended that our law be amended to allow for the seizure and forfeiture of drug traffickers' assets.
  The short time — it is something of a record —between our recommendations, the Bill's being published and its Second Reading today illustrates the acute awareness of the problem as declared by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Government are aware of the perils of the drug problem. The Government's determination to avoid and defeat this terrible threat which is hanging over the country will have the support of the House and of the country.
  The Bill is aimed at undermining and ultimately, we hope, ending drug trafficking. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, this Bill introduces the reversal of the onus of proof. I am sensitive about that and could

  253
  become hostile were it not for my understanding and others' understanding of the gravity of the problem. The Bill will try to solve that problem, so I give it unqualified support. I believe that it will receive support from this House and the country.
  The establishment of the guilt of the accused in the criminal court had to be to the standard of proof of putting the matter beyond reasonable doubt. This is not the most up-to-date direction for a jury, but it does for the purpose of discussing and distinguishing between beyond reasonable doubt and the civil standard of proof which is on the "balance of probability". The Bill, as I understand it, although it is not stated—one does not expect to find the standard of proof defined in a Bill—suggests that the standard of proof is on the balance of probability. When the court has made the assumption that clause 2 allows about the identity of the assets, the defendant would have to satisfy the court that there was no connection between his assets and the offences with which he was charged.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Erdington, in that I wonder whether we could have an explanation why the Government decided to leave reference to civil proceedings out of the Bill and instead chose to focus exclusively on criminal proceedings. The American model, on which we suggested British legislation, enables the court to deal with forfeiture in civil and criminal proceedings. I shall not go into the technicalities of the distinction between the two except to say that, in criminal proceedings, standard proof is beyond reasonable doubt and, in civil proceedings, the balance of probability is standard proof, which makes it easier for the courts. I should have thought, as the Home Affairs Select Committee decided, that that has an attraction that might have an influence on the Government's thinking. I should be grateful for some comments on that.
  I should like to express the Home Affairs Select Committee's gratitude to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for his assistance and, perhaps even more important, his untiring efforts at every conceivable opportunity. He has travelled wherever he can to fulfil his ambition of ensuring that this terrible plague of drug taking is at last brought under control.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I apologise to the hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) for appearing to interrupt him. He treated us to a splendid speech which, like all of the best Beethoven works, had two perorations. It was at the end of the first that I rose, thinking that he was about to finish.
  Recently, a man called Thomas Comerford, who for years had been the most notorious criminal in the Liverpool area involved in drug trafficking and all manner of other serious crime, was sentenced to many years imprisonment here in London. The more sparsely written newspapers, in their features on the Comerford trial, gave a rather shabby picture of the values of contemporary society. Instead of concentrating, as they might, on the wretched misery which drug traffickers such as Comerford have caused in cities and towns throughout the country, they concentrated their attention on his gains and his life style. It is important that the public should know first that drug addiction brings misery and living death—indeed,
  254
  even death for some. That is what is really being achieved by the drug pedlars, whose temporary affluence is of less importance.
  I do not have the advantage of serving on the Home Affairs Select Committee, but I cannot forget the first time that I met a heroin addict. He was in trouble before the court, which was bad enough; but I remember above all his physical features. I recall his scabby, pockmarked arms, his eyes completely dead like marbles on a solitaire board; and his attitude to life, which to him was indeed nothing more than living death. Young people such as he face that frightful prospect on an increasing scale.
  I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for his part in what I believe is the most important part of the fight against drug addiction—the campaign through schools, through parents with children at school, by advertising and all other channels through which we can reach young people, to persuade them that involvement in drug abuse will destroy their lives. I am pleased to be able to tell the Minister that even in my distant constituency in rural mid-Wales, parents of children at local schools are able to attend sessions at which they are taught how to detect the early signs of drug abuse. My wife will go to one of those sessions later this week at the school which one of our children attends. No effort should be spared to ensure the continuation of such campaigns.
  I welcome the opportunity to enact legislation that will ensure that the ill-gotten gains of drug pedlars are taken away from them. I am sure that the Home Secretary will understand why I have some instinctive misgivings about parts of the Bill but, on balance, it is obviously right to enact it because of the seriousness of the problem. I too acknowledge the contribution made by the Home Affairs Select Committee's report and that of the Hodgson committee—the report of the Howard League in 1984 under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Hodgson.
  I remind the Government that the Hodgson committee considered far more general issues than drug trafficking. It examined the confiscation of the proceeds of crime generally. Because this Bill has distracted us from the broader issues raised by Hodgson, I regret that the report has been misrepresented to some extent in the publicity leading up to the Bill and today's debate. My perception of the thrust of Hodgson is that the law should be expanded with a view to allowing seizure of the profits of all crime with the idea of reducing the incidence and amount of imprisonment, especially at a time of gross overcrowding in prisons, and also with a view to ensuring that people who commit serious crime do not benefit from their ill-gotten gains.
  I hope that the Bill will ensure absolutely that the proceeds of drug trafficking can be seized. However, I hope that the Government will tell us that they are satisfied that the Bill covers the many serious cases in which the prosecution choose to present specimen counts only on the indictment before the jury. We must be absolutely sure that, when the Bill becomes law, all the ill-gotten gains can be taken by the court, including those which have not formed part of counts in the indictment, provided that due notice is given to the defence. Hodgson made that point and it is important.
  Hodgson emphasised the need for a two-stage process. We are concerned here with the second stage — the power of the court when the defendant has already been arrested. What about the first stage?

  255
  The Hodgson report put emphasis on empowering the freezing of the assets of offenders before they are even arrested. I draw the Minister's attention to conclusion 29 on page 154 of Hodgson, which said:
  "On the application of the police or prosecuting authority a high court judge should have the power to grant… an order freezing specific assets or the defendant's assets generally, if there is a prima facie case that he has committed an indictable offence."
  It seems a little illogical that the power to freeze occurs only after the defendant has been arrested. Surely there ought to be a power to freeze in the course of the inquiry so the police can have the full advantage of surprise during that inquiry. It would be no more, after all, than an adaptation of the now well-established powers developed by the civil courts in the use of Mareva injunctions. It seems to me that clause 18 fails to go far enough in making an effective transfer of the power used by the civil courts in Mareva injunctions to the criminal courts in relation to drug trafficking. It still leaves considerable opportunities for assets to be salted away before the police ever reach them. There may be room for amendment of the Bill in this context.
  I also urge the Government, as did Hodgson, to look beyond drug offences. Having said that, I urge the Government to restrain themselves before applying these particular powers, far beyond Hodgson in some respects, as the unalterable basis for extension to other offences.
  It is worth putting it on the record that there are some mildly, at least, critical views of the Bill. I remind the Minister of the comments in the Justinian column in the Financial Times on 20 January:
  "If the Drug Trafficking Offences Bill passes into law unamended it will represent one of the most fearsome pieces of legislation in modern times, both in the investigative powers it gives to public authorities and in its penal sanctions. In the limited scope of drug trafficking it spreads the tentacles of criminal process far beyond those recommended 18 months ago by an independent committee chaired by Mr. Justice Hodgson. In 'Profits of Crime' it proposed more modest powers over the whole range of criminal activity."
  I share what I think is the Minister's view, that some fearsome legislation is required in this context.
  I seek to urge the Minister to extend the philosophy, but using the Hodgson principles rather than those fearsome principles contained in the Bill. The Bill should not be used as the benchmark, in other words, to justify a relativistic approach to the context of other offences; for some of the provisions in the Bill are quite alarming in the powers they give the police and the courts. In my view, they can be justified only by the serious and special nature of the crimes with which we are concerned.
  I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) that one of the most worrying issues has been the reversal of the burden of proof as particularly set out in clause 2(3). However, I support the Home Secretary in the point that this is not a reversal of burden of proof relating to guilt; it is a reversal of burden of proof relating to a procedural and sentencing matter, and in that context in my view it can be justified. It is of course worth bearing in mind, when we are discussing our judgment on the question of reversing the burden of proof, the fact that the Hodgson committee did indeed divide on the issue even though it was considering far lesser powers than are before us in the Bill.
  We have to be a little cautious about these powers because, whenever a court convicts of a drug trafficking offence, the court will be empowered—indeed will have
  256
  —to assume that the whole of the defendant's assets together with any property that has passed through his hands during the five years prior to conviction are the proceeds of drug trafficking.
  With that in mind, I am concerned about the position of what may very well be innocent third parties who may have bought a house, a car, jewellery or whatever at less than full value but in good faith. It is very important that we should ensure that, if they have to apply to the court in effect to keep property which they have bought in good faith, they should not have to be faced with legal costs in making such an application.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give us an example of an occasion when a person could buy property at less than a full value in good faith?
  Mr. Carlile: I think I gave an example a little earlier. A drug trafficker who suspects that the police are on his heels may have a property to sell—a house, for example—which he will hand to an estate agent and order him to sell very quickly and for whatever he can get. It may be sold very quickly to a purchaser who will be acting completely in good faith and without the slightest idea of who the drug trafficker is, let alone that he is a drug trafficker. It is important that a person in that position should not be faced with having to fund legal proceedings. There are many other examples of which I can readily think.
  For the entirely laudable purpose of protecting young people from the dreadful ravages of drug addiction, we have embarked on what is actually a rather unenticing legislative path. Some of us have had to wrestle with the argument that these are laws which change substantially and to very great disadvantage the position of a defendant before a court. Generally, I do not welcome laws which do that. I do not generally welcome laws which place upon a defendant, outside the broad philosophy of our system, both an evidential and a legal burden which it may often be extremely difficult to discharge.
  I suspect that, as a result of our eventually enacting these provisions, there may be some injustices, especially to third parties, and of course we all know the truism "hard cases make bad law." But the crisis caused by burgeoning drug offences is such that I am persuaded to support the Bill, albeit in the belief that it is somewhat imperfect and may well be capable of some improvement.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. John Wheeler: This is an unusual evening, in that hon. Members in all parts of the House are in wide agreement with the measure proposed by the Government.
  I am delighted to speak after the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) because I share many of his concerns as, indeed, did the Select Committee on Home Affairs when it considered its report on the issue. As the House has heard so eloquently and magnificently from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner), we were in no doubt, following our investigations of the drugs issue both at home and overseas, that the quite exceptional circumstances justified the measures which we proposed and which the House is now considering.
  I do not propose to repeat what has already been said, save to draw on one or two more points. I recall, in

  257
  company with my colleagues on the Home Affairs Committee, going to a secret storehouse in Miami and looking at a relatively small room which was crammed from floor to ceiling with cocaine and heroin and other drugs in smaller quantity which had been seized by the authorities. There was at least £10 billion-worth of drugs in street value in one small room. It represented a small amount of the drug traffic that was entering the United States from central and south America. It represented awesome financial power.
  When afterwards we went on in Miami to see the customs, coastguard and revenue authorities and we saw the extent of the wealth, particularly in the vessels, the buildings, the property and the assets that the people who managed drugs were making out of this evil crime, we were in no doubt at all about the seriousness of the problem and the terrible risks that we in the United Kingdom and, indeed, in the other western countries run unless we can unite in our efforts and ensure that our defences and our law are up to defeating these evil people. As a result of those experiences, we made the recommendations that go to the heart of our legal proceedings, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has said, and hesitatingly seek to reverse what is normally regarded as proper in our legal system.
  In discussing this subject in the United States, I learned from the police there that about 60 per cent. of all property crime is committed as a result of the need of the drug user to fund his or her drug taking. Thank goodness, we do not appear to have reached anywhere near that level of drug-related crime in the United Kingdom, but there is growing evidence that some crime, and some serious crime, is being committed by those who wish to fuel their addiction to drugs.
  Therefore, it is right that we should support the Bill. In the Home Affairs Committee interim report on drugs, we set out a strategy that the Government are determinedly following. We suggested four basic ways to deal with the growing threat of the international drug traffic. First, we suggested that they include stopping, as far as possible, the importation of drugs—first by the physical interception of supplies, secondly by the prosecution and punishment of those engaged in this traffic and thirdly by eliminating all drug crops.
  I share the enthusiasm of the House for the work that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary has done in his globe-trotting activities to achieve the third of those points. It is no good merely looking to the defence of the United Kingdom. We have to involve the international community—those countries where drugs may be grown and produced and those through which the drugs may pass in the course of their journey to the United Kingdom and other western countries.
  Secondly, we suggested attacking the profits of the traffickers, a measure set out in the Bill. Thirdly, we suggested stopping the disposal of drug profits through the laundering of money, which is again set out in the Bill. Finally, and in some ways most importantly, we suggested reducing the long-term demand by education. That is a most complicated subject, which requires the wholehearted commitment of the community and all the institutions within the community, particularly those engaged in education. I hope that, in the inner cities in particular, the local authorities and those responsible for
  258
  education will take this subject seriously. Sometimes I think that in the inner cities there is complacency about drug-related crime that we must resist. We must turn back to a determination to tackle this subject with immense enthusiasm.
  There is no doubt that in some ways the first line of defence is our customs and police services. The Home Affairs Committee looked at both those services carefully. Whatever may have been the case in the past, today they work together with a dedication and courage that is a joy to behold. The Committee was most satisfied about that part of the institution.
  It is important to have customs officers on duty at air and sea ports, but, as we heard both from the evidence in the United States and from our customs officers, to pretend that one can stop all the drugs coming into the country at air and sea ports is nonsense. It was reckoned in the United States that only about 10 per cent. —even that was a generous estimate—of all drugs approaching the United States would be detained by the authorities, even with an enormous amount of money and expertise and vast services, including the armed services, engaged in the exercise to beat the importer.
  In the case of the United Kingdom, what matters is not the number of customs officers but the extent of their training to stop the person who is carrying. The so-called cold stops, 80 per cent. of the spot checks, are not random spot checks but stops carried out because the customs officer identifies the profile of the individual coming through the port and is resolved to investigate.
  I place immense importance on the investigation services. I am delighted that the Government have increased the number of specialised customs officers—those who do the hard-core investigation—from 121 to 212, with a further 50 to be appointed to new preventive posts. That is important, just as the gathering of intelligence for the more sophisticated exercises is vital. I am pleased that the Government are extending the number of overseas posts for customs officers engaging in the intelligence gathering operation. Through a variety of strategies involving all our resources, and above all through our determination in education, we shall contain and defeat the threat that faces the people of the United Kingdom.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State clarified the point about legislation in Scotland, and I look forward to the Bill's provisions being extended into Scotland and Wales. I have been assured by the Solicitor-General that any criminal trying to evade the law by putting assets into Scotland would not succeed. I welcome the legislation. It is a step in the right direction. I recognise the excellent work that the Minister has done in the past year.
  My constituency was changed to include another area by the Boundary Commission at the last general election. The area was well known to me because it was a part of Glasgow where I had served my apprenticeship and I had made many lifelong friends. It was the area from which my wife came, and she had lived there since she was a child. It was a typical Glasgow housing estate with tenemental property—what was known in Glasgow as intermediate housing. I am not saying that every part of the estate was attractive and that it did not have its problems of vandalism and crime. However, I was

  259
  shocked when constituents started telling me that they wanted out of it because they were fed up with the drug addiction in the estate. Despite those complaints, there was not a cheep in the newspapers about the situation and no statistics to show that the problem was so serious.
  One woman brought the situation home to me. In one of the unusually good summers recently, she lifted the window in her flat to get some fresh air. She had lived in this part of Glasgow for 30 years. She looked across the street and there was a young addict in another tenement property injecting heroin into himself without even bothering to draw the curtains. I was absolutely horrified. When I tackled particular officials in the Health Service, they denied that the problem was any worse than in any other part of Glasgow. They tried to play the affair down. I did not publicly mention the area because I did not feel that it was fair to do so, but I did mention it to them and they told me that it was nonsense.
  It is sad that, when officials are faced with a problem, they try to cover the matter up. When I confronted them at a meeting with my colleagues, they then produced a map which showed drug addiction problems in every postal district of Glasgow. Lo and behold, the very area that I had complained about had the biggest addiction problem known to the Health Service—and that was only the tip of the iceberg.
  I know that this legislation does not cover the Health Service, but I want to suggest that the Minister looks at the problems faced by Health Service staff in general hospitals. Consultants in my local hospitals tell me that they have to carry out heart bypass operations on people who are only 22 or 23—certainly less than 30. This creates a problem in a general hospital ward.
  I do not want to give the impression that I think that drug addicts should not be treated under the Health Service; I simply want to show the problems that they cause. As a consultant explained, his medical and nursing staff are not trained to look after drug addicts; they are trained to do surgery and to nurse post-operative patients. The trouble is that the addict still has the craving. The staff need eyes in the back of their heads to look after these patients and to make sure that the other patients are also looked after.
  I know that we need more resources for education and for the police, but I hope that proper resources are put into our hospitals to make sure that both addicts and other patients are looked after properly.
  I was born and bred in Glasgow and am proud of my native city. It is a very friendly place. But one of the things about being brought up in a city like that is that from early childhood we got to know the names of the criminal element on the Glasgow scene—what we call the hard men, the heavy men, the loan sharks. I know them all by name. These people are no longer into doing the collecting for moneylenders; they are no longer into bank robberies; they are no longer the first people to be served in the queue at the post office because they happen to have a double-barrelled shotgun. These people are now into the drug scene and are making a great deal of money.
  Good luck to the Home Secretary. All I can say is that he will have a tough job, because these people have had their ill-gotten gains transferred into property in Spain and in Ireland. The money has gone into pubs, garages and various legitimate businesses. Possibly because of their background, these people also seek the cloak of respectibility: when a charity function is being held, they
  260
  are there. They try to gain acceptance in the respectable parts of the community by giving to charity and so on. It will be a difficult job to get these assets into the public purse where they belong, but I certainly wish the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland well in trying to tackle the problem.
  I also ask the Home Secretary to look at the situation in council estates. I have the highest number of multistorey dwellings of any constituency in the United Kingdom. On the estate that I mentioned earlier, there are serious difficulties in keeping the peace, because these drug peddlers are operating from council houses. Next to pubs, the main places for selling drugs are council houses. The houses have double-security doors. The drags are passed through a letterbox. If the police come to the door, by the time that they get the door down, the stuff is washed down the WC. In addition, addicts are coming to the wrong door and are waking people up at 2 o'clock and 3 o'clock in the morning.
  This is known to the housing department but meets with a great deal of complacency: "Unless the police take action, we can't do anything about it." In one case, in the Balgrayhill flats in my constituency, the police managed to take action. The pusher has been tried, sentenced and gaoled. Now his common law wife has moved into the flat, which means that the flat will become available for that person when he comes out of prison. He could start pushing drugs from that house. Even if he does not, this kind of incident fills the neighbours with fear. The fear among the elderly in that multi-storey block is shocking. Decent men and women, who have fought to keep a good community together, are sitting wondering whether, when he comes out of prison, he will go back there.
  I do not like to see anyone left homeless. I spend long and weary hours at my surgeries, where 90 per cent. of the problems brought to me are related to housing. But I have no hesitation in saying that, if a house has been used for pushing drugs, the tenant should be evicted and a decent tenant put in, to give people the quiet life they deserve and to which they are entitled.
  I congratulate the police on their efforts in Glasgow; they have no easy task. I understand from speaking to police officers that when they are searching a house they have to keep a close watch, even when they are going round a settee or a chair, because if they get a jab from a needle they may catch AIDS or a serious form of hepatitis. I do not envy them their jobs.
  Mention has been made of the programme about Operation Julie. I do not know what licence the producers of that programme had—television sometimes changes events in some respects—but it seemed a very accurate record of what actually happened. I gathered from the programme that the officer involved was not always given the help that he required from his senior officers. Sometimes he was hindered. If that happened, I hope that it will not happen again. When the officer concerned was interviewed in a subsequent programme, he said that a national drugs squad was needed to co-ordinate the efforts of customs officers, policemen and everyone the length and breadth of the country in tackling the problem.
  When I visited the United States—not with a Select Committee—I spoke to Congressmen who told me that cocaine pushers were prepared to see boats and aeroplanes shot down — assets which cost millions of pounds—because they have so much money that they can put

  261
  another one into operation straightaway. Those pushers are now looking at Europe as a market and are attempting to push cocaine in the United Kingdom.
  It would not be correct or proper for me to say that I have studied the advantages of having a national drugs squad, but if a police officer who has been involved in one of our biggest operations suggests such a squad, it is worth considering that suggestion. Will the Minister consider it?
  My final point is related, although perhaps only indirectly, to the legislation, but as the Scottish Office Minister is present I have a chance to put the matter on the record. In my area, genuine and decent people are attempting to tackle the drug problem by counselling and helping young addicts. At a public meeting held, unusually, in a church, I noted that the different voluntary groups seemed to be arguing with one another, and saying that one group was better than another and that some groups were not doing such a good job. I said to myself, "It is shameful, when we are dealing with the lives of young people with a serious disease—drug addiction—that we leave tackling that problem in the hands of amateurs." I do not want to stifle amateurs or volunteers, but we must consider the present circumstances in various communities where small groups take over a flat in a tenement and create problems for the neighbours. Moreover, we do not know the credentials of the volunteers. Some could be of dubious character, and sometimes they are taken on at face value by the project leader.
  It is sad that young men and women who, because of their drug addiction, could be dead this time next year are left in the hands of such groups, which cannot cope. We need the help of the National Health Service in tackling the problem. It is shameful that in Scotland we do not have even one facility where we can take an addict from his or her environment and treat him or her in isolation and away from the community that tempted him or her to take drugs.
  I hope that those matters are taken on board. I am grateful that some steps are being taken to attack the people who are making massive profits form ill-gotten gains.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. James Hill: It is right for the House to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister, who has done a splendid job. He has seen parts of the world where drug traffickers are sentenced to death, and the opium trails and poppy fields of India, Afghanistan and Turkey. All those trails end up in the vast continent of America, and they are beginning to be directed to the United Kingdom. Nobody could find much to fault in the Bill. The Committee stage should be remarkably friendly, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent Bill.
  First, Mr. Big must be traced, and the Bill is aimed particularly at the Mr. Bigs. There are small pushers who live in council houses and who have no assets, but the Mr. Bigs are around. There are no two ways about it. Moreover, the organisation is extremely big. It may be difficult to freeze and confiscate funds because the Mr. Bigs will try to act even quicker than the courts. The few days between tracing Mr. Big and Mr. Big getting the alarm and the court accepting a confiscation certificate application will have to be narrow.
  262
  In the Legal Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe I have already criticised the Swiss banking system, with its numbered accounts, and the completely and utterly secure banking facility it offers for those with vast sums which they do not wish to disclose. Switzerland is a well organised country and the Swiss are extremely law abiding, but it has kept open an Aladdin's cave for master criminals. As my hon. Friend will know, it will be extremely difficult to get the numbered accounts to disgorge their assets. Although some international agreement may be reached, I doubt it.
  The Customs and Excise is to receive 35 more investigation officers. In Southampton the collector of Customs and Excise, Mr. Jones, has been under severe pressure for some time because of the shortage of staff. Whether they are uniformed or working under cover, it does not matter. I am sure that the collector of Customs and Excise in my area will be pleased to see provisions made for extra staff. The difficulty is that all the yachting harbours and marinas that are being built now on the south coast are almost a complete open door. A Customs and Excise dinghy cannot be expected on a weekend to catch up with all the powerful yachts that are steaming in and out. This must be dealt with drastically by additional staff who make it a point almost to swamp certain marinas on certain dates to pluck out those using the channel as the easy means of entrance.
  I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State wants to know how far the Bill should be expanded in the future. I have already written to my hon. Friend because I feel that all those who profit by vice should be included. I think particularly of the massive amounts earned from prostitution in my area. There is a small number of organisers. Proceeds from the soliciting trade are such that a fine of £10,000 is almost a joke.
  Sometimes, the vice barons, as they have been called by my local newspaper, may well own a whole parade of houses and be housing all their "staff". They may be making enormous profits and, even if they go inside for a year or two, the business may carry on as usual. We must stop that. We have to show that these criminals are prepared to live by vice, and that there is no profit at the end of the day, and certainly no moneys waiting for them when they come out. The difficulty will be in tracing the amounts. This is another part of the Bill which is practical, which means that anyone laundering illicit money will be subject to a prison sentence.
  I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are not a gambler, but most of this money seems to be laundered through practically every gaming house, every race course, greyhound course, motor racing track —practically everywhere that large sums of money change hands through gambling. In the United Kingdom, legitimate business use of this money is not quite as apparent as it is in the United States. The dealers do not have large legitimate businesses at the moment, but I am sure that if organised drug trafficking gets a real foothold in Europe they will have identical businesses for laundering money. That will be a very difficult problem, but I am pleased to see the provision in the Bill.
  Anyone who gives information when Mr. Big has been traced and either prevents the seizure of assets or alarms the criminal can be sentenced — once again, I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State — to a maximum of five years for disclosing information. It may be only a whispered message over the

  263
  telephone but it does irreparable harm. Naturally, it allows the criminal to take all necessary precautions with his assets. He could easily leave the country at short notice.
  If confiscation amounts to more than £1 million and the criminal evades the confiscation order, up to a maximum of 10 years will be added to his prison sentence. That is worth while. We must take the profit out of criminal activities. It is as simple as that. Although we cannot legislate for every detail—I am sure that in Committee it will become even more apparent that it is impossible to do so—nevertheless, the Bill is a round picture showing how to deal with those who live by vice or criminal activities. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will comment on the increased number of criminal activities that can be included in this assets confiscation.
  This measure will put a chill on the master criminal. It is no good him working for nothing. If we make it hot enough for him, he may try another country or decide to turn to legal work, although I doubt it.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Lawful work.
  Mr. Hill: Yes.
  The report of the Howard League on the profits of crime and their recovery puts this succinctly. During the past 20 years, liberalisation has crept in so that the victim is given less consideration than the criminal. I am pleased that we are reversing that trend. I wish Ministers every success in Committee.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: It makes a change to be able to join forces with all hon. Members in supporting a Bill. I commend the work of the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor)—on this aspect of what should be a multi-pronged attack on the vile drug pushers and those who wish to inflict even more social ills on an ailing society.
  In some respects, my constituency is similar to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). My constituency does not include the same number of multi-storey blocks as my hon. Friend's constituency, but there are some. They give cover to some drug pushers who use binoculars to look for miles around at strangers coming on foot or by vehicle. The Bill does not do enough.
  Although the Bill attempts to deny the evil drug pushers their ill-gotten gains—my constituents would back me to the hilt in whole-heartedly commending that provision, although they do not by any means favour the Government's other policies—I am bound to ask myself whether this measure meets the problem in areas such as the Croxteth housing estate in my constituency.
  On 31 July 1984, I wrote to the Prime Minister about the case of Jason Fitzsimmons, the 14-year-old youngster who died from the effects of a drug cocktail he had taken because he had been a heroin addict for some time and was attempting to find an antidote. My letter called for urgent action to designate areas such as Croxteth and the Ford estate in Birkenhead as special priority areas—not just in terms of policing, although that is a problem in itself. The measures that have bitten into the drugs problem have come solely from the Home Office. Unfortunately, the Government have not produced a sufficiently coherent policy.
  I am pleased that on Merseyside the drugs squad has been increased by 18 officers and that it is concentrating
  264
  on areas such as Croxteth. We need more than that. There is a need for the establishment of local treatment centres on the estate to treat the victims of the drug problem. There is a need for the funding of local bodies. Unfortunately, because of other Government legislation to abolish Merseyside county council and other metropolitan counties, one of the sources of funding for voluntary bodies attempting to tackle the problem is being removed. Councils such as Liverpool. no matter what controversy there might be about the measures that the city council has taken, have been under great pressure as a result of the reduction of rate support grant.
  Mr. Mellor: I want the hon. Gentleman to know that we take the problems of Liverpool seriously. I opened the Hope street clinic last year. When I visited Liverpool we were able to estimate that in the previous year almost £l million had been devoted by central Government resources to the alleviation of Liverpool's problems. I had food for thought when I visited the Merseyside drug centre because, of the full-time workers employed there, six of them were paid for by the Wirral borough council, which is less of a large spender than Liverpool council. At that time, Liverpool city council was funding only one centre. Spending priorities come into this issue. The Government have certainly not forgotten the problems of Liverpool.
  Mr. Wareing: I am pleased to hear that, but I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are many areas that I think the Government should be dealing with. I noted the comments of the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) about reducing the long-term demand for drugs. He talked about the need for education. Nobody would argue with that. However, although I would not over-emphasise unemployment as a factor, I insist, because I know Croxteth and Norris Green as I was brought up in the area, that the problem of drugs has appeared only recently. It coincides with the enormous increase in youth unemployment which, on those two estates, is now over 90 per cent. Unemployment is not the only factor but we cannot argue that a reduction in unemployment in those areas would not help to destroy the market for the evil products. The Government must look at that issue in working-class housing estates such as Croxteth.
  One must remember that there have to be local outlets for the energy of young people. Perhaps when the Minister visits Liverpool again he will look at the sports centre provided by the local city council. Although the council may be abused, it provides an outlet for the people of a socially ravaged estate.
  The Under-Secretary of State has mentioned the Hope street clinic. Most of those who are afflicted by the drug disease are not living in the centre of Liverpool in the area in which the Hope street clinic is to be found. Instead, they live in the outlying areas, in Birkenhead or in Croxteth in my constituency. Clinical advice and treatment should be available on the spot where drug takers are to be found.
  I fear that good accountants will save some of the drug pushers from the full punishment that is set out in the Bill. However, as I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer, I shall await advice on that issue. I reinforce the argument which was advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on the need for more surveillance at ports of entry. I know that the hon. Member for Westminster, North has doubts on this score

  265
  and has some evidence from the United States to support them, but the figures speak for themselves. In the letter that I received from the Prime Minister, the right hon. Lady mentioned the 160 customs officers who have been appointed, but 60 of them are merely redeployed officials. The other 100 have been appointed only because planned cuts have not been implemented. Thousands of general officers in the customs service have been lost to us since 1979.
  I understand that 93 per cent. of the drug seizures at Heathrow have been the result of cold finds following spot checks. Out of 97 detections, only seven were the result of information received. That shows that more uniformed officers are required irrespective of the doubts that some might have about their efficiency falling short of 100 per cent.
  Dover is one of the main ports of entry, and many of those entering the country do so by car. If others have their way, even more will come by that route via the Channel link. That factor can be thrown into the general argument about the Channel tunnel. There are 23 car bays at Dover but only seven are being used, because of staff shortages. We know that 75 per cent. of those entering Britain do so through Dover or Heathrow. Yet, according to the Civil and Public Services Association, the union which represents the officials concerned, only one in 400 are stopped as they pass through the green clearway. Despite the comments of the hon. Member for Westminster, North, there must be something to be said for remedying that deficiency.
  Since 1979, there has been a 236 per cent. increase in the number of notified drug addicts. Residents in parts of my constituency suffer many of the drug-related crimes of burglary and mugging. Indeed, in some areas of my constituency people are loth to leave their premises even during the day. Some of the few who have employment have even been deterred from going to their places of work because of the prospect of their homes being burgled in their absence. The burglaries are all too often the result of young people who are unemployed and who are looking for kicks. They get their kicks by taking the drugs which the evil men are pushing. They have nothing more to do with their time.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) has made a number of impassioned pleas for action. He made one tonight, and as Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs he was responsible for that Committee's report. I offer no excuses for repeating to the House part of what that report states:
  "We believe, from all that we saw and heard, that as the American market becomes saturated the flood of hard drugs will cross the Atlantic. We fear that unless immediate and effective action is taken Britain and Europe stand to inherit the American drug problem in less than five years. We see this as the most serious peacetime threat to our national well-being."
  The Bill, commendable though it is, is a inadequate response to that challenge. It is only a step on the way. Piecemeal approaches, even if they are prefaced by the Home Secretary's admission earlier today that a much more coherent policy is necessary, deny the House the chance of a full-scale debate on all the social problems relating to the drug addiction problem. We need a comprehensive and coherent policy that will examine
  266
  unemployment and deal with surveillance at the ports of entry, as well as merely dealing with policing and the ill-gotten gains of the drug pushers.
  Tonight the Opposition will give their approval to the Bill which, on this occasion, will have the support not only of myself and the majority who support me politically in my constituency, but of all my constituents.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Tom Sackville: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene in the debate as the Bill represents a major and radical step forward in deterrence and prosecution of drug traffickers. In particular, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on his efforts in bringing the legislation before the House.
  There is agreement on all sides of the House that the people who perpetrate large-scale drug trafficking are as evil as any other category of criminal. Amendments to the law have already been made making sentences more suitable to the scale of their crimes. But the profits that are made from drugs make even these risks look negligible. The possibility of a spell in prison seems acceptable to many criminals if that is to be followed by access to a considerable fortune on leaving prison.
  From the point of view of many more organised criminal groups which may be involved or which may be thinking of becoming involved in drug trafficking as an additional dimension to their normal sphere of operations, the additional legal risks and complications to which they will be exposed as a result of this legislation would pose a real disincentive.
  Some aspects of the Bill do not go far enough. In particular, I am concerned that the assessments of the proceeds for confiscation should be limited only to those assets which can be shown to be in the possession of the defendant or held on his behalf. There will often be cases where he or she has been convicted of trafficking which will have yielded profits vastly in excess of the visible assets. It should be open to the courts to take that into account in assessing proceeds so that convicted drug traffickers will be forced to repatriate funds, if necessary, to avoid the further sentences provided by the Bill for nonpayment.
  My other main area of concern about the Bill has been referred to by other hon. Members. Given the sophistication of financial markets and of many of those involved in drug trafficking today, it is not inconceivable that a suspected trafficker could arrange, through a single telephone call, to have substantial assets moved out of the country between the moment of arrest and the obtaining of a restraint or freezing order. There can be no clearer case for amending the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to delay notification and keep a suspect incommunicado in such cases to avoid that possibility.
  Another area of concern is how to recruit the necessary expertise to carry out the financial operations envisaged by the Bill. As with the growing problem of financial fraud, it may be too much to expect officers with purely police training to carry out such work. I suggest that Ministers consider recruiting from the areas of finance, paying the salaries necessary to recruit such people. We may also need some kind of central multi-agency unit to take full advantage of the provisions in the Bill. This would cover specialists in various areas, including the Inland Revenue, but I believe that it would be improper if the people concerned were not ultimately under the control of the

  267
  criminal investigators. I understand that experience abroad, especially in Canada, shows that in some cases financial investigations have run ahead of criminal investigations and the persons under investigation have been warned off and thus escaped arrest.
  The arrangements for the seizure of assets and the provision of evidence from other countries are also relevant. If the trail ends when assets leave this country, many of the benefits of the Bill will be wasted. I hope that in winding up the debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will report on negotiations with other countries on this important aspect.
  Finally, to put the Bill into the context of the drug problem as a whole, there is a huge and, I fear, still growing demand for hard drugs in this country and so long as that demand exists it will be met in one way or another. With 40 million passengers and millions of vehicles and cargo shipments coming into this country, drugs are bound to arrive here. Efforts at education, I fear, are still in their infancy, but until children realise that involvement with drugs puts them in the greatest physical and mental danger and until parents realise that it is up to them to see what their children are up to and with whom they consort I do not believe that any real progress will be made.
  Unfortunately, the Bill is not about demand but only about supply, which might be thought easier to control, although not much easier. If one shipment of drugs is intercepted there is no doubt that there will be others to replace it. Nevertheless, it is vital that supply is disrupted as often and as widely as possible so that the street price of) drugs is kept high and life is made more difficult and dangerous for the major drug traffickers.
  The Bill is a radical measure, and I am certain that it will contribute to those aims. Even if its effects make only a small dent in the problem, in view of the gravity of the problem it is a major step in the right direction; and for that reason I unreservedly welcome it.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: It is a pleasure to be among friends with whom I have served during the past two years on the various Home Affairs Committees. However, I hope that the Whips do not take that as an offer to serve on the Committee stage of the Bill. My intervention shall be short and, I hope, cogent. Several hon. Members have remarked on the work carried out by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. He has had a series of peripatetic journeys round the world and the hon. Member has made the word "ubiquitous" sound pleasant. I am not on the Home Affairs Committee at present, but I have followed with great interest the work of the Under-Secretary of State. I have read the various documents produced by him and I have followed the progress of his initiatives, one of which is the Bill, which gives new powers for tracing and freezing the proceeds of drug trafficking. The Bill is welcomed by my constituents and I add my congratulations to the Under-Secretary of State.
  The issues that I wish to raise relate to my constituency of Middlesbrough. Like my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), we have several problems on Teesside, but none as grave as those that we have heard about tonight from my colleagues. The problems on Teesside are of solvent abuse and prescribed drug dependancy, rather than hard drugs. For that reason, I
  268
  participate in the debate to show the determination of an elected representative of Teesside to ensure that the position does not worsen. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) mentioned the threat, or even the forecast, that our drug problem might be as great as that of the United States within five years. My hon. Friend called for a comprehensive and cohesive policy and a whole range of Government action to deal with the problem. My remarks relate to that Government action.
  Recently on Teesside the local customs and excise took the decision to redeploy a rummage crew working on Teesside. The duties of that crew were to search vessels and to seek out drugs and other illicit cargo. It was decided that those men should be redeployed to other duties. The appropriate unions, the Minister of State, Treasury, and I intervened. As a consequence, the redeployment, decided upon by the collector of customs in Newcastle upon Tyne, is deferred until 30 September 1986. The Minister of State, Treasury, was kind enough to explain to me the background to that decision. The proposed deployment was in accordance with customs policy to allocate resources to the best possible use. He pointed out that in the interim, local management will reappraise the need for the rummage crew, taking account of local and national priorities and any resources for customs preventive work that are allocated to the region. We follow with interest the future of that crew.
  The hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), in a speech to which I listened with great interest, referred to the work of the customs service as being the first line of defence. He rightly pointed out that we cannot stop all the drugs that come into the United Kingdom through sea ports and airports. He noted that only 10 per cent. of the drugs entering the United States can be detained by the authorities, despite the enormous amount of money and the vast resources at their disposal. However, that does not mean that there should be no attempt at the ports to prevent drugs from entering. The hon. Member also made the point that the number of specialist customs officers has been increased from 121 to 212, with a further 50 being appointed. My hon. Friend the Member for West Derby mentioned redeployment and said that those figures show some redeployment.
  The concept that there is an attempt at the ports to prevent drugs from entering and the concept that not all drugs can be stopped are not mutually exclusive. It would be wrong for would-be traffickers in drugs to get the impression that we shall be lax at our ports of entry and that they are an easy target for the importation of illicit drugs. We must accept that our island position is somewhat different from that of the United States, which has a long border with Mexico. Therefore, we can curtail the illicit importation of drugs, notwithstanding the fact that, in a few years time, we may have a Channel tunnel. The rummage crew on Teesside and the customs and excise officers at the ports of Glasgow, Liverpool and Southampton should be maintained so that the threat of apprehension might at least be a deterrent.
  The South Tees district drug advisory committee, established in July 1984, wished to fund a resource centre on Teesside that could set up a professional action committee to treat drug addicts and possibly to counsel them. It also considered the appointment of a full-time worker who would work under the direction of the action committee. It asked the DHSS for £86,000 over three years

  269
  to fund the resource centre. It was a multi-discipline committee of health authority, local authority, the police, the probation service and voluntary organisations.
  Unfortunately for Teesside, that request for funding was rejected. The Under-Secretary of State will recall that he was kind enough to advise me that the Phoenix house residential rehabilitation centre, which is established in London and Sheffield, proposed the opening of a residential rehabilitation facility in south Tyneside, for which it received a grant of £273,419 over three years from the DHSS. Its 30 places were meant to cover the north of England. My constituents are worried by the fact that there is no provision between Newcastle and York or Leeds, and it is a matter of some concern to us that the application was rejected.
  However, during the past few days, Middlesbrough has heard the good news from the Department of Education and Science that it will fund an advisory teacher to fight drug abuse. The teacher will liaise with schools and colleges in an attempt to stamp out drug abuse in the county. He or she will liaise with Health Service workers and voluntary agencies. This relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) about the involvement of parents in the attempt to curb drug abuse. Perhaps the advisory teacher can help in that area.
  My constituents welcome the Bill. I accept that it is part and parcel of a broad frontal attack by the Government on drug addiction and abuse and illicit importation. I urge the Government to seek better co-ordination among the resources of the DHSS, the Department of Education and Science and the Home Office so that the attack on this heinous problem—we listened with great interest to the hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) recount his visits to the United States with the Select Committee—can be given greater force. We welcome the Bill and the Government's broad frontal attack on the problem. Teesside, which has the third largest port in the country, must not be missed out of that broad attack.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. Keith Raffan: When my private Member's Bill, now the Controlled Drugs (Penalties) Act 1985, was debated in Standing Committee I said:
  "The Bill does not provide a magical miracle cure for the highly complex, extremely serious and ever-growing problem of drug misuse. There are various aspects of that problem, including prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. The Bill covers just one aspect of deterrence, which is only one part of prevention. Anything we can do we must do."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 27 March 1985; c. 5.]
  This Bill covers a further crucial aspect of deterrence. My Bill was supported by all of the political groupings in the House and by every shade and faction within those groupings. This Bill deserves equal non-partisan support.
  There is, to me, no distinction between convicted drug dealers and those who are convicted of burglary or fraud. All gain financially from criminal activity. There is no difference between murder by heroin for financial gain and murder by shotgun in the course of a bank robbery. Neither the burglar nor the person who is convicted of fraud is allowed to keep the proceeds of his crime; nor should a drug trafficker be allowed to do so.
  The whole point of deterrence is to reduce the supply of drugs and thereby slow down the dramatic increase in the number of addicts. The measure of the problem can be
  270
  shown by referring to the notified figures of heroin addicts in 1984. The number was 6,611, a 324 per cent. increase on the figure for 1979, and notified addicts are just the tip of the iceberg. The number of regular users is much greater. The lowest estimate is about 60,000, rising, according to some estimates, to as many as 150,000.Recently in another place Lord Lane said:
  "Let us take even the lowest figure of 10,000 addicts in the country. It requires, at the lowest, £20 a day per addict to feed their addiction. That is £7,000 a year per addict. If one multiplies that by 10,000, that totals £70 million. Those figures can probably be multiplied by four. But whether it is £70 million or £280 million, that money has to come from crime."—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 30 January 1985; Vol. 459, c. 660-1.]
  And that money goes, of course, to criminals.
  It is not surprising, therefore, that the Metropolitan police estimate that 23 per cent. of its targeted criminals are now involved in hard drugs. Ten years ago they would have confined themselves to armed robbery, but now they find that hard drugs are much more lucrative. Indeed, it has been shown that some of them profit by as much as seven-figure sums over a very limited period from the importation of drugs. It is clear that they will continue to do so unless they are deterred by the toughest possible system of penalties.
  It is true that the seizure of controlled drugs has increased dramatically—in the case of heroin from only 3·3 kilos in 1973 to 312 kilos in 1984. The seizure of increasingly large quantities of heroin is a tribute to the work and the efforts of customs and excise and the police.
  But the seizures only confirm the severity of the problem. Heroin purity is still high—47 per cent., on average, in this country, compared to only 7 per cent. in the United States. And the price of heroin is cheap. It is one of the very few commodities whose price has fallen in the last few years, by one fifth between 1980 and 1983. The combination of high purity and low price means a plentiful supply of the drug.
  The need for action is urgent. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, for the Home Department said when the Bill was published last month:
  "even the risk of long prison sentences is acceptable to some if a life of affluence awaits them on release."
  We must ensure that it does not do so. We must not be diverted by legalistic controversy over the concept of the reversal of the burden of proof. It is not a novel concept; nor is it, as some have suggested, such a fundamental change in our criminal justice system. As we are all aware, it already exists in taxation matters. And Lord Denning has pointed out in another place that it is already established in English law, in the case of the chief constable of Kent and another in the Court of Appeal in 1983.
  Of greater concern to me is the implementation of the Bill and how effective it will be when it becomes law. When attempting to trace offenders' assets we will be dependent on close co-operation with foreign countries. Drugs are not only big business; they are international business. A major drug trafficker does not tend to have a large deposit account in the National Westminster bank down the road. He is among the most sophisticated of criminals and his money is laundered through a multiplicity of accounts in a multiplicity of countries, many of them far away.
  The Bill allows for reciprocal enforcement agreements with other countries so that an order by a British court can be enforceable against assets held overseas. I hope that during his closing speech the Minister will tell us how

  271
  quickly he expects such agreements to be reached after the Bill becomes law. Perhaps he can also tell us the current position on proposals for the new United Nations convention to deal with all aspects of international drug trafficking, and what progress is being made through the Pompidou group of the Council of Ministers on drug misuse. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the issue of drug trafficking at two recent internatinal conferences and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could tell the House about the follow-through on those discussions. International co-operation is vital if the Bill is to be effective.
  I should also like to ask about the public service manpower effects of the Bill. As my hon. Friend knows, I welcomed the increase last year of 150 Customs officers specialising in drugs. I remember, as he will, that during the debate in Standing Committee on my private Member's Bill he said he would not hesitate to recommend a further increase if he thought it was necessary. This Bill allows for some 35 new customs and excise investigative staff which, it says, are
  "necessary to exploit the opportunities presented by the new legislation."
  I am well aware, as we said earlier in the debate, that the main thrust of customs effort is in intelligence, and that leads to some of the more spectacular seizures. However, I believe that there is a need for more random searches. Of the 36 million visitors to this country from abroad each year, only one in 100 can expect to be searched. Major drug traffickers are also becoming more adept at using the cover of commercial freight to ply their evil trade. I believe that customs policy at the moment is that only 2 per cent. of EEC goods coming into this country are examined, and that in terms of the total of all freight the figure is only 6 per cent.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) spoke about private yachts. That is a serious problem, especially when in Chichester there are 6,000 in harbour, on the Hamble 4,000, and at Lymington another 4,000. The Society of Civil and Public Servants has said in a survey on the Hamble that an average of 60 yachts come in on Sunday nights and request Customs inspection. About the same number come in and do not bother to request it, but there are not even enough Customs officers at the moment to inspect the 60 that request inspection. Perhaps my hon. Friend could tell us how the figure of 35 extra Customs officers in intelligence was arrived at and why the Bill does not advocate more officers for random searches. After all, the additional cost of staff is likely to be offset by higher income from confiscation.
  The Select Committee on Home Affairs described drugs as
  "the most serious peacetime threat to our national well-being."
  It is indeed an insidious, all-pervasive threat that knows no boundaries of class or geography. It is no longer an inner city, a city, an urban or even a suburban problem. It is prevalent throughout our villages and our countryside. I represent a partly urban, partly rural constituency in north Wales. It is covered by the north Wales constabulary, and in that area we have seen a dramatic increase in drugs offences—from 292 in 1978, none involving heroin, to 956 in 1984, 522 of them, more than half, involving heroin.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) quoted Justinian's article in the Financial Times which said that the Bill, if passed, will be
  272
  "one of the most fearsome pieces of legislation in modern times, both in the investigative powers it gives to public authorities and in its penal sanctions."
  That should greatly satisfy Ministers and officials in the Home Office. To me such a response is only too appropriate to such a serious threat to our national wellbeing.
  9.50 pm
  Mr. Greg Knight: We are dealing with an international problem which shows all the signs of approaching and remaining at epidemic proportions during the 1980s and the 1990s unless fairly drastic action is taken. Between 1974 and 1984, the number of reported drug addicts increased fivefold. The number of those receiving medical treatment trebled. The figures show that heroin imports have increased by some 640 per cent.
  The most frightening aspect of all is that the size of the problem, as illustrated by the figures, is only the tip of the iceberg, as my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) said, because the official statistics show only reported instances. Those who have tried to estimate the scale of heroin addiction have suggested that the number of addicts is over 60,000.
  I will not be as rash as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and claim to speak for every one of my constituents, but I am sure that the majority of them are behind the measure, as are the Derby Christian Trade Unionists who have shown a commendable interest in the subject.
  I thought the hon. Gentleman was a little ungenerous in his reference to customs officials. The emphasis of detection has changed somewhat and, as I understand it, increasing importance is being given to long-term intelligence work. While I agree with some of the points he made about the desire to increase the number of customs officers, it is fair not to overlook this other point.
  Britain can learn from the experience of the United States of America. America has been a dumping ground for drugs for a number of years and comparatively its problem is a lot worse than ours. I note that America has proceeded along the path that we are being invited to follow.
  I should like the Minister, when replying, to comment on one point. I understand that in America not only is it lawful for drug proceeds and the assets achieved from drug dealing to be forfeited but that that can be achieved by civil proceedings before a criminal conviction. Has my right hon. Friend given further thought to whether or not we should introduce a similar measure?
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) asked what will happen to assets confiscated by the courts. In America, a percentage of the assets seized goes to the general fund of the Treasury. However, the recent crackdown on drugs there has also proved profitable for the police because, as I understand it, some states in America offer an inducement to police authorities whereby a successful drug detection unit is sometimes allowed to keep a percentage of the assets for whose confiscation it has been responsible. I should like my hon. Friend to deal with that point.
  It seems that to some degree the success of the American legislation is based upon the motivation factor. That is a good Conservative principle—the principle of self-interest. If police squads are successful, they should

  273
  be able to have some share of the confiscated assets in terms of new equipment or perhaps an expansion of their departments. Will this happen, even to a small extent, in Britain when the Bill becomes law?
  Some hon. Members have expressed concern about the shift in the burden of proof. I know that the former right hon. Member for South Down, Mr. Enoch Powell, also expressed concern about this aspect of the Bill. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn—I do not have any misgivings about this provision of the Bill. First, it applies only after conviction. I think that the successful business man, the successful pop singer or even the unsuccessful working man who has won a bonanza from a newspaper bingo game or has won money from any other source would have no difficulty in showing the actual source of the money.
  Secondly, it is not creating a precedent because—in areas of law which are substantially less serious, such as commercial law and some traffic offences — the principle does exist. When a motorist is stopped by the police, the burden is on him to show that he holds a licence, that his vehicle has an MOT test certificate and that he is insured. We are not creating a new principle although we may be extending the principle. This should be done, in view of the horrors of the drug problem, if we are to bring the guilty to justice and take the profit out of their crime.
  The drug problem, rather like the economy, has two sides to it—supply and demand. Some people suggest that all the Government can do is attack the supply side and try to prevent drugs from coming into the country. I disagree. Although it is important to see that drug hauls are intercepted, the demand side does need to be tackled. It is vital that the public, especially the young, are educated about the effects of drugs. There is a tendency—not just for the reasons of unemployment or social deprivation suggested by the hon. Member for West Derby —among some young people to experiment and a desire to try something out that is fashionable. They may hear of a pop singer admitting to taking drugs and think it is something to try.
  I must add my voice to the praise which has been given to my hon. Friend the Minister, the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor)—much praise has been given to him this evening and earlier, I thought, from the look on his face, that he was getting rather worried about it. However, the praise is welcome and deserved. It is worth underlining the fact that the Government have made £8 million available to try to drive home to young people the dangers of drug abuse.
  It is not often that there is such consensus in the House as we see today. I hope that all Members will agree with the Prime Minister who, on 9 August last year, addressing her remarks to drug traffickers said:
  "We are after you. The pursuit will be relentless. The effort will get greater and greater until we have beaten you. The penalty will be long prison sentences. The penalty will be confiscation of everything you have ever gotten from drug smuggling."
  Let us all say "Hear, hear" to that.
  9.59 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I hope that brevity will not be taken for lack of concern about this vital issue. The co-operation shown by both sides of the
  274
  House, which I hope will be demonstrated by suspension of the Ten o'clock rule, shows that the House is determined to support one of the most effective weapons in the fight against drug taking and peddling. It is a world war against drugs. We are in the middle of world war three, and it is as important and probably as costly in terms of lives as previous world wars.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Drug Trafficking Offences Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Lang.]
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Hanley: My confidence in the House is fully justified, and I am grateful for the unanimous vote.
  I was honoured to be a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee that went to America. We had seen the depths to which people can sink through addiction to heroin in Hong Kong and Amsterdam and we saw the same with regard to cocaine in the United States. We have seen exactly what our future will be, or is likely to be, unless the Bill is supported fully by the British public. It is supported by the House. It is now up to the public to ensure that it works. On our return from America, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said:
  "I fear I have seen the future, and I do not like it."
  That is exactly the mood of the Select Committee.
  I well remember going on the visit. Most of us went with smiling faces, looking forward to our visit to a foreign country. Our smiles were very quickly wiped off our faces when we saw the evidence of drug taking, what it can do to people, the extent of drug taking and the amount of money that can be made from this pernicious habit.
  I went with prejudices. I believed that marijuana, or cannabis, was possibly harmless and that perhaps it should be legalised—that at least we should consider that. I came away believing that marijuana is as dangerous as any other drug. It can lead to the harder drugs. It can lead to a mentality that accepts drug taking. Scientific evidence shows that, when mixed with tobacco, it can be as dangerous as any other cancer-inducing product.
  I believed that cocaine was relatively harmless, that it was bearable and that one might be able to kick the habit. I have now seen that that is not at all the case. Although, unlike heroin, it can be put aside for a month or two, the feeling of euphoria, great power, ease and confidence that comes with cocaine is addictive and eventually the drug itself becomes addictive. The physical signs of taking cocaine are even more horrible. It can destroy the nasal passages and cause people to have metal implants in their noses because it has burnt the inside away.
  I remember, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) said, being in that small room in Miami surrounded by $10 billion-worth of drugs. That is almost twice as much as the budget for the Home Office, almost twice as much as the United Kingdom budget to the EEC and more than the budgets of the Department of Employment and the Department of Transport put together. It represents staggering power.
  Anybody could spend $1 billion on a small army and multiply the profits 10 times. That is why the place is so secret and so heavily armed. However, that $10 billion was the product of only six months of seizures in the

  275
  Miami area. It represents one tenth of the drug industry in America worth $100 billion. That is bigger than the gross domestic product of 14 out of 25 OECD countries.
  I learned a hard lesson in America. I learned that cocaine cannot be regarded as the champagne drug, as it is often called. I learned that it is the norm to take it at parties, especially among show business people. However, industry is also tainted by it. We even discovered that one of the representatives of the people, a Congressman, had been addicted to it but, now cured, tours the country telling of its evils. Anybody can be addicted to this drug once they have tasted it. In Pakistan, it has been discovered that two children of Cabinet Ministers are suffering from heroin addiction, and the authorities are clamping down effectively on the production of drugs, with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor).
  When one sees the activities of the drug traffickers and the couriers who bring drugs through Heathrow and other ports, one realises just what this can lead to. Drugs couriers carry drugs not only for money; they do it because they are threatened and blackmailed. There was the recent case involving the Nigerian lady who died when one of the 32 contraceptives containing heroin which she had been forced to take into her stomach exploded. That illustrates what people are forced to do. We know that she was forced to do it, because on her back were 32 razor cuts so that she would have to account for every one of the packages she had been forced to smuggle through. If that is the pressure under which people are put, it shows the evil of the drug for the world.
  With regard to the funds which are seized —admittedly very effectively in America, in the fight against drug traffickers — I do not believe that in the United Kingdom context they should be used specifically for prisons, for rehabilitation, for education or against the drug trafficker. I believe that every penny that is seized should be taken and put into the coffers of the Treasury. However, I believe that it is undeniable that we need to spend sufficient—or even more—on building prisons to house the traffickers, on rehabilitating those who have fallen prey to the drugs, on educating children so that they never go to drugs and against drugs traffickers in every way possible.
  The fact that the document "Tackling Drugs Misuse" was signed by seven Secretaries of State is an almost unique example of co-operation in Government in modern times. It is a document to be remembered, for the simple reason that one of those Secretaries of State was the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should remember that, in signing that document, he signed a whole-hearted commitment to provide the funds to fight drugs. We need more than the proceeds of seizure of drugs to use against drug traffickers, and this money must be found.
  Some people say that the police have gone soft on drugs. From evidence put before the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I do not believe that to be so. I believe that they are waging an intelligent and effective war and are being more constructive and effective in their approach. I can say, after four meetings with Scotland Yard, that I have never seen a body of men and women so concerned about one issue.
  With regard to customs officers, of course numbers matter. If the numbers fall below what is needed to do the job effectively, then obviously drugs will come in. If
  276
  customs officers go on strike, as they have done in recent years, that is when drugs can flood into the country. This is particularly so when they announce that they are going to go on strike in advance, to gain extra industrial pressure. I wish that they would not go on strike because they play a vital part in stopping drugs coming into the country.
  Of course numbers matter, but I believe that the present numbers are about adequate. It is not numbers ultimately that make the difference; it is the intelligence that Customs officers receive, the training they have in drug-related matters, the co-operation with the police force, which I am glad to say is now better than it has ever been, and the cooperation with other services that are so important. It is being able to identify the drug trafficker, the courier and the transport that brings drugs into the country. I am glad that the customs service has, in Pakistan, a man who is doing such excellent work in passing intelligence back to this country, and about the spread of this service to other countries. Given the contacts that we have—both police and customs officers—diplomatic status is a tremendous benefit, and helps co-operation with other countries.
  This is one of the best and most interesting Bills that has ever been introduced in an attempt to stop one particular crime. I was proud that I was on the Committee and that all members of the Committee agreed to the seven parts of the interim report. I was pleased, and I hope that the Government would take notice. The Government have done more than that—independently, they have come to the same conclusions. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney has worked tirelessly. It is known that he is probably one of the hardest-worked Ministers in the Government, and this co-operation role is particularly difficult. Wherever the Select Committee went, he had been before. Instead of saying that we wished that the Government would see what we had seen, we knew that my hon. Friend the Minister had seen it first. He has learnt what we have and has come to the same conclusion.
  This is an excellent Bill. I wish that it were tougher on civil remedies, but that is my only criticism of it. I wish it fair speed.
  10.11 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): It is a pleasure to be able to respond to such an interesting and absorbing debate, which has shown such a wide-ranging accord across the Floor of the House. I thank those who paid warm tributes to my efforts. I am touched by what has been said. It is a privilege for me to be engaged in this issue, which we all know to be of such profound significance to future generations. My right hon. Friends and I are glad that the Bill has achieved such wide-ranging support and that the points that have been made have been so constructive. We shall have the opportunity to look at them in Committee, where I am looking forward to playing a part in the proceedings.
  I am also glad that it has been possible to broaden the debate and to make some more general points about the overall problem and the work that we are doing to combat it. It is clear that, although this is a significant Bill, which represents a further major brick in the wall that we are building against the trafficker, the Bill alone cannot resolve the drugs problem.
  In a typically wise speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) made abundantly clear his view that there is no excape from the drug

  277
  problem down the law and order route, although we must make those services more effective in their battle against traffickers. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) pointed out that escape comes through education and widespread recognition by the community that there exists no problem that drugs do anything but make matters worse. We must get more people to say no to drugs. The willingness of people to pay for and take drugs puts the pressure on, and creates the incentive for, the drug trafficker to find other, more complicated ways of avoiding authority. We must face the fact that in a free society there will always be ways to do that. We can never block off every route into the country.
  We have to make the law and order services ever more effective. The police and customs are now working together in the closest way — unparalleled in their history. They have never been better resourced to do this and the other jobs that they are asked to do. We talk in terms of raising several million pounds from the Bill, but we should not begrudge the Treasury that money, as expenditure on the police under this Government has gone up from £1·1 billion to £2·8 billion a year. The police service at every level— from the drug squads to the copper on the beat to the regional crime squads, increased by 20 per cent. as a result of announcements made in the summer, to the national drugs intelligence unit, headed by one of our most experienced policemen—is playing a full part in this with the customs.
  I do not want to get into detailed discussion at this hour about the customs position, but I should like to pay tribute to the work of the customs, as I did the other day when their seizure figures for 1985 were announced, showing just what a rich harvest their professionalism is reaping. The fact that they smashed 70 drug rings last year is a major achievement; and the fact that 1,500 people were arrested is also something for which we are all very grateful.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) raised the point of uniformed preventive staff. I appreciate that there has been controversy about this matter. Certainly since my ministerial group was formed there has been a steady increase in the number of uniformed preventive officers, and there are more to come. My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) must not think that we are talking of only 35 extra officers in this context. Thirty-five extra intelligence officers relate to the work of this Bill. But I am happy to tell him, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) well knows, because this information was given in answer to his question, that in the two years from April 1985 to April 1987 it is proposed that the number of uniformed preventive officers, whose main priority is drugs detection, be increased from 2,823, as at 1 April 1985, to 3,300 by 1 April 1987—almost 500 more over a two-year period. By the same token, the number of specialist intelligence investigators dealing with the careful tracking of drugs conspiracies, the careful targeting of flights and of individuals, the profiling of suspects—which is such a help to uniformed officers — has increased already from some 121 to 262 and, as a result of reconsideration of the implications of this Bill, is scheduled to increase to some 297 by April 1987.
  We have also seen, in parallel with those increases, a great change in the sophistication with which customs are
  278
  able to tackle the drugs problem, in particular by being able to concentrate more not on the predictable checks —the red and green channels—but on the unpredictable checks. Anyone who has visited Heathrow as I have knows how much goes on apart from what one sees in the red and green channels; and rightly so.
  The greatest tribute to the customs, to the efforts that they are making, and the success that they are achieving, is what was reported by Mr. Lawrence, the chief investigation officer, a few weeks ago, when he said that smugglers were no longer generally bringing their drugs on the direct route into the country; they recognised that that was now very well targeted and they were taking ever more complicated and tortuous routes around Europe. There are, of course, the particular problems of other continental countries where the law and order services are perhaps less effective, particularly the Netherlands, where drugs can be warehoused and run into the United Kingdom in containers, lorries and cars. This poses, however many men there are and however well disciplined they may be, an almost insuperable problem.
  Some points of detail have been raised to which I really ought to refer. Some of them reminded me a little of what Richard Strauss said about conductors: "There are those who take the music too fast and there are others who take the music too slow." Some hon. Members think that some provisions go too far; others think that some do not go far enough. We have tried to strike a balance between the two extremes.
  Our friend Justinian says that it is a ferocious piece of legislation. I gather that "Justinian" masks a well-known progressive thinker whose lines of thought are not always in keeping with those of the man on the top of the Clapham omnibus. If we have offended him, I do not suppose that it is for the first time. I do not think that there is anything particularly ferocious about the Bill in the sense that we are taking unprecedented powers. What we are doing is trying to take from other areas of the law, particularly the civil law, things that have worked well, like the Mareva injunctions and the vigorous investigations by the high Court masters. We have tried to ensure that they are put at the service of the criminal law so that we do not repeat the mistake that parliament made in 1971. At that time section 27 appeared to the layman to give a clear power to seize assets. However, because it was not sufficiently thought through and did not have a mechanism to make it enforceable, it led to the Operation Julie case, and the present hopeless distinctions between the man with the drug money hot in his pocket which can be confiscated, and the man who has invested money on the stock exchange in Westland shares, or whatever takes his fancy, which cannot be seized under the law. If in 1971 someone had suggested that that would be the effect of the legislation, no one would have believed it. That was the effect, and that is why we have worked so hard to get the right answer, stimulated by the work of the Home Affairs Select Committee to whose chairman and members I pay tribute.
  The reason why we decided not to adopt the American example of civil proceedings was that we did not think that it could fit readily into the British system. The power is draconian and would have appeared out of sorts with anything that we have hitherto done, because it gives authorities the power to seize property, if they have reasonable suspicion that it has been acquired illegally. Then the individual who claims to be the owner is put to

  279
  proof. Without having been convicted of anything, it is up to him to establish that the property was lawfully acquired. If we had proposed that, I suspect that more than Justinian would have spoken of ferocity, and they might have been right.
  Mr. Alex Carlile rose—
  Mr. Mellor: I am receiving some instructions suggesting that I should not give way, but I shall.
  Mr. Carlile: Before the Minister leaves the question of applications to freeze assets altogether, will he explain why the Government have not decided to introduce provisions which would enable the police to apply ex parte for the freezing of assets before arrest? That would be an effective power in their hands. Moreover, it was recommended by Hodgson.
  Mr. Mellor: We provide for that in the sense that once a warrant for arrest is issued, it does not have to be executed. At that point the police can go to the High Court judge, before the individual knows that he is about to be arrested, and persuade that judge to grant the injunction. We have sought to balance every power that has been given with a safeguard, because that is the proper way to proceed. If the Committee takes the view that it would be better if the power to freeze were not linked to arrest, we would be receptive to that point.
  It is important that we seek a balance. In striking it we reached the conclusion that this was the proper way to proceed. This major innovation in criminal law had to be balanced by evidence on which an arrest warrant had been issued, or on which an arrest without a warrant had taken place, and by the approval of a High Court judge.
  Regarding the receipt of funds, a large sum has been invested in our campaign against drugs, and the extent of it is well set out in the publication, "Tackling Drug Misuse". I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be begrudged the money that will be received as a result of this measure considering the Government's large expenditure on combating the problem.
  I am grateful to colleagues who have taken part in the debate. I hope that those who have spoken so eloquently with such an obviously detailed knowledge of the problem and such a commitment to its eradication will join us in
  280
  Committee. We have tried to think the Bill through, and to ensure that we give the courts a readily understandable, workable power which will result in drug traffickers losing the proceeds of their evil activities. This proposal, like all the others that come before the House, must be looked at rigorously. No doubt, it can be improved. I hope that those who have spoken so well tonight will join in improving it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) was right to remind me about the problem of others who are making money out of crime. My hon. Friend is particularly concerned about those involved in vice. He believes that they should be subject to the rigours of these proposals. We have a commitment which we intend to carry through in the Criminal Justice Bill, which we hope will find a place in the Government's legislative programme next Session, to legislate more widely on the subject of the seizure of the assets of the criminal fraternity. It is a matter for judgment on which we welcome comments, as to how far the principles in the Bill should be carried across into the law more generally I accept the warning that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) issued, but I know the pressure that colleagues like my hon. Friend the Member for Test are under from their constituents who are troubled by the amount of money to be made out of vice. I can assure hon. Members that their message has not fallen on deaf ears.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

  DRUG TRAFFICKING OFFENCES BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Drug Trafficking Offences Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money provided by Parliament, and

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable into the Consolidated Fund under section 61 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

  Mrs. Sybil Gordon
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
  10.36 pm
  Mr. Jim Lester: I am pleased to have the opportunity at a comparatively reasonable hour to refer to the constituency case of Mrs. Sybil Gordon and the advice she received from the Nottingham probate office. This is one of those cases on which a Member feels so strongly that he continues—this is the fifth time I have applied for an Adjournment debate since 5 November—to press for a hearing in this ultimate Chamber, the House of Commons. I welcome this Adjournment debate because this matter needs to be settled. It covers events that have taken place since 1982. I have made at least three attempts in correspondence with the Lord Chancellor, in addition to Mrs. Gordon's efforts, to solve this problem.
  Mrs. Gordon's experience is by any standards a real tragedy in that her son Malcolm David Cameron Gordon and her grandson, Gerald David Gordon, aged seven, died together in a road accident in June 1982. Her son, who had been divorced and had not remarried, died intestate along with his only dependant. At this time, Mrs. Gordon needed help and support during what we would all recognise was, by any standards, a dreadful tragedy.
  Luckily, a friend of the family, a retired auditor, Mr. Harold Lipman, helped to sort out the legal position regarding Mrs. Gordon's son's estate, especially in terms of paying his funeral expenses and debts. Mr. Lipman has proved a valuable witness to the course of events which he described in a letter to me dated 30 May 1985 in response to the first refusal that I had from the Lord Chancellor to consider this case, based on the fact that the Nottingham probate office does not give legal advice. The probate office not only gave her advice up until the last contact with the Ipswich probate office, who gave Mrs. Gordon's daughter-in-law the correct advice two years later, but continued to maintain its original position that she could not make a formal application for settlement of her son's estate, when in fact this was the correct legal position. As Mr. Lipman stated in his letter, the basis for Mrs. Gordon's complaint against the probate office is that she made a claim in 1982 to the Nottingham probate registry for the purpose of taking out letters of administration to settle her son's estate. It is clear that the advice she was given at the time was that she was not allowed to do so. She was told that only her grandson's mother could do this and that the estate had nothing to do with her.
  Mr. Lipman states that Mrs. Gordon, whom he had known for many years as a retired teacher, had made an accurate statement to the probate office of the circumstances when she asked permission to take out letters of administration on her son's estate. He confirms that, within a week or so of Matthew's death, he spoke to the Nottingham probate registry describing all the relevant circumstances. The lady to whom he spoke informed him that Georgina, the son's former wife, would inherit the estate via her small son, Joe, and that she was the person who needed to register the letters of administration. He says that she was definite about that.
  Some time later, Mrs. Gordon was understandably distressed because the estate was still not being administered and the undertakers were asking for payment
  282
  of the funeral expenses which she had guaranteed. Mr. Lipman, as a neutral person, spoke to the Nottingham probate registry. He spoke to the same lady who, he said, was quite short with him, saying that the estate had nothing whatever to do with Matthew's mother. It concerned only the ex-wife through her young son. This corroborates the correspondence that I have had from Mrs. Gordon. I have deliberately referred to Mr. Lipman's letter because I believe that he was a neutral observer.
  In 1984 when, Mr. Lipman went with Mrs. Gordon to the probate office, two years after her son's death, the official who had dealt with the application said that the lady who had given the advice had left the probate office to be a senior registrar in Manchester. She was therefore still known and traceable.
  The basis of the Lord Chancellor's rejection of Mrs. Gordon's claim of harassment, difficulty and distress has been that the registry staff has no responsibility to give legal advice. The registry staff may say, "It is not our business to give legal advice. We should advise you to go to a solicitor. We can give you guidance on how to register a complaint." That is reasonable. It is clear that, in this case, from the beginning, the probate registry staff told Mrs. Gordon and Mr. Lipman that there was no question of Mrs. Gordon being able to register the letters of administration.
  Over a period of two years, Mrs. Gordon suffered considerable distress because her relationship with her former daughter-in-law deteriorated. The former daughter-in-law's solicitor notified Mrs. Gordon that he was trying to get the superannuation available to her via the young boy and that settlement of the estate would depend on whether the ex-wife gave the nod. The solicitor told Mrs. Gordon in no uncertain terms that she had no claim on the estate.
  I must point out that Mrs. Gordon was seeking no claim on the estate in a material sense; she was merely distressed that her son's estate was not being cleared according to the law and concerned about whether his debts were being properly paid. Subsequently, the former daughter-in-law changed her solicitor. The new solicitor applied on her behalf to the Ipswich probate office for the letters of administration.
  He was given what has subsequently turned out to be the correct advice which was that the ex-wife had no claim on the estate because the grandson was under 18 years of age and the only person who could settle the sad matter was the mother.
  When Mr. Lipman and Mrs. Gordon returned to the Nottingham probate office, the staff confirmed that they remembered the case. When Mrs. Gordon told them the advice she had been given by the Ipswich probate office, they refused to believe it. It was finally left that the Nottingham probate office would ring the Ipswich probate office to corroborate the correct legal advice. That was two years after the event. Immediately after that they invited Mrs. Gordon and Mr. Lipman to come to the Probate Office and take out letters of administration to settle the difficult and sad matter. Mrs. Gordon had faced two years of misery in finalising her son's estate.
  It is clear that after two years people have forgotten the advice they were given and it is difficult to trace those who gave the advice. However, I submit that there are not many cases submitted to probate of such gravity, where a person loses both her son and grandson in a road accident. It is clear from Mr. Lipman's evidence of the approaches that

  283
  he made that when Mrs. Gordon approached the Nottingham probate office she was given clear advice that she had no claim on the estate and she was not encouraged or allowed to register her case which eventually proved just and legitimate.
  Having suffered the long period of distress and difficulty and having lost the relationship with her ex daughter-in-law, Mrs. Gordon feels aggrieved. If she had been given the correct advice, or even no advice at all and told that it was not the role of the probate office to advise or suggest any course of action and that she should consult a legal adviser who was knowledgeable in complicated matters of probate law, the matter may have been settled more easily. That was not the case. I am satisfied that all the correspondence I have seen and the events I have described to the House are accurate.
  There may be a secondary case that Mrs. Gordon did consult a solicitor in Beeston who gave her the same sort of advice as the probate office. Therefore, it was not unreasonable for Mrs. Gordon to proceed with energy to finalise the problem when on two occasions at the Nottingham probate office, on one occasion from a solicitor and under pressure from her ex-daughter-in-law's solicitor, she was given the wrong advice. I am convinced that if she had been told to seek advice from a legal adviser or if the probate office had taken the trouble to consult its own legal records, as the Ipswich probate office did, the subsequent trouble and distress would have been avoided.
  I understand why people who are not qualified—that certainly covers the probate office — should not give legal advice in such cases. As I understand the principle established by the case of Hedley Byrne and Company Limited versus Heller and Partners Limited, it is not unreasonable, when officials or officers are seen to have special knowledge of the law, and are seen by laymen to be in that position, to expect them to understand that the advice they give is likely to be accepted and that they should be held responsible for it. I submit to my hon. and learned Friend that this case is clearly within that principle. It seems to be beyond doubt that the Nottingham probate registry was not advising Mrs. Gordon on how to complete the necessary forms. Instead, it was advising her on her legal position as it saw it. That continued for over two years until it verified by telephone the alternative legal advice that was given by the Ipswich office.
  I contend that it would be reasonable for the Lord Chancellor to accept that in addition to the grave tragedy of losing both a son and a grandson, which few of us can envisage, Mrs. Gordon suffered sadness and distress, and unnecessary distress, over two years in the settlement of her son's estate.
  In this case there have been at least three applications to the Lord Chancellor and much correspondence to him as well as this Adjournment debate. Against that background, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether the case could not be reopened and considered in the light of the circumstances that I have spelt out to the House, with a satisfactory solution arrived at for Mrs. Gordon in view of the great sadness and distress which she has, in my view, suffered unnecessarily.
  10.41 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) has brought to the attention of the House a complaint made by his constituent, Mrs. Gordon, which concerns the staff of
  284
  Nottingham probate sub-registry. My hon. Friend, as all who know him would expect, has shown great assiduity in furthering the cause of his constituent and her desire that her grievance should be considered further and should find redress.
  The matter comes within the departmental responsibility of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and I, accordingly, have been asked to respond on his behalf. My hon. Friend has outlined the sad circumstances and events which befell members of Mrs. Gordon's family in June 1982. It is impossible to hear of them without great sympathy for Mrs. Gordon on that account.
  Mrs. Gordon's son died intestate and his estate therefore devolved in accordance with the rules relating to intestacy, which are set out in section 46 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925. Her son had been married and had one seven-year-old son, but was divorced in May 1979. That meant that his former wife could not have inherited his estate directly. At the time of his death he had not remarried. Mr. Gordon's only child died in the same terrible accident in which he himself perished.
  For the child to inherit his father's estate, he would have had to have survived his father until he reached his 18th birthday, or have married before attaining that age. As the little boy was only seven when he died, Mrs. Gordon was by law the only person who was entitled to inherit her son's estate. She was, therefore, the only person who was entitled to obtain a grant of letters of administration to his estate.
  After the tragic death of her son and grandson in 1982, Mrs. Gordon was helped by a Mr. Lipman. As my hon. Friend has said, Mr. Lipman is a professional man. He is a retired auditor and a friend of the family. He telephoned solicitors in Mansfield and was told that Mrs. Gordon's son's estate would pass to his former wife via their son, Joel.
  That advice was based on the assumption that the so-called law of commorientes—that is, persons who died apparently simultaneously with one another—applied in this case. That law, as now contained in section 184 of the Law of Property Act 1925, concerns the situation in which two or more persons die on the same occasion in circumstances in which it is not possible to ascertain who died first, as in a fatal car accident. In cases in which this doctrine applies, the persons who have died are deemed to have died in order of seniority—that is, the oldest first and the youngest last.
  The law of commorientes, however, was irrelevant in the circumstances of the deaths of Mrs. Gordon's son and grandson because at the time of his death Mrs. Gordon's grandson was only seven years old and therefore could not have inherited his father's estate at all. The estate therefore could not pass via the little boy to his mother. If the solicitors' advice was as stated, it was therefore misleading. Mrs. Gordon was the only person entitled to her son's estate.
  Mr. Lipman subsequently telephoned the Nottingham probate registry and he says that he was told that Mr. Gordon's former wife was the only person entitled to his estate. Mrs. Gordon then contacted the solicitors and was advised to make an appointment at the Nottingham registry. It is not possible now to establish exactly what was said to Mrs. Gordon by the registry staff or what information she supplied to them. It is clear, however, that

  285
  after her attendance at the registry Mrs. Gordon believed that her former daughter-in-law was the only person entitled to her son's estate.
  Some time after she visited the probate registry, Mrs. Gordon was again told by solicitors that she was not entitled to benefit from her son's estate. She has stated in a letter that she did not attend the probate registry to obtain legal advice. It is therefore reasonable to assume that it was because of the advice given to her by solicitors that she refrained thereafter from making a formal application in 1982.
  Mrs. Gordon eventually obtained a grant of letters of administration in June 1984. The basis of her complaint is that she has suffered by reason of her acceptance of advice that she says was given to her by the staff of Nottingham probate registry.
  As my hon. Friend fairly acknowledges, the staff of district probate registries are not solicitors but civil servants employed by the Lord Chancellor's Department. They may advise members of the public on the procedure relating to grants of probate or letters of administration, but they must not give legal advice and they are not qualified to do so—that is the function of solicitors or barristers. Not only is it not the responsibility of registry staff to give legal advice, as my hon. Friend has said, but they are instructed that they are not to do so and it is therefore their duty not to do so.
  Owing to the passage of time, it has not been possible to establish clearly what was said by the staff of the
  286
  probate registry to Mrs. Gordon or even what information she gave to them about the personal circumstances of her son at the time of the accident. It is clear, however—and it is only fair to acknowledge this—that there is no reason to doubt the good faith either of Mrs. Gordon or of Mr. Lipman. Mrs. Gordon may well have been left under the impression that one or other of them—either she or Mr. Lipman — had been given well-intentioned but wrong advice which confirmed the advice that she had been given by two firms of solicitors.
  The Lord Chancellor is not and cannot in the circumstances be convinced that the registry staff exceeded their duties and, therefore, he cannot accept liability in this matter. Nevertheless, he is willing to instruct his officials to consider the complaint once again. If Mrs. Gordon is willing to discuss the matter with them, arrangements will be made for those officials to consider her complaint afresh with a view to reaching a solution which would be satisfactory to her.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having raised the matter. I know that he has tried to do so on at least a couple of occasions, and I hope that the suggestion that I have made, on the authority of the Lord Chancellor, will satisfy him and will demonstrate to Mrs. Gordon that her Member of Parliament has effectively brought the matter before the House of Commons, and that that has led to a further inquiry into her understandable grievance.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eleven o' clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk Production
  Milk Production
ENERGY
  Hinckley Point
  Hinckley Point
  Coalmining Subsidence
  Coalmining Subsidence
  Coal Exports
  Coal Exports
  Hinckley Point
  Hinckley Point
SCOTLAND
  Drug Trafficking
  Drug Trafficking
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  School Examinations
  School Examinations
  Road Accident (East Lothian)
  Road Accident (East Lothian)
  Agriculture and Veterinary Services
  Agriculture and Veterinary Services
  Food and Environment Protection
  Food and Environment Protection
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Leverndale Psychiatric Hospital
  Leverndale Psychiatric Hospital
WALES
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Regional Development Grant
  Regional Development Grant
  Environment Policy
  Environment Policy
  Company Registrations
  Company Registrations
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  UNESCO
  UNESCO
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Gross National Product
  Gross National Product
  EC (Budget)
  EC (Budget)
EMPLOYMENT
  Trade Union Ballots
  Trade Union Ballots
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
  Hi-tech Centres
  Hi-tech Centres
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Jobcentre Advertisements (Minimum Wages)
  Jobcentre Advertisements (Minimum Wages)
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Truck Acts
  Truck Acts
  Employment and Training Schemes
  Employment and Training Schemes
  Tyne and Wear
  Tyne and Wear
  Industrial Stoppages
  Industrial Stoppages
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Adult Training
  Adult Training
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Unemployment (Reduction)
  Unemployment (Reduction)
  Guidance Leaflets
  Guidance Leaflets
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  MSC Training Schemes
  MSC Training Schemes
  Factory Inspectors
  Factory Inspectors
  Apprenticeships
  Apprenticeships
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Long-term Unemployed Persons
  Long-term Unemployed Persons
  Basildon
  Basildon
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Unemployed Persons (Jobs Take-up)
  Unemployed Persons (Jobs Take-up)
  Jobcentres (Training Courses)
  Jobcentres (Training Courses)
  Labour Mobility
  Labour Mobility
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Non-advanced Further Education
  Non-advanced Further Education
  Tourist Industry
  Tourist Industry
  Manufacturing
  Manufacturing
  Bootle Jobcentre
  Bootle Jobcentre
  Crown Immunity
  Crown Immunity
  Job Clubs
  Job Clubs
  Wage Levels
  Wage Levels
  Tourism
  Tourism
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  National Marriage Guidance Council
  National Marriage Guidance Council
  EC Labour and Social Affairs Council
  EC Labour and Social Affairs Council
  Rosyth, Plymouth and Fife (Training)
  Rosyth, Plymouth and Fife (Training)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Hospital Laundry
  Hospital Laundry
  Disability Aids
  Disability Aids
  NHS (Pharmaceutical Supplies)
  NHS (Pharmaceutical Supplies)
  "Reform of Social Security"
  "Reform of Social Security"
  Clinical Psychologists
  Clinical Psychologists
  National Marriage Guidance Council
  National Marriage Guidance Council
  Tranquillisers
  Tranquillisers
  X-rays
  X-rays
  Hip Operations
  Hip Operations
  Board and Lodging Payments
  Board and Lodging Payments
  Mr. David Galloway
  Mr. David Galloway
  NHS (General Managers)
  NHS (General Managers)
DEFENCE
  Helicopters (Procurement)
  Helicopters (Procurement)
  Combat Helmets
  Combat Helmets
  Mr. Peter Levene
  Mr. Peter Levene
  British Aerospace
  British Aerospace
  FH70 Ammunition
  FH70 Ammunition
  Woolwich Arsenal
  Woolwich Arsenal
ENVIRONMENT
  Property (Use Classes)
  Property (Use Classes)
  Right to Buy
  Right to Buy
  Southwark Council (Works)
  Southwark Council (Works)
  Water (Pollution)
  Water (Pollution)
  Water Supplies
  Water Supplies
  SUPPLY AREA
  SUPPLY AREA
  YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY
  YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY
  CAMBRIDGE WATER COMPANY
  CAMBRIDGE WATER COMPANY
  SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATERWORKS COMPANY
  SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATERWORKS COMPANY
  EAST WORCESTERSHIRE WATERWORKS COMPANY
  EAST WORCESTERSHIRE WATERWORKS COMPANY
  LEE VALLEY WATER COMPANY
  LEE VALLEY WATER COMPANY
  SEVERN TRENT WATER AUTHORITY
  SEVERN TRENT WATER AUTHORITY
  Home Improvements
  Home Improvements
  Coastal Footpath (Barnstaple and Bideford)
  Coastal Footpath (Barnstaple and Bideford)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  London Residuary Body
  London Residuary Body
  GLC (Grants)
  GLC (Grants)
TRANSPORT
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Foreign Lorry Drivers (Road Safety)
  Foreign Lorry Drivers (Road Safety)
PRIME MINISTER
  Science Courses (Universities)
  Science Courses (Universities)
  Prime Minister of Israel
  Prime Minister of Israel
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Plain English Unit
  Plain English Unit
  Bradford City Football Club
  Bradford City Football Club
  Family Relationship (Tests)
  Family Relationship (Tests)
  Westland plc
  Westland plc
  Ministers (Broadcasts)
  Ministers (Broadcasts)
  10 Downing Street (Foreign Visitors)
  10 Downing Street (Foreign Visitors)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Alexander Archibald
  Alexander Archibald
  African National Congress
  African National Congress
  South Atlantic Islands (Sovereignty)
  South Atlantic Islands (Sovereignty)
  EC Intergovernmental Conference
  EC Intergovernmental Conference
  Chile
  Chile
  Guatemala
  Guatemala
  UNESCO
  UNESCO
  El Salvador (Officer Training)
  El Salvador (Officer Training)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Sumrie plc
  Sumrie plc
  Research (Extra-territoriality)
  Research (Extra-territoriality)
  Lloyd's (Departmental Investigations)
  Lloyd's (Departmental Investigations)
  Patent Office
  Patent Office
  Post Office
  Post Office
  Financial Conglomerates
  Financial Conglomerates
  British Overseas Trade Board (Chairman)
  British Overseas Trade Board (Chairman)
  House of Fraser
  House of Fraser
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  University Grants Committee
  University Grants Committee
  Student Numbers
  Student Numbers
  University Applicants
  University Applicants
  Universities (Teaching Staff)
  Universities (Teaching Staff)
  Professional Engineers
  Professional Engineers
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Postgraduate Awards
  Postgraduate Awards
  Open University
  Open University
  Further Education
  Further Education
  European Youth Ministers
  European Youth Ministers
  Visually Handicapped Students
  Visually Handicapped Students
  University Museums (Funding)
  University Museums (Funding)
  Research Councils
  Research Councils
  School Curriculum
  School Curriculum
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Enterprise Zones
  Enterprise Zones
  Car Parks
  Car Parks
  Intergovernmental Conference
  Intergovernmental Conference
  Police Stations (Damage)
  Police Stations (Damage)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Thames Valley Police
  Thames Valley Police
  Deportation
  Deportation
  Foreign Visitors
  Foreign Visitors
  Video Recordings Act 1984
  Video Recordings Act 1984
  Prisons (Workplaces)
  Prisons (Workplaces)
  Prisoners (AIDS)
  Prisoners (AIDS)
  Women (Attacks)
  Women (Attacks)
  Police Records
  Police Records
  Undercover Operations
  Undercover Operations
  Ms. Angela Lloyd
  Ms. Angela Lloyd
  Crime Prevention
  Crime Prevention
  Exclusion Orders
  Exclusion Orders
  Refugees
  Refugees
  Animal Experimentation
  Animal Experimentation
  Police (Automatic Weapons)
  Police (Automatic Weapons)
  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Commission for Racial Equality (Letters)
  Commission for Racial Equality (Letters)
  Mr. Alan W. Norton
  Mr. Alan W. Norton
  Channel Islands
  Channel Islands
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Immigration
  Immigration
  National Marriage Guidance Council
  National Marriage Guidance Council
  Tottenham Disturbances
  Tottenham Disturbances
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Cigarettes (Illegal Sale)
  Cigarettes (Illegal Sale)
  Television Licence
  Television Licence
  Benzodiazepine Drugs
  Benzodiazepine Drugs
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Access
  Access
  Select Committees
  Select Committees

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.

Soviet Ballistic Missile Defence Activity
Lord Orr-Ewing: 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 assessment they have made of the extent of Soviet research and development into ballistic missile defence.
The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, we are clear that the Soviet Union is embarked upon a major programme of research in these areas. I would refer my noble friend to the paper on this subject which I placed in the Library of the House on 12th December in response to a Written Answer from my noble friend Lord Alexander of Tunis.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is it correct that in connection with that programme the Soviet Union is employing no fewer than 10,000 engineers on laser research and development? Do the Government have further plans to publicise that gigantic effort so that those still critical of the American counter-effort may be more firmly convinced that it is essential that the free world should continue with its R & D?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we believe that the Soviet Union has about 10,000 scientists and engineers, or perhaps more, working in the area to which my noble friend refers. In addition, a substantial number are working in related areas. If we are referring to the Soviet effort in that and related fields, I need only remind your Lordships that the only deployed anti-ballistic missile system in the world is around Moscow.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the United States agreed that the antiballistic missile system deployed around Moscow could remain there under SALT II so long as it was not extended? Is he further aware that, although there is considerable effort going on in that area on both sides of the Atlantic, it is the Soviet Union which wants to stop it and the United States which refuses to do so?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I may refer again to the system around Moscow, it is presently being modernised to include GALOSH missiles, which are nuclear tipped and designed to intercept targets outside the atmosphere—that is, in space.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, is there not every reason to suppose that whatever experiments the Russians may now be conducting, they are just as unlikely to be
108
able to establish a leak-proof, space-based ABM system by the end of the century as the Americans? Therefore, is it not possible that the present Russian experiments with lasers, phased array systems and so on, are just as likely to be connected with other spheres of defence as with the probably unrealisable SDI system?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not deny that the scientific hurdles that remain to be overcome before a leak-proof system (to use the noble Lord's words) can be achieved, whether in the Soviet Union or in the United States, are considerable. Nonetheless, I think that history leads us to suppose that sooner or later those hurdles will be overcome.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is it not the propaganda purpose of the Soviet Government to propose the abolition of anything in which it happens to have a temporary lead?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that the history of negotiations leads us to suppose that the Soviet Union seeks to find itself in a position of strength before embarking on such negotiations.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is important to safeguard the anti-ballistic missile treaty? Can he say whether the Government have evidence that the Soviet Union has violated that treaty?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there certainly is evidence to suggest that the Soviet Union has violated the treaty, although in some areas I recognise that there is room for more than one view.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, can the Minister say what proportion of the amount which is devoted by the USSR of its defence spending to strategic defence goes to ABM and to anti-aircraft? According to CIA testimony given to the Senate Armed Services and Appropriations Committees in June of last year, one-tenth of the total spent on defence goes to strategic defence; but I have seen analyses suggesting that far more than half the sum involved goes to anti-aircraft defence. Indeed, the record of the testimony, which I have read carefully, indicates that there is a blurring of distinction between ABM and anti-aircraft. I wonder whether we have our own views on that subject.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I agree that there are respectable views along the lines suggested by the noble Lord; but reliable information about Soviet defence expenditure in terms that we can compare with our own is hard to come by.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, will the Minister not agree that, in view of the amount of money that is being spent by the Soviet Union on research and development in this and other fields, he should have a word with his colleague the Secretary of State for Education and Science to spend more money in this country on research and development in all fields?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that this question directly arises from the one on the Order Paper. I can only say that whatever the sum of money being spent by the Soviet Union in these areas, the results in terms of hardware are very substantial.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that there is substantial evidence that the Soviet Union is busy on space-based anti-ballistic missile defence research, as it is entitled to be under the ABM treaty, and that it is quite irrelevant for him, with respect, to quote the Moscow system of GALOSH missiles, which are ground-based, are agreed entirely with the United States and have nothing at all to do with the SDI?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I never suggested that GALOSH missiles to which I referred were other than land-based. The fact remains that they have a role to intercept missiles outside the atmosphere.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if so much is known of development on both sides in this important field, why are the facts not laid on the table in Geneva following the apparently improved relations between Mr. Gorbachev and President Reagan during their last meeting?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the discussions in Geneva (to which the United Kingdom is not directly a party) are conducted very correctly, and that the United States brings forward all the information of the kind to which I have been referring this afternoon. So far as the Western Alliance goes, we do more than bring it forward in the confidential discussions; we publish it. That is why I placed the document to which I have referred in the Library.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, with regard to whether or not treaties are being honoured, can my noble friend put in the Library a list of those treaties of the past 30 years which the Soviet Union has honoured? Will he include diversions from Helsinki and the circumvention of many others? Will my noble friend also take the opportunity to tell the House how the Government are getting on with negotiating the proposal that British scientists and we, here in the United Kingdom, should share at least part of the American SDI programme?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with regard to British participation in the SDI research programme, my noble friend will recall the Statement on this matter that I repeated just before Christmas. I understand that negotiations between companies and institutions leading to contracts are proceeding very well.

Terrorist Demands and Negotiations
2.45 p.m.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether refusal to negotiate with or offer deals to terrorists and kidnappers is still their policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the handling of a terrorist incident will often involve a process of negotiation, usually conducted by trained police officers, in order to bring the incident to a peaceful conclusion with minimum risk to any hostages and to arrest offenders. The arrangements for handling such incidents are closely co-ordinated between police and Government, and follow the declared policy of the Government that we will not make substantive concessions to terrorist demands.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, while congratulating the Government on their own policy, particularly the handling of the recent case of the gentleman who escaped wearing a bedstead—that seems to have been admirably handled—is it not made somewhat difficult by amateur competition, particularly when it comes with the alleged endorsement of the established Church? We learn nowadays, do we not, that Mr. Waite is on his way, that he is being most graciously received, that he is negotiating with the assassins and that everyone seems to be a very good fellow indeed. In the very week that he tells us that Colonel Gaddafi is a deeply religious man, he is voted by viewers England's second most popular man. Does not this approach, totally opposed to that of the Government, make the running of the Government's policy a little difficult?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I really do not think that I can go further than what I have already said. It is the policy of the Government to seek to achieve a peaceful resolution of terrorist incidents by a process of negotiation. This might involve minor concessions such as the provision of food, but stops short of conceding substantive political demands.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is it not surely for the Government to make those concessions? The interventions of an amateur of this sort seem to some of us, at any rate, most mischievous.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I really cannot go further than what I have already said. I have given to the noble Lord the policy which the Government have followed in incidents that have occurred in this country. I do not think I can be drawn further.
Lord Alport: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that a great many people in this country admire very much the courage that Mr. Waite has shown and the efforts that he has made in order to prevent some further harm to those who are imprisoned at the present moment in the Middle East?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I agree entirely with that remark. Yes, Mr. Waite has done a tremendous amount of service, and for that we should all be thankful.

NATO Secretary-General: Expression of Views
2.49 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they approve of the NATO Secretary-General criticising the views of elected Members of Parliament of the organisation's constituent states.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, the Secretary-General of NATO has every right to comment on defence issues as he sees them affecting the alliance.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that on 19th December last the Secretary-General, Lord Carrington, criticised the policies of the Danish Government, the Greek Government, the Opposition in this country and the Opposition in West Germany? Is it right that an appointed official of an international organisation should be criticising the policies of elected Members of Parliament of the states that compose that organisation?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the views of the two Governments to which the noble Lord has referred on certain aspects of alliance policy are well known. They are not shared by this Government, or the rest of the alliance.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that opinion generally is more likely to attach importance to the experienced views expressed by Lord Carrington than to the views referred to by the noble Lord opposite?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I would agree with what my noble friend says.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, since when has it been right for a civil servant, either national or international, to criticise the elected Members whom he is supposed to be serving even when they are minorities?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Secretary-General of NATO is, as I said in my original Answer, entitled to express an opinion about the views held by other Governments in the alliance. That is what he did in this particular speech.
Lord Morris: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether she approves of Members of this House of Parliament criticising fellow Members of this House of Parliament through the vehicle of a starred Question?
Baroness Young: My Lords, Members of your Lordships' House are of course perfectly entitled to put down Questions on matters which are within the general arrangements of your Lordships' House. I hope I have given noble Lords a fair answer to the Question.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, if Lord Carrington were to say and do nothing—which it is evidently the view of some Members of this House he should—would we not regard him as utterly and completely incompetent? Is it not a good thing to hear from somebody who is in a position of authority and knowledge saying what he really thinks?
Baroness Young: My Lords, yes. I am grateful to the noble Lord. I agree with what he says.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that it is only those who fear criticism who oppose it?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have given my view on this matter.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I fear that the noble Baroness has either misunderstood my Question or has avoided answering it. May I put it in another form? I am not criticising either the policy of the British Government or the views put forward by Lord Carrington. I am asking a different question. I am asking whether Her Majesty's Government believe that an international official, appointed, as Lord Carrington is, as Secretary-General of NATO, has the right to express his own personal views against, and in criticism of, the views of the Governments and the elected Members of Parliament of the organisation which he represents. Surely that is a perfectly fair and straightforward question, and one which the Government should take into consideration.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have given a straight answer to the noble Lord. Let me make it absolutely plain. Lord Carrington's statement was not a statement of party politics but a statement on alliance issues. The activities of some of the peace groups in the West and of the parties which support them will inevitably encourage the Soviet Union.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, has the Minister any knowledge as to whether the Council of NATO has objected in the slightest way to what their Secretary-General has said?
Baroness Young: My Lords, not so far as I am aware.

Manufacturing Industry Output
2.55 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what change took place in British manufacturing output between 1979 and 1984.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, the index of output for manufacturing industry was 8 per cent. lower in 1984 than in 1979.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Can he explain how it comes about that after six years of a government that is supposed to be restoring the economy of this country, manufacturing industry output has fallen during that period? Can the noble Lord further explain how it is that British manufacturing industry output has fallen by 8 per cent. in that period, whereas the output of West Germany's manufacturing industry has fallen by no more than 0·5 per cent., and that of France by no more than 3·78 per cent.?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in the six years 1979 to 1985 the fall was as I have described. There was a trough in 1981. Since 1981 manufacturing output has been increasing steadily. Your Lordships will recall that the world recession in trade occurred at about that time. If one looks at a similar graph for the Community as a whole, or indeed France or West Germany, one will see very similar patterns. The figures may be slightly different. There was a depression in 1979 in both France and Germany. An increase occurred in 1983 and is continuing.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, bearing in mind the question by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, may I ask what is the level of support that the Government are providing to promote the growth of employment in this matter?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the Government support for employment covers other areas than just manufacturing. I am sure that my noble friend will appreciate that. However, in 1985–1986 some £1,860 million worth of expenditure on employment services and training schemes is anticipated with a further increase during 1986 and 1987. But that is of course across the range of employment.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that while there have been striking successes in the manufacturing sector of British industry in recent years, we need many more such successes? How do the Government see their role in stimulating these further successes?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, because he is quite right. The policies of the Government—particularly financial policies—have led to a much fitter industrial industry which is more able to compete with the overseas markets. One recognises that in many of the traditional industries there is still a decline. Nevertheless, the policies concerning company taxation, employment, insurance surcharges and lifting burdens on business and others, are all designed to stimulate, and are having the effect of stimulating, industry to better performance both at home and abroad.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the very drastic decline in manufacturing output (which went down between 18 and 20 per cent.) that took place immediately after 1979 and continued into 1981, decimating the British industry, was caused by deliberately imposed, highest-
114
of-all interest rates, with the maintenance of an artificially high rate of exchange that made British exports quite uncompetitive? Would the noble Lord also bear in mind that the present signs are that interest rates are going to be raised again thus forcing the exchange rate even higher than it should be, and thus inflicting further damage on the competitiveness of British manufacturing industry?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not accept the first part of the supplementary question of the noble Lord. The decline in the manufacturing figures after 1979 was in part due to the policies of the preceding Administration added to the consequence of a world recession brought about by the second oil crisis. This recession hit an industry already suffering from poor competitiveness following the years of very high inflation, which again are attributable to the Administration of which the noble Lord was a part.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we are now in 1986. Would the Minister agree that if, as a result of a decline of two cents in the value of the pound, interest rates are allowed to go up yet again British industry will be hit twice? It would be hit once by a fall in its competitiveness compared with overseas suppliers by the difference in exchange rate, and secondly by the increase in the cost of borrowing.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, that may well be so, but let me make it quite clear that manufacturing industries are participating in a growth and that output is well into its fifth year of growth: it is now 13 per cent. above the 1981 first quarter trough. The indications are that it will continue in that direction. The CBI forecasts and others indicate that it is on a growth pattern.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that British manufacturing industry is fitter because of the policies of this Government. How can industry be fitter if it is producing 8 per cent. less, despite the fact that the Government have had the advantage of the oil revenues during that period? Moreover, the noble Lord gave a list of the advantages which the Government claim British industry is now enjoying, but what he did not mention is that last year investment in manufacturing industry in this country was 18 per cent. lower than it was in 1979, when the Government came into office.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has taken—and I do not object to it—the two years 1979 and 1981, which he knows (because he has read the graph) are the worst in our history for many years. Although we came into office in 1979 at a time of world recession and started implementing our policies, by 1981 those policies and the general upturn which those policies were designed to assist had shown that manufacturing production was increasing, and it has steadily increased in the last five years. Investment in British industry is now at a record level and is continuing; and so is productivity, profitability, the creation of wealth and employment.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is it not a waste of time jogging backwards over what happened in 1979?

115
Do we not live in an immensely complicated system of international interchange, only part of which is under our own control? Ought our thoughts to be not on the past but on where we stand today and how we hope to improve our situation tomorrow?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for those comments, with which I of course agree. In looking forward, as this Administration does, if we continue our policies we shall end 1985 in a stronger position than was the case in 1984, 1983, 1982, and 1981. Over the rest of this decade we look forward to improving that position even further.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, even though it may be inconvenient politically to look at the lessons of the past, very often it is the truest wisdom to have some regard to them?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, we can all learn lessons from the past, and I think that the electorate of this country in fact learned that at the last election.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord did not answer my second supplementary question. Is it the case that last year, 1985, investment in manufacturing industry in this country was 18 per cent. below that of 1979? Does this hold out hopes for the future?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the answer is that last year investment was at an all-time record, and it is increasing. The prosperity of our nation will lie in further and greater investment in our industries as a whole. That is happening.

Business
3.4 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the evacuation from the Republic of Yemen. That will be followed by my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who, again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on the Stanley Royd Hospital Inquiry.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Shops Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour, and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Education (Amendment) Bill will be taken.

Salmon Bill [H.L.]
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Salmon Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

116

Clauses 3 to 18,

Schedules 2 and 3,

Clauses 19 to 29,

Schedules 4 and 5, Clauses 30 and 31.

—(Viscount Davidson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Shops Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: 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 Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 15 not moved.]
Lord Jacques Lord Jacques moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:—
("Special provisions
.—(1) Every shop may, save as otherwise provided by this section, be open for the serving of customers before 1 p.m. on Sunday.
(2) After consultation with representatives of employers and employees in the retail trade, consumers, the churches and the enforcing authorities the Secretary of State shall make an order specifying the essential goods and services for the provision of which shops may be open after 1 p.m. on Sunday.
(3) An order under subsection (2) above shall not have effect until a draft has been laid before Parliament and approved by affirmative resolution by each House of Parliament. Variations to an order under that subsection may be made by an order approved in like manner.
(4) Where the area or any part of the area of a local authority is a district which is frequented as a holiday resort during certain seasons of the year, the local authority may by order provide that on such Sundays as may be specified in the order shops or any class of shops, being shops situated in the district or in such part thereof as may be so specified, may, subject to such conditions and during such hours as may be so specified, be open for the serving of customers, provided that the Sundays specified in any such order shall not be more than eighteen in any year.
(5) Goods sold retail to a customer shall not be delivered or dispatched for delivery from a shop at any time when under the provisions of this section a customer could not be served with those goods in that shop:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply—

(a) on any Sunday being also Christmas Day; or

(b) on any Sunday when the succeeding Monday is Christmas Day.

(6) Nothing in this section shall prevent the sale, dispatch or delivery of victuals, stores or other necessaries required by any person for a ship or aircraft on her arrival at, or immediately before her departure from, a port or aerodrome.
(7) The foregoing provisions of this section shall extend to any place where any retail trade or business is carried on as if that place were a shop, and as if in relation to any such place the person by whom the retail trade or business is carried on were the occupier of a shop.
(8) In the case of any contravention of any of the foregoing provisions of this section, the occupier of the shop shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding—

(a) in the case of a first offence, one hundred pounds;

(b) in the case of a second offence, five hundred pounds;

(c) in the case of a third or subsequent offence, one thousand pounds.

(9) A person who carries on the business of a shop, or carries on retail trade or business at any place not being a shop, on Sunday in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section, shall not be deemed to commit an offence against any of the following enactments, namely—

(a) the Sunday Fairs Act 1448; or

(b) the Act of the third year of His late Majesty King Charles the First, chapter three, for the further reformation of sundry abuses committed on the Lord's Day commonly called Sunday; or

(c) the Sunday Observance Act 1677.

(10) This section shall not extend to Scotland.")
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 16. This amendment is a compromise. It has three main features. First, it proposes that there should be deregulation—that is to say, complete freedom in the retail trade—until 1 p.m. Therefore, there would be no restrictions and there could be no anomalies up to 1 p.m. It would be possible for the housewife who has run short of some foodstuff to get it from the local trader; it would be possible for her husband who is collecting the newspaper to buy anything else which the newsagent wishes to sell him and which he wishes to buy; and it would be possible for the man who is carrying out repairs to his house to go to a do-it-yourself shop and buy the necessary items.
The second element is that the amendment provides that the essential goods and services which can be sold after 1 p.m. shall be determined, not by schedule but by secondary legislation. It requires the Secretary of State to consult with the interested parties. The interested parties are the retailers, the retail employees, the consumers, the Churches and the bodies which have to enforce the legislation—that is to say, the local authorities. After consulting with them, the Secretary of State will make an order indicating what goods and services can be sold after 1 p.m. That order would require an affirmative resolution of both Houses. Any amendment to the order would be made in exactly the same way.
We believe that that is an improvement on anything which we have had in the past as regards restrictions on Sunday trading. I hope that no one will tell me that the task of making such an order is far too difficult. I point out that almost every country in Europe restricts Sunday trade and is able to make the kind of order for which I am asking.
The third element in this amendment is that it expands trading on a Sunday in the holiday resorts. At present a local authority in a holiday resort may make an order authorising traders within its borders to sell a restricted variety of goods during 18 Sundays in the year. They are specified as goods suitable for bathing, photography, and so on. In this amendment we say that the order may provide that any goods may be sold by traders in the resort.
They are the three main elements in this amendment. I moved a similar amendment on 29th March 1982 to the Trumpington Bill. In reply to my moving of the amendment the noble Baroness said, at col. 1177:
"I am tempted to accept the compromise which is offered in the form of this amendment. It would certainly be a great improvement on the present position".
Therefore, let nobody tell me from the Front Bench opposite that this is just the old thing over and over
118
again and that it is no different from the position at the moment, as has been said in regard to some previous amendments.
Of course, the noble Baroness went on to say that she could not accept the amendment. She gave only one reason, and that was that this was a free country, and because it was a free country people ought to be able to do what they like on a Sunday. If they wanted to trade, they should trade. She said nothing about the freedom of the people who live near the shops, and who have only one quiet day during the whole week. She said nothing of the retailer who did not want to trade on Sunday but would be forced to do so in order to keep his market share. She said nothing of the retail employee who did not want to work on Sunday but, in order to make sure that he kept his job, did so to please his employer. These are real fears. They exist, and will clearly exist if this Bill goes through in its present form. I believe that this amendment would retain the special character of Sunday, and that is my purpose in moving it.
As I have on previous occasions told the House, I spent some time in California studying the shape of Sunday trading there, where there is a free-for-all, as this Bill proposes. I found on a Sunday morning that it was no different from here. The only shops open were the small convenience shops. It looked the same as a Sunday morning here. But at 2 o'clock in the afternoon the big shops opened in the shopping centres and were open from two until six. Some of them were commencing sales they had advertised the previous night in the newspapers.
It was the busiest shopping day of the week. Consequently Sunday was completely destroyed by the afternoon trading. In my opinion that is what would happen if this Bill were carried in its unamended form. I believe that Sunday afternoon will become one of our busiest shopping days of the week, and the purpose of this amendment is to prevent that. I believe, after a lifetime of working in retailing, that if freedom to open until one o'clock is given the small shops would open but the large shops would not be interested; they are interested only in the afternoon trade. Because I believe that this would preserve the special character of Sunday, I commend this amendment to the Committee.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Denning: I have added my name to this amendment because it seems to me to be the nearest approach we can get to a reasonable compromise. Your Lordships' House and others are divided on this controversy. Is Sunday trading to be free for all, or are there to be restrictions so as to keep the character of our Sunday, if we can? This compromise comes the nearest to a sensible arrangement.
My noble friend Lord Jacques has explained the amendment, but let all shops open, if you please, until one o'clock. That deals with the great majority of shoppers who want to do their shopping on a Sunday morning for things they have forgotten, and the like. Let them be open unrestrictedly until one o'clock.
Then there are some needs, or demands, which ought to be supplied in the afternoon, whether it is for food, refreshment, drinks, or medical supplies and the

119
like. This amendment suggests that there should be a list not put in the statute but in a statutory order which can be amended if need be. The Auld Report, considering suggestions such as this, said at paragraph 234:
"All the problems of anomalies and discrimination that currently plague the Sunday trading law would continue".
That is their principal objection to this limited suggestion here. There is an answer to this. It can be found in our VAT Act, the Finance Act 1972, which has to have a list of those goods which are zero rated and those which are exempted from zero rating. There are eight pages of them, and you can sort out, if you like, anomalies among them. It can be said, "You have to pay VAT if you go and get hot coffee from a takeaway shop but you do not have to pay VAT if you buy iced coffee". Those are the kind of anomalies which you can suggest in any system of this kind.
It works well in the VAT field, and indeed there is provision for easy amendment in that connection. The Treasury can, by order later, raise or exempt any of those lists. My noble friend Lord Jacques's proposal does not give a list at the moment. Let it be prepared by the Secretary of State. Let it be easily amendable, if need be, by statutory instrument. That is a remedy by which anomalies could easily be removed and which meets this argument about anomalies. The Jubilee Trust have put in a pamphlet they have issued a sensible, good list of exemptions suitable for the present day. That is the second suggestion: let there be other shops open after one o'clock which can deal with exempted articles.
That is the main burden of this amendment. Of course, holiday resorts can be dealt with as they were before, and all the incidentals taken care of. I would suggest, as between the two great camps of controversy in our land at the moment, that this is the nearest approach we can get to preserving the character of our Sunday as it ought to be preserved. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: On Second Reading a choice was admirably and clearly posed for your Lordships. One course was a Bill based on the Auld Report which had been endorsed by an overwhelming vote in another place; that was total deregulation. The alternative, clearly and admirably explained by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, was that there should be partial deregulation. That amendment was rejected by a substantial majority. The choice made was total deregulation. Since then we have had amendment after amendment attempting to go back on that vote and to have a partial deregulation. This is the latest one of them.
There is a great deal wrong with this proposed new clause but, in fact, the conclusive answer is given in the clause itself in a subsection to which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, did not refer. That is the last subsection, subsection (10), which reads:
"This section shall not extend to Scotland".
Why not?—because they do not want it, they do not need it. In Scotland, Sunday trading was once regulated. It was regulated by the two Scottish Acts referred to in Clause 1. It is now deregulated and has been deregulated because those restrictive Acts have been abrogated by referendum.
120
The people of Scotland have voted with their hands and their feet against that regulation. Under Scottish law, as against English law, such amounts to an abrogation of a statute by the doctrine that goes by the name of desuetude. So at present we have unregulated Sunday shopping in Scotland and, although this Bill extends to Scotland, this new clause shall not extend to Scotland. Again I ask why not? Because they do not need it and they do not want it. If they do not want it, why should we want it? If they do not need it, why should we need it?
There is a great deal to be said against the clause but I wish to advert only to subsection (2). We have had now a number of schedules of exemptions. There is the one in the 1950 Act itself; there was the one put forward by the Jubilee Trust; there was one put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, which he withdrew; there was one put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and there was another put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. None of them stood up to examination; so that it is not surprising that now no attempt is to be made to draw up a list of exempt goods which may be sold freely on a Sunday afternoon.
The whole problem is passed without guidance to the Secretary of State to make regulations, secondary legislation, on a matter of vital importance as we have been told, and the regulations cannot be amended by Parliament; they can be amended only subsequently by new regulations, new secondary legislation, tabled by the Secretary of State. What are these essential services and goods? At present petrol may be sold on Sunday afternoon under the Fifth Schedule to the 1950 Act. Is that essential? Perhaps. It was not so to our grandparents; but that is perhaps an arguable case. But also under the existing law intoxicating liquor can be sold on a Sunday afternoon, can be sold after one o'clock. Is that an essential good? Supposing that a Secretary of State puts that into his list. Will he not be made the subject of mockery that he says that alcoholic liquors are essential? Also under the existing schedule—
Lord Jacques: I wonder if the noble and learned Lord will give way. He is surely aware that liquor is governed by the Acts relating to the licensing laws. That has nothing whatever to do with the Shops Act.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Lord is perfectly right when he says that I am aware of the position. The licensing laws restrict the hours of opening. This restricts them further. They have something to do with the Shops Act because, under the Fifth Schedule to the 1950 Act, you will find in paragraph 1(a) "intoxicating liquor". There can be no question, in my respectful submission, that if this new clause were passed intoxicating liquor could not be sold on a Sunday after one o'clock. Notwithstanding that the licensing justices might wish it to be sold, it would be precluded by this measure.
Then, the next matter that catches my eye is tobacco and cigarettes and so on. Are cigarettes not to be sold on a Sunday afternoon? As a member of a Government who put out on every packet of cigarettes, on every advertisement, a Government health warning, is the Secretary of State expected to

121
say that cigarettes are essential goods within the meaning of subsection (2) of the new clause? Of course not! So no cigarettes can be sold on a Sunday afternoon, can be sold after one o'clock. It is restrictive. I could go on. There are ice cream, confectionery and so on. They can be sold throughout Sunday at the moment. But under this new clause they will be able to be sold only if the Secretary of State puts his tongue in his cheek and certifies that sweets, ice cream and confectionery are essential.
There is a great deal more to be said against this new clause. The holiday resorts throw up a host of anomalies. Indeed, the Auld Report reported that the local shopkeepers in holiday resorts found the present law far too restrictive. This merely repeats the present law as to holiday resorts. But, in the end, we come back to that final subsection that the Act shall not apply to Scotland because they do not need it; they get on perfectly well with the total deregulation for which your Lordships voted on Second Reading. So I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will not accept this amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury: I shall detain members of the Committee very briefly. This amendment is a variant of Amendment No. 8, which has been withdrawn, with the addition, as has already been said, that essential goods and services can be provided later than 1 p.m. on Sundays as determined by Government order. The difficulty is fundamentally defining what are essential goods and services. As the Auld Committee put it, this would be at best tinkering with an unsatisfactory law and substituting one set of anomalies for another. There will always be the difficulty of enforcement, particularly when shops sell a wide range of goods. I personally cannot support this amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, speaks, as the Committee know, with considerable authority on the subject. I follow him very much encouraged by what he has said and encouraged also by the fact that this helps me to overcome the diffidence which I always feel in disagreeing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for whom, like all your Lordships, I have the most profound respect.
In moving this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, referred to it as a compromise. On matters on which opinions widely vary this Chamber is very often inclined to accept a compromise. But is it a compromise? The Bill is perfectly clear. It seeks to remove the restrictions on Sunday opening of shops, to clear away the elaborate series of restrictions which exist, and to make it cease to be a criminal offence to open a shop and to sell something to someone on a Sunday. The amendment proposes to continue that for a good deal of Sunday and then, subject to all sorts of qualifications, in the other parts of the day, goes against the whole principle and purpose of the Bill—that is, to clear up a matter which is becoming increasingly a scandal.
Your Lordships know that a great many shops open on a Sunday morning and afternoon, contrary to the law. More and more of them are doing so. The various
122
authorities concerned, probably with a certain good sense, are not setting the law in motion against them; but I hope I am not old-fashioned in taking the view that it is a very unhappy thing to have a law which is not enforced. Your Lordships are now faced with the dilemma of either seeking to enforce a law which the great body of public opinion does not accept, or of clearing up the restrictions in toto. The amendment would prevent that happening.
I was particularly surprised at this choice of authorising shop opening before one o'clock and imposing the restrictions afterwards. In our earlier debates a number of your Lordships took the view, with which I had some sympathy, that one wished to make sure that those of one's fellow citizens—now alas! a diminishing section—who desire to attend church on Sunday morning should be free to do so. However, this amendment flies full in the face of that. If there is any force in the argument that employees in shops will be inhibited from attending church because the shop is open, they will find that this amendment does nothing to help them. If this becomes the law of the land then under it the shops will be open on Sunday morning, which is precisely the time that the great majority of those of us who do still attend church go to church. I should have been more impressed, though I am bound to say I should not have supported it, if the noble Lord had proposed an amendment in the contrary sense of closing the shops on Sunday morning and opening them after 1 p.m.
The objections to this go further. The proposal that a statutory instrument should authorise on Sunday afternoons the sale of such articles as the Secretary of State may specify must lead to endless confusion. Shops will open lawfully entitled to sell some of the things on their counters, but subject to the fact that they commit a criminal offence if they sell others. Who on earth will enforce that? Who on earth will go round to the shops and say, "Yes, you could have sold that; but you sold this and therefore you are a criminal, guilty of a criminal offence"? Surely the time has come to take the criminal law out of this matter altogether and to say that if someone opens a shop and somebody comes in to buy something that is a matter between them and not a matter with which the law and the state need concern themselves. Surely in this day and age the example of Scotland, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred, is conclusive. If people want to shop and if shops are open to serve them why bring in the criminal law?
It is even more complicated than that. As I understand it, there is nothing in this amendment to prevent someone opening a shop, bringing in his employees, and carrying out stocktaking, so long as he does not actually sell one of the goods that the Secretary of State has not specified in a statutory instrument. That is quite plainly a recipe for further breaches of the law and for making it even more difficult than at present.
I was thinking over the weekend of the criminal law being brought into these matters. One cannot help speculating on a conversation in one of Her Majesty's prisons. One chap says to another, "What are you in for?" The reply is, "I'm in for rape. What are you in for?" The chap says, "I'm in for burglary". He says to a third, "What are you in for?" and receives the reply,

123
"I did a very terrible thing. I opened a shop on a Sunday afternoon and sold goods to someone who wanted to buy".
Lord Mishcon: As has been said before, the position of those who have the privilege of sitting on the Benches behind me is that on the matter of policy as to whether or not there should be deregulated Sunday trading, from our point of view there is a free vote. What happens to shopworkers and their terms and conditions (I equally made it clear) is a matter of such concern to us that I freely and frankly say to the Committee that there we take a disciplined view.
What a complex web we weave! Arguments about Scotland; arguments about all sorts of matters affecting this amendment that we seem to miss the heart of the whole problem before us. This is a Bill which seeks to alter something—and nobody argues against this—which has been a tradition of this country for many, many centuries. There is no doubt about that, and there is no doubt that in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said with his usual clarity, eloquence and persuasiveness, there is no clamour for any alteration, although the noble Lord talks in terms of a scandal. I have not heard local authorities complaining in loud language—they have much to complain about these days—about Sunday trading or their difficulties in enforcing the law. Nor has the public whipped up any enthusiasm about trying to deregulate Sunday trading in spite of what has been said.
What we have achieved by this Bill—I make it clear that I am speaking personally—is a cleavage of opinion in our land which is extremely serious. Sincere views are held on both sides—I admit that at once—and I am in the position, as I have frankly said, of not thinking it very proper that I should advance any religious arguments. But one knows where the Bishops' Benches stand and the opinions expressed from those Benches deserve respect in this Chamber and in this land.
I have referred before to the need for care in dealing with the complete deregulation of Sunday trading. I have put the matter in a way which I believe is very near to your Lordships' hearts. There are the questions whether or not it is desirable in our society to have one day which is different from the rest of the week; whether it is important, too, that people who want to have quiet and tranquillity on that day which we have called the day of rest nationally are entitled to have it; whether those who wish to attend church and also to buy goods on Sunday can have some convenient arrangement made for them.
We have a complete cleavage in opinion in this country. Somebody of the eminence of Sir William Van Straubenzee said yesterday what a dreadful blunder the Government had made in putting this proposal forward. But have we not a genius—possibly to be exercised at a late hour in our deliberations, whatever the speeches might have been on Second Reading—for compromise? Is not this amendment the ideal opportunity for taking advantage of it? I would describe it as a lifeline thrown to the Government to avoid further bitter controversy, and if they throw away that lifeline they have only themselves to blame.
124
What is wrong with saying, "Yes, unless employers have the decency to respect a conscientious objection, shopworkers may have to work on Sundays"? So many employees unfortunately do have to work on Sundays in the public services. That has been mentioned before and one knows it; but there are people who want to do other things on Sunday and keep it as a day of rest, or those who want to have a family day on Sunday. May I say in parenthesis that we have discussed in this Chamber so seriously the way in which much of our youth is behaving—a way that we find absolutely dreadful because a third of our youth by the age of 28 have found themselves in some sort of trouble with the courts: that is a Home Office figure. We have said deliberately that family life has possibly gone out of fashion and that is really one of the responsible factors out of many. Yet at this stage what we are going to do is to ruin the day which is the family day in so many homes—or, if it is not, it should be.
Those of us who do not want to see complete deregulation have made a concession for the reasons we have given. We can say, "All right; let all the shops open until Sunday". But then come the problems which people put forward as well as the great problem that we are faced with of a divided country on this issue, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, so rightly said.
One question asked was: Why do we not apply it to Scotland? Scotland is used to living its own life and we are told that it is not going to have its life interfered with at the present moment in regard to shopping conditions. If it finds that it wants this—and it may well do if we deregulate completely—then it will have its own chance of bringing forward legislation or regulations.
There are problems of drawing up a list and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, dealt with that effectively. If I may answer the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, this amendment provides for consultation with church, with employers, with people in industry and with trade unions. I am absolutely sure that their cleverness, associated with the great wisdom of the Secretary of State, will be able to get over that. If there are inaccuracies or illogicalities, I will bear with them, as will many other people in this land, rather than see the complete deregulation that is proposed at the present moment. I hope this amendment will be supported.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish to make only a very brief speech directed to the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has really, intentionally as I understand it, made a Second Reading speech in which he quite frankly—and he is always frank with your Lordships—said that he is using the amendment as a lifeline (if I have it right) to the Government to enable them to reconsider the effect of the vote taken at Second Reading.
I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, along those lines and none of your Lordships would wish me to do so, because there does not seem much object in having a Second Reading if one has to reopen the whole process on an early amendment in Committee. All I wished to direct my speech to was

125
the amendment itself and to say to your Lordships that its object is clearly inconsistent with the principle of deregulation of Sunday trading as established at Second Reading.
It was said—I think it was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and not the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, but it matters not which—that this amendment was a compromise. Well, between what? It is certainly a compromise between the opposing views expressed on Second Reading which were put to the vote. Is it really the function of your Lordships' Committee to reopen a Second Reading principle point by a compromise which defeats the sense of the vote which was taken on Second Reading? Surely a much more profitable—
Lord Mishcon: I am sure the noble Lord, with his customary courtesy, will give way. He has done so and I am much obliged to him. So that we really knock this point on the head once and for all, when we have a general amendment at Second Reading it in no way rules out a particular amendment later. We voted on a principle of general amendment at Second Reading, without any opportunity of considering in detail an amendment such as this one which is now before us. It is perfectly proper for us to consider this at Committee stage.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I hear what the noble Lord says and so does the Committee. I was not saying that it was improper. What I was asking was: what is the object of it? It is a total waste of the time of your Lordships' Committee. Surely it is more profitable to pursue the sort of line—here I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about the shopworkers—of, say, Amendment No. 11, which in no way conflicts with the principle of the Bill and which would or could largely go to meet the traditions of the country established over the centuries, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred and to which I understand his party is committed in a more formal way than to other aspects of the Bill. Certainly, it is an amendment which I state quite freely attracts me. But this amendment, Amendment No. 16, is contrary to the principle of the Bill and does not.
Lord Rochester: Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I do not take the view that this amendment is a waste of time and I find myself in sympathy with the general argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. At the Second Reading of the Bill, I said that, in my view, this matter of Sunday trading was one which called for as much consensus as could be found in this House. I do not doubt that with the aid of the Whips the Government could get this Bill through both Houses of Parliament substantially without amendment, but, in my opinion, they would be very unwise to do so in circumstances where there is so small a degree of consent within the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, as I understood him, that the majority opinion within the country is in favour of deregulation. I do not doubt from recent polls that six out of 10 people, when asked whether or not they wanted complete deregulation, answered "Yes". But the substantial and growing
126
minority of people within the country who, as I understand it, are opposed to this Bill feel very much more strongly in their view than do the others.
As I see it, it is desirable that in this House we should seek to strike a balance between the claims of various social groups—churchgoers, customers, large employers, small traders, the general body of shopworkers in particular, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, those living near busy shopping centres, and so on. I believe that this amendment provides perhaps the last opportunity that we have in Committee to do just that. It seems to me to be more practicable than some other amendments that have been proposed. It would help small shopkeepers and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has already indicated, the effect of passing this amendment would be to limit the extent to which big stores would find it economically worthwhile to open. It would call for concessions from everybody, not excluding—to return to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—those churchgoers who prefer to go to morning rather than to evening services. One argument which has been used—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene, because he referred to me? Surely the proposal in this amendment is that shops should open up to 1 p.m. Does that not exclude church attendance at the time that most people go to church on Sunday mornings for those called upon to work during those hours?
Lord Rochester: That is so. That is precisely why I said that it would call for some concession on the part of churchgoers, among others, who might feel obliged to attend evening services rather than morning services.
One argument used to support the removal of all restrictions on the employment of shopworkers has been that already lots of other people have to work on Sundays. But many of them do so in essential services or in industry where there is need for uninterrupted production. I can speak from experience here, because I worked for a long time in the chemical industry, where there was need for continuous process work. But there were elaborate shift rotas to ensure that people were not obliged to work for more than one Sunday in three or four. They were protected by strong unions, as I know very well from experience in negotiating with them in this area, and invariably they were paid at double-time rate.
The position of shop assistants is quite different. They are largely unorganised, they are dependent for protection on the Shops Act, which is in the process of being dismantled under this Bill, and on wages council orders. We are to have a wages council Bill, but we have little idea as to what is to be in that Bill. What we can be reasonably sure of, I suggest, is that the single overtime rate that is proposed will give shop assistants far less compensation for working on Sundays than is available to people doing that in industry. In any case, the fact that a good many people already have to work on Sunday seems to me to be no very good reason why more should, particularly when, as in this case, so many of them are women working part-time and with family responsibilities.

127
If I may, I should like to make just two more points. In the interval between the time when we last discussed this matter and now, two things have happened to me which seem to me of significance. One is the degree of opposition to this Bill, which I found in my own home town of Northwich in Cheshire on the part of shopworkers working in both large stores and small shops. The other is the experience of attending a carol service in Chester Cathedral on the afternoon of the Sunday immediately before Christmas. I realised with a pang that it might be the last time that it would be possible for me to view that lovely city with its Rows, with the city walls, with the river and the cathedral precincts and so on in peace and quiet, rather than with the noise which, if this Bill is passed, will presumably be there on Sunday like any other day of the week. For those reasons, but particularly in order to achieve the consensus about which I took the liberty of speaking when I first rose, I very much hope that this amendment will be supported by a majority of the Committee.
Lord Sandford: I wonder whether I may just add somewhat to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about the attitudes of local authorities in these matters. The enforcement of this legislation is in the hands of 400 authorities. Sixty-seven of them are metropolitan district councils and 333 of them are district councils, and I am the president of the latter group. This is what the Auld Report said about the Association of District Councils:
"The ADC, which represents 333 district councils, all of which are responsible for enforcing the shops legislation, urged upon us that the whole of the Shops Act 1950 should be repealed, subject to new provision being made to protect the conditions of service of shopworkers. However, in doing so [the ADC] does not claim to reflect the views of all its members. We noted that on the question of unrestricted Sunday opening the district councils were almost evenly divided."
I do not quarrel with that. That is an accurate statement of the state of opinion in that association when this committee was gleaning its evidence. The councils were almost all totally agreed on the difficulties of enforcing this legislation and were evenly divided about their views on unrestricted Sunday opening.
When this report was published, the matter immediately came before the general service committee of the Association of District Councils who, having studied this, came to the unanimous view among themselves that this was legislation which should be supported. They remitted the matter to the policy committee of the Association of District Councils, which took a similar view. They remitted it to the council of the whole association, and at their meeting, which I personally attended, that view was adopted without a dissenting voice.
4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): This amendment would create so many problems that it is difficult to know where to start. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, gave us some examples in his sparkling speech. I suppose the first question that needs to be asked is why Sunday mornings are seen as acceptable for shopping
128
but not Sunday afternoons. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, it can hardly be to allow people to worship. It seems to be, on the face of it, to prevent family outings to garden centres, and so on, which is the most popular form of shopping on Sunday afternoons.
If we read on, however, we see that essential goods and services may be sold on Sunday afternoons if designated as such by the Secretary of State and approved by both Houses of Parliament. Is it really suggested that if you have a puncture at 12.30 on a Sunday it is acceptable for you to buy a spanner, but if you have a puncture at 1.30 it is only acceptable to buy one if the Secretary of State and Parliament decide that it is an essential item? Of course, if it is your son who has a puncture with his tricycle, presumably we shall need to debate whether tricycle tools are essential. The debates as to what are essentials promise to keep us very busy.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has made the feelings of local authorities very clear, not only today but on previous amendments. Yet the amendment provides that local authorities may allow any shops to open on Sunday afternoons, whether or not they are providing essential goods or services, as long as the local authority area includes a district which is frequented as a holiday resort during certain times of the year. What areas. I wonder, do not have such a resort? It seems then that the Secretary of State and Parliament may not decide by order that ice-cream may be sold on Sunday afternoons but that local authorities may allow anything to be sold. It will be hard luck on retailers in an area which cannot claim to have a holiday resort. Of course, local authorities will have to keep records to ensure that if they allow shops to open on Sunday afternoons no one shop may open on more than 18 Sundays in the year; but it is not entirely clear why, on the other Sundays, to open shall be a criminal offence. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as a very distinguished lawyer, would have realised the difficulty in keeping this kind of thing under review.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in a speech of purple prose, disputed that the public were in favour of the Bill. I dispute his conclusion. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said that on the matter of Sunday trading there is a cleavage in our land: yet polls have regularly shown that people want to go shopping on a Sunday and that they do go shopping on a Sunday whether or not it is legal so to do. The latest poll, published yesterday by the Co-operative Union, showed that 69 per cent. of people already shop on a Sunday, although this does not appear in the report which was published in The Times
Lord Mishcon: I am going to give the noble Baroness the Minister the rest she deserves in order that she can stop that cough, which worries all of us. Perhaps I may merely say to her that what I was talking about was a cleavage in the land about total deregulation or partial deregulation or no deregulation. There are three sections of opinion. At least we might be able to satisfy a couple of them, even if we cannot satisfy the third.
Baroness Trumpington: I hear what the noble Lord says. I still say that there is a clear majority in favour

129
of total deregulation. More than one-third of us shop illegally already on a Sunday. There really is proof that overwhelming demand exists.
The amendment now before us is very familiar, at least to me. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, as he said, proposed an almost identical amendment to my Private Member's Bill in 1982. That amendment was, as I recall, resoundingly defeated by 118 to 46. The only difference between that amendment and this one is that the one before us is more restrictive and thus less realistic than the one proposed four years ago. That one allowed local authorities to permit the sale of any goods after one o'clock. This one allows only essential goods and services to be sold after one o'clock, and only if the Secretary of State makes an order and only if that order is supported by affirmative resolutions in both Houses of Parliament. Noble Lords made the correct decision four years ago. I ask them not to hesitate in reaffirming that decision. I ask the Committee to reject this amendment.
Lord Jacques: I shall reply only on the issue of polls. The Co-operative Union did not take its own poll; it engaged a research company to do it. Among the many figures which have been revealed by the research company we have these few which I shall give to the Committee. First, only 15 per cent. wanted full deregulation on Sunday. Secondly, 39 per cent. were against any change whatever in the law relating to Sunday trading. Thirdly, 29 per cent. were in favour of Sunday morning only. They felt there should be change, but on Sunday morning only.
There are many things I could reply to but I believe that Members of the Committee have made up their minds on how they are going to vote. I shall be happy to test the feeling of the Committee.
4.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 153.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Amherst, E.

Denington, B.

Ardwick, L.

Denning, L.

Banks, L.

Derby, Bp.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Diamond, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

Durham, Bp.

Blease, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Bylton, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Bottomley, L.

Falkland, V.

Brentford, V.

Gallacher, L.

Brockway, L.

Galpern, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Glenamara, L.

Carlisle, Bp.

Gloucester, Bp.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Greenway, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hampton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Collison, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Heycock, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Hunt, L.

David, B.

Ingleby, V.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

130

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

St. Albans, Bp.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Bp.

John-Mackie, L.

Kagan, L.

Seear, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Serota, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Stallard, L. [Teller.]

Leatherland, L.

Stamp, L.

Leicester, Bp.

Stedman, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

London, Bp.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McCarthy, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Mishcon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Molloy, L.

Underhill, L.

Mulley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Nicol, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Oram, L.

Whaddon, L.

Porritt, L.

White, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rhodes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Rochester, Bp.

York, Abp.

Rochester, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Gray of Contin, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Grey, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gridley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Allerton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Ampthill, L.

Annan, L.

Halsbury, E.

Auckland, L.

Hanworth, V.

Aylestone, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bauer, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hayter, L.

Beloff, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Belstead, L.

Henley, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hives, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hood, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hooper, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Inglewood, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Killearn, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kimball, L.

Caccia, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Caithness, E.

Lawrence, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Luke, L.

Chelwood, L.

Lyell, L.

Chitnis, L.

McFadzean, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cox, B.

Mancroft, L.

Davidson, V.

Manton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Mar, C.

De La Warr, E.

Margadale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Dowding, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Mersey, V.

Effingham, E.

Molson, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Montgomery of Alamem, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Morris, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elton, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ezra, L.

Munster, E.

Fortescue, E.

Norrie, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gainford, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Geddes, L.

Orkney, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Glanusk, L.

Pender, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Portland, D.

131

Rankeillour, L.

Sudeley, L.

Renton, L.

Swansea, L.

Ridley, V.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Terrington, L.

Romney, E.

Teviot, L.

Rugby, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

St. Davids, V.

Todd, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Tordoff, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Sandford, L.

Trenchard, V.

Sandys, L.

Trumpington, B.

Selkirk, E.

Tryon, L.

Sharpies, B.

Vivian, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Westbury, L.

Somers, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Windlesham, L.

Stockton, E.

Winstanley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wise, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wolfson, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Wynford, L.

Yarborough, E.

Strathspey, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.17 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Aden: British Evacuation
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the evacuation from the People's Democratic Republic of the Yemen that is being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the action being taken to secure the safety of British subjects and others in the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen.
"On the 13th January fighting broke out in Aden. The ferocity of the fighting presented grave risks to the safety of British subjects. In those circumstances, and with the full agreement of Her Majesty the Queen, the Royal Yacht 'Britannia', which was just leaving the Red Sea, was ordered to remain off Aden; Her Majesty's ships 'Newcastle' and 'Jupiter', with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary 'Bramblelear, were ordered to Aden at full steam in case they were needed for an evacuation.
"The situation in the country continued to deteriorate and the level of fighting approached that of a civil war. After close consultation with the Russians and French, both in Aden and in the capitals, it was agreed that evacuation was necessary and that as far as possible our efforts should be co-ordinated. On the 17th January, Soviet merchant vessels lifted off from Aden about 1,000 people, mostly their own nationals. On the same day, the Royal Yacht took off 450 people, 38 of
132
them British—44 nationalities altogether. Eighty-one French nationals were then transferred to a French ship, and the rest of the evacuees were taken on 'Britannia' to Djibouti. The Royal Yacht then returned to the area and on the 19th January lifted off a further 209 people from an area 35 miles from the capital. Eighteen of them were British. These have since arrived in Djibouti, after transferring to HMS 'Jupiter'. I am now very pleased to be able to add that 'Britannia' has this morning picked up a further 15 British nationals from Little Aden. 'Britannia' is maintaining close contact with the vessels of the other nations involved and remains offshore nearby to take on board further parties of British and other foreign nationals as soon as conditions permit.
"So far no British subjects have been hurt. However, a number of British subjects still remain in South Yemen and we are continuing to work out with other governments the best ways of evacuating these widely scattered communities.
"On the evening of 17th January, when the embassy and residence had been rendered uninhabitable, the Ambassador, Mr. Arthur Marshall, decided that he should withdraw all members of the embassy. At the end of the evacuation, he accompanied those on board to Djibouti but then returned on 'Britannia' to the area, where he will remain with a member of his staff while the evacuation continues. Another member of his staff is on board HMS 'Newcastle'.
"The success of the evacuation so far would not have been possible without the help given by a number of governments, and in particular the governments of Djibouti, the USSR and France. This has been a remarkable demonstration of what can be achieved through close international cooperation, and I take this opportunity to thank them warmly for their assistance.
"I should like to express my gratitude to all the staff of the Ministry of Defence and of the Diplomatic Service, at home and abroad, who have been involved in this operation. I should also like to thank our Honorary Consul in Djibouti, Mr. Christopher Reddington. I know too that the whole House will join me in praising the calmness and efficiency of our Ambassador in Aden, his staff, and their families throughout this difficult period.
"Their example has been matched by the fortitude of the British evacuees who helped to organise the evacuation of hundreds of other nationals and who set an example of disciplined behaviour throughout.
"This is the first time that the Royal Yacht has been involved in an operation of this sort. It has received magnificent support from Her Majesty's ships 'Newcastle' and 'Jupiter' and Royal Fleet Auxiliary 'Brambleleaf', with its merchant navy crew. I should like to pay tribute to Rear-Admiral John Gamier and all the officers and crew involved for the courage and professionalism they have shown in carrying out this operation in conditions of danger and difficulty. We can all be proud of them."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for repeating the Statement. The events that have been taking place in South Yemen, which have left up to 9,000 people either dead or wounded, are disgraceful and deplorable. We join in the expressions of sympathy to those who have been through this ordeal and we pay our warmest tribute to those who have participated in the rescue missions, especially the captains and crews of HMS 'Britannia', HMS 'Newcastle', HMS 'Jupiter' and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary 'Brambleleaf'. Their conduct has been exemplary throughout. We also warmly endorse the tribute paid in the Statement to the ambassador and his staff.
We note the number of people who have been rescued thus far. Can the noble Baroness say exactly how many British citizens remain in danger in South Yemen? May we assume that the four ships will remain in the area and be available if necessary to continue in rescue missions even after all the Britons are safely evacuated? We are also grateful that close and effective international co-operation has been possible, and we support what the noble Baroness said about that.
Finally, will the noble Baroness confirm that the immediate objective should be to secure a return to stability in South Yemen? Does she see any hope of this? Have Her Majesty's Government been in touch with the Soviet Government on the matter as it appears from the reports we have read that they would also like to see an end to the fighting? Is it possible that we might co-operate with France and our other allies in making this necessary approach?
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches also thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement which has been made in another place today. I hope that I may be excused for waxing rather patriotic on this Statement because I think it is a great pleasure to welcome an episode which reflects so well on the British in every respect. It is seldom that we have an opportunity to do so these days with so many gloomy and distressing events given prominence in the press and on television. The exercise—as anyone who listened to the radio this morning will have heard from the account of Rear-Admiral Garnier—was carried through with the utmost good humour, efficiency, and courage by all concerned.
Her Majesty the Queen must be thanked, as has been most eloquently expressed in the Statement, for her gracious permission to use the Royal Yacht.
Another aspect which we greatly welcome is the co-operation between other governments and our Government in putting their shoulders to the wheel and carrying through something without bickering and recriminations.
However, the one aspect which really strikes us here—and I hope all noble Lords will share my sentiments—is that there have been some British attributes and British characteristics shown which exist today in no mean measure but which are often little recognised. I can name a handful. I put compassion first, with resourcefulness, courage, good humour and efficiency. All these have been shown. They are held not only by members of the Armed Forces and are not confined to admirals, guardsmen,
134
politicians or to trade union leaders; they are held in full measure across our society. There are certain sections in our society—particularly the young—where these qualities are also held in good measure. I hope that this episode will give heart to the young who, it is to be hoped, will be given the opportunity in the not too distant future to be able to show these fine qualities.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for their very good, kind and positive reception to this Statement. In what they said they reflect what we all feel in the recognition of, and our sympathy for, those who have had to leave South Yemen, and our tribute to those who are responsible for their rescue. I was glad to hear the tributes paid to our ambassador and his staff in Aden as well as to those responsible in the Royal Navy and the merchant navy for what they have done.
I think we all recognise the very important role played by her Majesty the Queen and are glad to pay our tribute to her.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked a number of questions about the Statement. He asked about the number of British citizens who remain. It is difficult to give an exact figure because not all visitors are registered at the embassy, but from inquiries from British companies and from the de-briefing of evacuees we think the figure is likely to be about 40.
The noble Lord asked about the ships. Yes, my Lords, as I understand it the ships will remain in the area while they have some useful work to do in evacuation. As regards 'Britannia', Her Majesty the Queen has expressed her great satisfaction that 'Britannia' has been used to evacuate so many people from the South Yemen and is very content for 'Britannia' to remain for as long as necessary.
It is very difficult to say what the long-term future will be. At present the situation on the ground is very confused. The trouble appears to be caused by personal and tribal rivalries rather than political and ideological differences. However, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that we have been in touch not only with the Soviet Union but with the French over the whole situation.

Stanley Royd Hospital: Food Poisoning Report
4.29 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Statement is as follows:
"I am this afternoon publishing the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the outbreak of food poisoning at Stanley Royd Hospital, Wakefield.
"Stanley Royd is a large hospital in Wakefield for mentally ill and psychogeriatric patients. In a major outbreak of salmonella food poisoning which began on 26th August 1984, 355 patients and 106 members of staff were affected. Food poisoning caused, or contributed to, the deaths of 19 patients.

135
At the time of the outbreak and subsequently a number of allegations were made of errors in the control of infection, of poor standards of hygiene in the hospital kitchen and of other shortcomings.
"I announced in September 1984 that I was setting up a public inquiry into the outbreak under the chairmanship of Mr. John Hugill, QC. The other members of the inquiry were Professor Rosalinde Hurley and Mr. Patrick Salmon. The committee heard oral evidence between February and May 1985. They submitted their report to me last month. I am most grateful to the chairman and members of the committee for all their work on this complex inquiry.
"The report gives a detailed account of the background to the outbreak and its course and of the actions taken by National Health Service staff.
"The committee conclude that the cause of the outbreak was salmonella which was probably brought into the kitchen in contaminated chickens, and that cold roast beef was the most likely vehicle of infection. This infection was able to multiply because the beef was not properly refrigerated. The committee found that a number of unhygienic and unsatisfactory practices had grown up in the hospital kitchen.
"The report pays tribute to the work of the junior doctors on duty during the early days of the outbreak and the care given by nursing staff on the wards. These staff were working under very difficult conditions and their efforts were in the highest traditions of their professions.
"The committee make criticisms on a number of matters. In particular, they comment on the failure to ensure satisfactory management of the kitchen at the hospital. They criticise medical and nursing management and in particular the failure to seek, or accept offers of, help from outside specialists, both in the investigation of the outbreak and in the treatment of the patients affected by it. The regional health authority and some officers at regional and district level are criticised for failing fully to inform themselves firsthand of the situation once the outbreak had occurred.
"Since the outbreak Wakefield Health Authority have made a number of improvements in the kitchen and its management. I am now instructing them and the Yorkshire Regional Health Authority to consider all the points raised by the report and to report to me urgently on the action they have taken and propose to take in response to them. That response must cover the position of those people whose conduct may have contributed to these tragic events and the steps taken to ensure that such events do not recur.
"The report identifies serious failures of supervision and management. General managers have now been appointed by the Yorkshire Regional Health Authority and Wakefield Health Authority. As in all authorities, these managers carry clear and personal responsibility for securing effective action.
"A number of comments were made on the position at Stanley Royd prior to and during the
136
inquiry. One of these concerned finance. On this the report says that it was not their
'view that the question of financial restraints or constraints above the level of the Region were relevant to any of the issues which we had to consider and, in taking this view, we are supported by the evidence given by the witnesses from the Yorkshire Regional Health Authority'.
"Another suggestion was that Crown premises like hospitals should be subject to the general food legislation. However, the report states that in the case of Stanley Royd the evidence did not support the need for the abolition of Crown immunity. The report says:
'We find it impossible to recommend any change in the law on the vexed question of Crown immunity where the entirety of the evidence given to us by the professional environmental health officers was to the effect that the sanctions of the criminal law would not have been employed in respect of the kitchen at Stanley Royd, even if they had been available'.
The Government will nevertheless continue the urgent review of Crown immunity for hospital kitchens including the suggestion in the report that a 'Crown Notice' form of procedure should be initiated.
"The majority of the report's formal recommendations are aimed at improving standards of hygiene in hospital kitchens and improving the investigation and control of any future outbreaks. The committee recognise that the departmental guidance on food hygiene in hospitals is basically sound and recommend that health authorities should be reminded of its terms. We had already done that before the report was received.
"In addition, I am urgently reviewing departmental guidance to health authorities on the steps they must take to ensure proper food hygiene in hospitals and to ensure that environmental health officers are encouraged to visit and that proper regard is paid to their recommendations. In doing so, I shall take full account of the Stanley Royd committee's recommendations.
"I am referring the recommendations about the arrangements for the control of infection and the handling of outbreaks to the Hospital Infection Working Group. This group was set up last summer to advise on the revision of departmental guidance on control of infection and I am asking them to give highest priority on contingency plans for dealing with outbreaks of infection—plans that will ensure that specialist help is brought in as soon as it is needed.
"There can be no doubt at all about the continuing need for proper provision of public health and community medicine advice within the management structure of the health service. The functions of the specialty of community medicine include not only the control of infectious diseases but the assessment of the needs of populations for health care, the planning and evaluation of health services and responsibility for prevention and health promotion.
"I have therefore decided that it would be right to establish an inquiry into the future development of the public health function, including the control of communicable diseases and the specialty of community medicine in England. The inquiry will be a broad and fundamental examination of the role

137
of public health doctors including how such a role could best be fulfilled. The inquiry will be chaired by the Government's Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Donald Acheson, and I expect to receive its report before the end of the year. Details of membership will be finalised shortly. In the meantime, we will take every step possible to prevent a recurrence of these tragic events."
That concludes the Statement, my Lords.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend, in spite of her cold which I hope gets better soon. May I also thank Mr. Hugill and his colleagues for the thoroughness of their report?
The facts of the case were appalling. It was a major outbreak of salmonella food poisoning affecting 355 patients and 106 members of staff, with the tragedy of 19 people dying. It is a frightening story of neglect leading to avoidable deaths. I suspect that this is the worst case of salmonella poisoning, with the highest number of deaths, in the history of the National Health Service. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can confirm that.
The Statement must be seen in the context of the report last year by environmental health officers stating that 97 hospital kitchens they had examined would have been closed and legal action instigated had it not been that hospitals are covered by Crown immunity. The Statement must also be considered in the light of last night's World in Action, which may have been seen by some noble Lords, which gave a picture of hospital kitchens being in an appalling state of dirtiness, with in some cases rats, mice and cockroaches. That is a lamentable situation. If one cannot expect good clean food in a hospital, to what sort of catering department should one turn?
May I put a number of questions to the noble Baroness? First, why has there been what seems to be a delay in publishing this report? The inquiry ended on 17th May last year, and The Times the following day said that the report was likely to be in the hands of the Minister of Health by August. Was it? If it was, why was it not published months ago?
Secondly, I warmly welcome the decision announced by the noble Baroness that there is to be established an inquiry into the future development of the public health function including the control of communicable diseases and the specialty of community medicine in England. I say that in the light of what is said in relation to the recommendation on page 110 of the report:
"We were told that 10 per cent. of patients admitted to hospital with no evidence of infection"—
this was not to Stanley Royd Hospital but to hospitals in general—
"have their progress in hospital complicated by an infection contracted as a direct result of their stay there".
This seems to be an utterly appalling fact. One must suppose that they thought it true; otherwise, they would not have published it. I quote it because it shows the urgency of the study that the Secretary of State is to set up.
138
Thirdly, will the noble Baroness say more about the question of Crown immunity? As she has said, the report states:
"We find it impossible to recommend any change in the law on the vexed question of Crown immunity".
I should like to know whether she knows why they found it impossible to do so. Of course, it would be possible to do so if they had chosen to do so. If the noble Baroness cannot explain why they found it impossible to do so, perhaps she can say what is the Government's view on an issue that has been frequently aired with a degree of urgency in this House. The Statement read by the noble Baroness said:
"The Government will nevertheless continue the urgent review of Crown immunity for hospital kitchens including the suggestion in the report that a 'Crown Notice' form of procedure should be initiated".
Why has this study not been completed? How urgent is "urgent" if, after all these many months, the Government cannot reach a conclusion on a situation that seems to most of us to be apparent and is now crucial, with all the mounting evidence of inadequately maintained hospital kitchens?
I should like, if I may, to put two more questions to the noble Baroness concerning the management of the situation in the Stanley Royd Hospital at the time. Will she confirm that when staff asked that a nearby hospital, the Snapethorpe Hospital, an old isolation hospital closed down during the cuts, should be used to isolate infected patients, especially the elderly and the frail, the management rejected this request, and that as a result only 3 out of 32 wards escaped infection?
My fifth and last question is this. Will the noble Baroness confirm that in such a situation normal instructions are that staff should only go back to work after three consecutive negative tests, but that at Stanley Royd, because of a staff shortage, which this report fully recognises, they were told to go back to work before they were over the illness, some even while giving positive tests? This seems a really appalling situation. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I say that the Statement that she read—not drafted, but read—did really seem to be rather complacent in view not just of the situation itself but of a situation that has become apparently a national one subsequent to the Stanley Royd disaster.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating this very important and indeed alarming Statement, particularly as I understand she has some difficulties at the moment. I hope that the length of the Statement—it is unusually long—indicates the seriousness with which the Government regard the contents of the report. I should like, too, to join with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in thanking the chairman, Mr. John Hugill, and his colleagues, for the expedition and the very thorough way in which they have inquired into these extremely complex and difficult matters. They have done that with greater expedition than the Government have perhaps shown in bringing the report to us. It was, of course, a very small committee. In that connection, I can perhaps say that the nature of the report points in part to the

139
wisdom of appointing a very small committee in order to inquire into a matter of this degree of importance and seriousness.
As to the action to be taken, I certainly welcome the news in the Statement that new guidance is to be given to area health authorities regarding hygiene practices and standards in hospitals. It seems to me that there was nothing much wrong with the old guidance, save that no notice was taken of it. If more notice is taken of the new guidance, that is surely a good thing. We know from the report that the environmental health officer for Wakefield had warned the Stanley Royd Hospital over and over again regarding the deficiencies in hygiene practices and standards within the hospital. But no action was taken at all save the action taken by the bacterium, salmonella typhimurium, with the disastrous results that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has described.
I note that we are also to have a further inquiry. I welcome that, particularly as the further inquiry is to look into the future development of the public health function, including the control of communicable diseases and the specialty of community medicine in England. Here, there has clearly been a breakdown in communication, and at a very important stage. This further inquiry rather reminds me of the days before 1948, at the time of the old municipal hospitals, when we then had medical officers of health who were responsible to the same authorities. I worked in three of those old municipal hospitals in which the buildings, frankly, were deplorable, were antiquated and were in need of much work. But the medical officer of health for the area was very closely related to the hospital. There was no way, in those days, that any recommendation that he made would have been ignored in the way that the recommendations of the environmental health officer for Wakefield were ignored in the case of the Stanley Royd Hospital. I hope, therefore, that the further inquiry into that matter will see to it that communication between public health services and those who actually provide health care is very much closer.
I am also very interested in what has been said about Crown immunity. That must certainly be looked into further. I can perhaps ask the noble Baroness whether much thought has been given to the position of Crown immunity or otherwise with regard to hospitals in which catering and cleaning services have been privatised. Is it a fact that the privatised workers in those particular capacities, who are very important from a hygienic point of view, enjoy the same kind of immunity as apparently do those in this particular hospital? I should like an answer to that.
But, my Lords, what we need is not all these inquiries: we need action. I am very sorry, but clearly there have been deficiencies by the employees in this hospital. It should be understood, however, that in this hospital they were working in appalling conditions. To me, it seems a little disturbing and contradictory that only yesterday we were discussing spending billions of pounds on two tunnels under the English Channel—about the merits of which I say nothing—but apparently we cannot put hospital kitchens in order so that people do not die from salmonella.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I first say to both the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that the Government thoroughly share the revulsion of, I imagine, all noble Lords at this report. In no way are the Government complacent about the findings, or about the future.
The first question that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked concerned Crown immunity. The conclusion of the committee, as it says in paragraph 232, is:
"… we find it impossible to recommend any change in the law on the vexed question of Crown immunity where the entirety of the evidence given to us by the professional environmental health officers was to the effect that the sanctions of the criminal law would not have been employed in respect of the kitchen at Stanley Royd, even if they had been available".
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, it is true that poor buildings did not help. But, as the report says, one can get bad hygiene in modern buildings. This was a case of bad hygiene.
With regard to the programme on Granada television last night, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked for an urgent report from the health authorities concerned, and has made it clear that whatever action needs to be taken should be taken without delay. Furthermore, there is a meeting of all regional health authority chairmen next week with my right honourable friend and this whole matter will be fully discussed by my right honourable friend and his team of Ministers.
I believe that this is the worst outbreak but I cannot totally confirm that. There was no delay in publication. The report reached Ministers last month.
With regard to the 10 per cent. infection rate in hospitals, the best available information about the position in this country is based on a survey carried out by the public health laboratory service in 1981. This showed that 9.2 per cent. of patients were suffering from hospital-acquired infections. A slightly larger proportion, 9.9 per cent., of patients were suffering from community-acquired infections; in other words, they had them before they went into hospital. It is important to bear in mind that not all hospital-acquired infection is preventable. It would be impossible to reduce it to zero. The problem exists worldwide. The use of comparative information is unreliable but it would suggest that this country's performance is about average for advanced countries.
Apart from issuing a great deal of technical advice on specific issues the department has set up the Hospital Infection Working Group to revise our guidance to management on day-to-day infection control and handling serious outbreaks.
With regard to the question of moving the patients to Snapethorpe, I think I can do no better than quote from the report, at paragraph 160, which says:
"In our opinion the suggestion that Snapethorpe Hospital should have been re-opened is wholly devoid of merit. The diversion and redeployment of nursing, domestic and ancillary staff from Stanley Royd at this time, and on the scale required, solely in order to provide an isolation or admission unit of 12 beds, would have been a gross error of judgment and added an enormous burden to a staff already stretched to the limit".
That perhaps wraps that question up.
I think that I have covered the various points made by the two noble Lords.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, there was the question with regard to the cleaning and catering services.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, could the noble Lord repeat it?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, the question was with regard to the position of Crown immunity in relation to those cleaning and catering services in hospitals which have been privatised.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that position did not apply in this hospital. We would have to find out the general situation in order to see how that applies.
Baroness Bacon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, as I have lived the whole of my life within two or three miles of Stanley Royd Hospital, I realise only too well the appalling tragedy which happened in our area and the suffering not only of the patients but of the relatives of patients who were in the hospital at the time? Is the noble Baroness also aware that I am personally acquainted with the doctors, nurses, patients and others at the hospital, and, in spite of this tragedy, I feel that the patients are receiving all the medical care and attention from doctors and nurses which they would receive in other hospitals?
Is the noble Baroness further aware that I was interested to hear that the report—which I have not yet read—says that finance did not enter into this? I find that rather hard to believe because this happens to be one of the old Victorian hospitals—like so many others in the country—that need either demolishing and rebuilding or a great deal of money being spent on them.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, for her remarks about the care of patients in the hospital. I think that she will see that the report bears out what she said about the excellent nursing and care which the staff and the junior doctors always give to patients there. On behalf of the department I should like to add warmly to the praise of those people who, at a time of great difficulty, worked magnificently and always cared for the patients.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, may I add to the tributes expressed to the noble Baroness the Minister on the report itself, which I have not seen because it has only just been published. Will the noble Baroness accept that those who watched last night's "World in Action" programme—and particularly those of us who are concerned with long-stay hospitals—will have been very disturbed by much of what was contained in the programme?
May I put one question to my noble friend? As I say, I have not seen the report. The programme concentrated very largely on the problems of ventilation particularly in the catering departments. Can the noble Baroness say what emphasis the Government will put on making sure that kitchens and other places where food is stored are properly ventilated or air conditioned so that contamination is much less of a risk than at the present time?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful for the point made by my noble friend Lord Auckland. Of course, the Government are taking into consideration all the issues arising from the report which include ventilation, refrigeration, making sure that cooked and uncooked food is not kept together, making sure that raw poultry is not kept near meat, and a great many other recommendations in the report.
While I am on my feet, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, regarding a reference to my difficulties that I simply have 'flu. I am not having any difficulty in answering these questions.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, in view of the growing public anxiety over the state of hygiene in the kitchens of our national hospitals, may I ask the noble Baroness whether there is any valid reason why, even if Crown immunity—the exemption from criminal penalties—should be preserved, such immunity should preserve these kitchens from periodic inspections and reports on the state of hygiene, similar to those which are made in private hospitals?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, at the moment Crown immunity operates not only for hospitals but for prisons—and indeed your Lordships' House. All such places which come under Crown immunity have been told to welcome environmental health officers whenever they wish to come; and that their reports should be published. The fact is that the Stanley Royd report has only just come out. No district health authorities have as yet seen it. I am sure it is the hope of my department that this report is studied very carefully by the districts and the regions, and that the lessons will be well and thoroughly learnt.
5 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I too join the other speakers in supporting the facts that have been made public today. Briefly, I should like to put two matters to the Minister. I believe that the report criticised quite directly both the district health authority and the Yorkshire Regional Health Authority. Is the Minister aware that, within days of this tragedy happening, the Yorkshire Evening Post produced an extensive report showing that the Yorkshire region as a whole has a far higher incidence of salmonella poisoning than any other regional health authority? Will the noble Baroness bring that to the notice of the committee which is being set up to hold the general inquiry in order to discover why that is the case?
Finally, the Minister made a point about environmental health officers for the local authority district involved offering their help and being refused access. It is about time that the Government reviewed the appointment of local councillors as chairmen of health authorities, irrespective of their political affiliations. There will be times like this—there have been in the past and there will be again—when the interests of the two are on a collision course. I submit that it is impossible for a prominent councillor of any particular political colour also to be the chairman of the local health authority and to carry out that task impartially.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may clear up one matter. I said that the findings of environ-

143
mental health officers are published. I am not totally correct on that. Consideration is being given to publishing their findings.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, asked me some questions and I am doing my best to answer them. With regard to the staff who were criticised in the report, which concerns his first question—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I referred to the regional health authority, not the staff.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I said previously, the authority will not have seen this report until today. Ministers will see the members of the authority this week to discuss the action to be taken on the report, and this will cover individual responsibility. Any disciplinary action is a matter for the authority and an appeal can be entered. Is the noble Lord anxious to hear my answers, because if he is not I will sit down and we can get on with the Shops Bill.
I do not think that it would be right for me to express any opinion on local councillors serving on health authorities, but I am quite sure that the noble Lord's remarks will be noted.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I should like briefly to return to two points made by the noble Baroness. The first is on the question of Crown immunity, and the noble Baroness quoted from the report. Inevitably she was selective, and that is no criticism of her. Paragraph 232, to which the noble Baroness referred, states that it would be wrong:
"for us to base any such recommendations on hearsay, second-hand or outdated information, or belief as to the position outside Stanley Royd".
Therefore, part of the reason that the report makes no recommendation on this matter is that the members of the committee were studying Stanley Royd and not the whole question.
Secondly, I referred to complacency and the noble Baroness said that there was no complacency. However, is she aware that illness from bacterial food poisoning in hospitals has increased fourfold since 1981 to over 1,000 cases a year? Is not this a very serious issue?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I take the point that the committee was looking at Stanley Royd with regard to Crown immunity, but that is the object of this Statement. With regard to bacterial food poisoning in hospitals, I hear what the noble Lord says.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness not agree that although we know that Crown immunity has existed for a very long time, we do not know why it continues to exist? What is the justification for it?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have already said that Ministers are very seriously examining the question of the continuance of Crown immunity. I certainly do not know its origin any more than I know why no noble Lord may die in the House of Lords.

Shops Bill [H.L.]
5.6 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 2 [Removal of restrictions on working hours of adult shop assistants etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 16A to 18A not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 18B:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("sixty five").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. I should like to commence by telling the Committee that my own position with regard to total deregulation when it comes to shop hours is resolutely against. I personally believe that the tradition of keeping one day a week in some sense special is valuable. I say that even though I am not a religious person or a churchgoer. If the special status of Sunday disappears, it will have a spin-off effect upon a far wider number than just those who work in shops and their prospective customers.
There is a complex infrastructure of production, distribution and administration which is responsible for the goods reaching the shops so that they can be sold. People working in this infrastructure will inevitably also be affected. I do not think that it will be to their advantage. That is my personal view.
However, I acknowledge that arguments have been made earlier in discussions on this Bill in favour of greater freedom of choice for the consumer. Such arguments have their attractions. Even so, I am quite sure that there are many in this Committee who will agree, irrespective of their views on deregulation as such, that freedom for one section of the population should not be bought at the expense of exploitation of another.
This is where I commend my amendment to the Committee. There is no reason why it should not attract support even from those who disagree with me about deregulation. What does it seek to do? It seeks to retain for all shopworkers the very limited protections in the Shops Act 1950. Indeed, the retention of this protection could be achieved without prejudice to the main purpose of the Bill. For what minimum protections does the Shops Act 1950 provide? It contains the following rights for all shopworkers, and I emphasise "all": the right to at least one half-day off per week; lunch breaks of at least 45 minutes in the shop or one hour outside the shop; a dinner break of at least 30 minutes and breaks of at least 20 minutes every six hours at other times; lunches to be between 11.30 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. and dinners between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m.; and the right to days off in lieu for Sunday workers, although there are some exceptions in certain trades.
If the Bill is enacted unamended, all those fairly basic and far from generous rights will be restricted to 16 and 17-year-olds alone. Why only them? Around 2 million people work in shops. They are among the lowest paid sections of the workforce. In 1984, 83 per cent. of female full-time workers earned less than £100 a week, and one quarter of women full-timers received

145
less than £75 per week. Nearly 40 per cent. of shopworkers are part-timers, and many will already be disenfranchised from mainstream employment rights anyway because they work less than 16 hours a week.
The proposed repeal of the employment protection sections of the Shops Act, together with the proposed removal of many important aspects of wages council provision, will leave shopworkers wholly unprotected against the possibility of exploitively long working hours. As the Shops Bill stands now it will rescind both the trading hours restrictions and most of the employment safeguards contained in the Shops Act 1950.
It should be emphasised that Section 22 of the 1950 Act does not of itself prohibit Sunday employment. All it does is to give shopworkers the modest right to equivalent time off in the following week to balance the time worked on Sunday. The Act also limits the numbers of successive Sundays that an employee has to work by restricting Sunday working to two Sundays a month. These are reasonable protections for shopworkers, most of whom already work a five-day week, and the protections do not interfere—and I emphasise "do not interfere"—with the main intentions of the Bill.
As to the other sections of the 1950 Act, given that many shopworkers work from Monday through to Saturday, it is difficult to see what objection there can be to the right to a weekly half-day. The same can be said in relation to Section 19 of the Act, which gives a minimum 20-minute break for workers employed for more than six hours, as well as a legally enforceable lunch break and a meal break for early evening working. If that section is repealed it will mean that there will be no legislative protection governing breaks at work.
In case it should be said that there is no case for treating shopworkers in any special way and for giving them special legislative protection not accorded to other groups of workers, let me say that there has been a long tradition in this country of giving special protection where there is special vulnerability. That is why we have developed wages councils. They are currently under review, but nevertheless they have provided the poorest paid and least well organised with some basic protection in the past.
In case it is said that the regulation of terms and conditions of employment in this industry, as in so many others, is a matter between unions and employers, let me say that this is a difficult area in which to organise. It is very poorly organised indeed. There are many transient workers, there is a high turnover, and in any event the unions do not now currently have much legislative provision when it comes to helping them to organise and to gain recognition for workers once they are organised. It is a difficult area, and poorly organised. The repeal of the sections of the Shops Act in relation to all workers will have far reaching effects on the quality of life of nearly one in 10 of the workforce.
Again I stress that protection could be achieved without damage to the main thrust to Clause 1 of the Bill. There has been repeated reference during the debate to the Auld Report. May I quote one section of
146
the Auld Report? This is what the committee said in 1985.
"Shopworkers need their protection … as much as ever, in fact more so now when jobs are harder to find and the already low membership of unions in the retail sector is declining. We have all been struck by how poorly paid many retail workers are."
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am sorry to intervene, but I did not get what paragraph the noble Baroness was quoting from.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am afraid I cannot tell the noble and learned Lord that. I do not have the reference.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I shall find it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I hope that we are not going to be less compassionate, less civilised, and less caring today than our predecessors were in 1950 when the Shops Act was passed. For that reason I commend this amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I should like to support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. With the committee's consent, perhaps I may quote the words of the Auld Report in relation to the effect of total deregulation upon questions relating to shopworkers, their exploitation, and their employment.
I shall ask your Lordships kindly to have regard first to the opening two lines of paragraph 277, which is entitled, "Shopworkers". The report says this:
"The likely effect that any change in the law might have upon shopworkers has been one of the most worrying questions of our Inquiry."
It then goes on to analyse it, by quoting what happened in Massachusetts some years ago. It then goes on to its final conclusions, which deal with wages, in paragraph 287.
"We set great store by the preservation of the role of Wages Councils in fixing statutory minimum weekly rates, holidays and holiday pay for the retail trades. Shopworkers need their protection in this respect as much as ever, in fact more so now when jobs are harder to find and the already low membership of unions in the retail sector is declining."
It is a privilege to me to be able to assist the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on his intervention in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, because when I was proposing an amendment at the beginning of the Committee stage of this Bill the noble and learned Lord intervened several times most helpfully in my speech. I am therefore able to tell him that the passage quoted by the noble Baroness was in paragraph 287 of the Auld Report.
I now come to the last paragraph in this section, which is called "Areas for Concern". This is paragraph 288, which is of great support for this and similar amendments concerned with conditions of shopworkers. The Auld Report says this:
"We understand that the Government has been considering the abolition of Wages Councils without replacing them with any similar machinery. If this were to happen, we believe that there would be a strong likelihood of exploitation of some shopworkers in the form of lower wages, particularly for unsocial hours of work, and possibly in a longer working week."

147
The committee then says that no doubt good employers would behave themselves.
"but in the rapidly changing and uncertain conditions that might follow de-regulation of shop opening hours, if our recommendations were to be adopted, we cannot be sure that all employers would do so. Accordingly, although it is not directly within our terms of reference"—
and may I pause there to emphasise that the committee, chaired by Robin Auld, one of Her Majesty's Counsel, thought this matter of such importance that, having taken all the evidence it could, was not satisfied on this question as to the effect of deregulation on shopworkers and therefore stated:
"Accordingly, although it is not directly within our terms of reference,"—
and the next passage is in black, full print—
"we strongly urge the retention for retail workers of the machinery of the Wages Councils for the fixing of satisfactory wages and premium rates. Retention of Wages Councils is no adequate protection unless their orders are properly enforced. Accordingly, we also urge that there should be proper enforcement of the Wages Council Orders, by an adequately staffed Wages Council Inspectorate."
I hope that the Front Bench of the Government will not dismiss what I have said because the chairman, Robin Auld, has said that those observations were outside the scope of his terms of reference. That would be a technical approach to this matter of great significance to shopworkers. Therefore, I should like to ask the Minister what the Government are proposing to do to safeguard the position of shopworkers, whose situation was pointed out by the chairman of the Auld Committee, having regard to the Government's avowed intentions of abolishing the wages council?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The problem of safeguards for shopworkers following deregulation is a matter of concern. It was a matter of concern, as has been said, to my friend Mr. Robin Auld. It was a matter of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. When he expressed this as long ago as 1982 I rose briefly to support him. It is a matter of concern today. This concern is in no way inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, the principle of deregulation. It is merely a matter involved in the implementation of that principle.
If Sunday working is to be truly optional, safeguards are required to ensure that it should remain optional. In the retail trades the unions are relatively weak compared with other sectors of industry. A large proportion of the workers are not members of any trade union. Irrespective of trade union membership or none, the workers are surely entitled to a measure of Government protection. Sunday is not the same as any other working day and should never be so regarded unless the workers concerned so choose to regard it.
While supporting the principle of the Bill, I repeat the very short point that safeguards of this nature in no way conflict with that principle. I should have been anxious to support, as I said, an amendment along the lines of Amendment No. 11, which was not moved, for the simple reason that subsection (2) of the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 11 would place on the face of the statute a measure of protection which would be vastly superior to the discretion of any industrial tribunal on such matters. But that amendment is not before us. I only hope that the
148
Government will consider broadly in what way it might be possible to meet this concern, which is a genuine concern and in no way conflicts with the spirit of the Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I take very much the same point of view as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. It is now very many years since I could claim to have any acquaintance with the problem. In fact, it was on the Shops Bill 1956. But I can remember then being left with the impression that shopworkers were a vulnerable class of employee who needed special protection. In any case, it seems to me that we who take our stand on the argument of the Auld Committee cannot really pick and choose. I do not think we can disregard what was said in the two paragraphs that have been quoted—one by the noble Baroness and the second added by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. The only question is: are there sufficient safeguards?
I wrote to the noble Lord the Minister, who understandably passed my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Young, the Secretary of State. A day or two ago I received a reply, of which I sent a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, with the consent of the Secretary of State. If I had known that the noble Baroness would move this amendment I should have sent her a copy, and one to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, as well. What the Secretary of State said was this:
"The decision was therefore taken to remove young people from the wages council regulation"—
to facilitate their employment—
"but to enable councils to continue to protect the two central elements of pay—a minimum hourly rate and overtime rate for workers aged over 21".
The first thing that strikes one is that there seems to be a lacuna between the age of 18, which will be the concern of the shops inspectorate for young persons, and the age of 21 mentioned by the Secretary of State.
The second question is really more fundamental. It is whether those two types of control are sufficient protection for a vulnerable class of employee. Your Lordships were probably struck by a speech—I do not remember at what stage it was made—of the noble Lord, Lord Galpern, who described with his great local knowledge what went on in Scotland. I gathered from that that the overtime rate was sufficiently generous to restrict a good deal of Sunday employment. That may be part of the answer.
The third question I wanted to ask is a purely managerial one. It seems a bit cumbersome to keep on the shops inspectorate for young persons and the wages council regulations for adults, which also require an inspectorate. I should be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister could deal with those three matters in due course.
5.30 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, in her amendment. There are several reasons one can give for this, some of which have already been given. The first is that the strongest arguments which have been made in the Committee for the Bill have related to the modifications in the Sunday opening provisions. All the arguments about anomalies—fish and chip shops and only being able to buy the Bible at London Airport—and all the

149
arguments about the difficulties of enforcement and pressures coming from the consumers, have related to the case for modification of the existing Sunday opening provisions. That argument is out of the way. That, in terms, has been agreed. But virtually no arguments have been advanced—least of all, I would go on to say, from the Auld Report—for repealing Part II of the 1950 Act.
As the noble Baroness has said, this is a series of very small-scale protections for a very underpowered, under-organised group of 2 million or so workers. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, at Second Reading—and I should like to ask him to tell me what he meant by this—said:
"I should like to say a little about shopworkers. Conditions for them have changed enormously for the better over recent years".—[Official Report, 2/12/85; col. 1065.]
What is the evidence that conditions for shopworkers have changed enormously over recent years?
When the Shops Act was introduced in 1950 the level of unemployment in this country was less than 2 per cent. The level of unemployment now is over 13 per cent. Shopworkers are far less protected in terms of the labour market than they were in 1950 and the level of trade union organisation among shopworkers is as bad now as it was in 1950. Because an increasing proportion of shopworkers will be part-time workers, they will become (as the noble Baroness has said) increasingly difficult to organise.
What is the case for suggesting that they are so well looked after by the market or by the unions or in some other way, that we do not need these very elementary protections that were advanced in 1950? I would put it to the Committee that no argument has been made and that no argument was made by the Minister and, in particular, that no argument was made in the Auld Report. There have been a number of quotations from the Auld Report. I should like to make my quotation. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, wants to know the source of the quotation, it is from paragraph 285, page 65, where the Auld Report says,
"In our view, it would be unfortunate to remove all the protection that shopworkers now have at the very moment when, if our recommendations were to be adopted, they would feel at their most vulnerable".
So that the Auld Report does not say that they are immeasurably better off than they were in 1950. It says that they remain at their most vulnerable.
I go on to quote from further down in the same paragraph, where they say:
"It may be that the answer lies"—
that is to say, to the general protection of shopworkers—
"in the continuation and extension of the role now exercised by the Wages Councils to ensure not only adequate pay but also satisfactory conditions of employment for shopworkers".
So the Auld Report is saying that if we were to wish to introduce any diminution in the protection of shopworkers in this Bill, we ought first to do something to extend their rights under the wages councils. But this Government propose precisely the reverse. This is the difficulty. This Government propose that workers in general should come out of the protection of the wages councils. That is not what the Auld Report suggests. This Government propose that in general
150
those workers who remain under the protection of the wages councils should only be young people up to 21, and that even then—
A noble Lord: Up to 18.
Lord McCarthy: No. I am referring to the wages councils. It is 18 in this Bill. Even then, as I was saying, all kinds of things which the wages councils can now do which might enable the wages councils to look after young workers (including the half day off, and so on), should be taken away from the powers of the wages councils.
What the Government are going to do is to introduce legislation which will mean, contrary to what the Auld Report is saying, that there will be no protection—no protection not simply for workers who are not young workers, the workers in general, but no protection for young workers through the wages councils in the very respects that the Auld Report says are particularly important. What this Government are proposing is in no way justified by what has been suggested by the Minister; it is in no way justified by the Auld Report, and it is in no way connected to the general movement, legitimate though it may be, to free Sunday trading. This is something added to the Bill which has no place whatever in the Bill. That is why I would support the amendment.
Lord Denning: May I say just one word in support of the amendment? To understand it you have to go back to Section 17 of the 1950 Act. This is what it says:
"Subject to the provisions of this Part of the Act, on at least one week day in each week a shop assistant shall not be employed about the business of a shop after half-past one o'clock in the afternoon".
I have heard no reason whatever why that provision should be repealed. There is nothing in the Auld Reort about it. What the Bill itself says is that it is still to apply but only for the purpose of regulating the employment of people who have attained the age of 18. Why should there be any difference between one and the other? In other words, I have seen no argument in the Auld Report or otherwise for repealing that section or the other sections in Part II of the Act. Therefore, I would support the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I should like to ask the noble Baroness who moved this amendment in such agreeable terms one question as to what she has in mind. As I understand the effect of her amendment, it is that the protection given by the various sections of the 1950 Act to shopworkers, instead of going when they have attained the age of 18, should continue until they have reached the age of 65. My question is this. Why does she draw the line there? I need hardly say in this Chamber that there are a good many people over the age of 65 who work. One needs only to look around to see the number of extremely distinguished examples of that.
I should have thought that if the protection of these sections is required for middle-aged workers, it is even more required for those who are over 65 and therefore in the ordinary way of nature probably less physically enduring and less fit. Therefore, I would have understood it if the noble Baroness had moved to remove this provision altogether. But deliberately to retain the protection only up to 65 and leave the over

151
65s unprotected seems, from the point of view of social legislation, very odd indeed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask for clarification whether I am to understand that if the amendments that were not moved earlier today to delete Sections 17, 19 and 22 of the 1950 Act—amendments which do precisely what the noble Lord has just said—were to be moved at a later stage in the Bill, he would support them?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord knows that that is a hypothetical question. He need not have worried about saying "Before the noble Lord sits down …" because we are in Committee so I can reply to him. If any of those amendments are moved, I shall listen to the arguments for them. I am not at the moment convinced of their validity; I am not convinced that there is any necessity for them but I hope that I am as fairminded as anyone of your Lordships and I shall listen to any arguments that may be adduced.
The noble Lord has committed the unkindness to the Committee of provoking me to continue longer than I was going to do. I only hope the Committee will forgive him. I would make the general comment on this debate that it is curious that noble Lords are saying, on the one hand, that shopworkers are increasingly in need of protection and, on the other hand, that they are less and less being represented by trade unions. It seems to suggest that the shopworkers themselves are not perhaps as conscious of this need for protection as noble Lords opposite seem to think.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The Government have to be consistent. I do not think they can accept this amendment. I recognise how seductive are the arguments. The word "compassion" is used by the noble Baroness. Are we going to be less compassionate in 1985 then we were in 1950? Compassionate attitudes and a desire to do the right thing are just as acute now as they were then. You are not necessarily being compassionate and kind if you continue to do what we have done in the past, and that is to bring in legislation which is a shambles.
The reason we have this Bill at all is that by adding to the various pieces of legislation over 500 years we had reached the position in which the whole thing was in an unholy mess. It was not only unfair to the people trying to run their businesses: it was also making a nonsense of the law itself. The Auld Report went into the whole position and it stated, to paraphrase, that the situation was such a mess and such a shambles that we ought to wipe the slate clean, because it was not possible to go on amending and counter-amending, as had been done previously. Therefore, by our Second Reading vote we said we accepted that and, rather than have this jumble of contradictory legislation which brings the law into contempt and which does not bring about the sort of efficiency that we need in our retail industry, would wipe the slate clean and completely de-restrict.
We are only at the very beginning of this Bill, but if at this stage we start trying to retain some sections of what I have described as "the old shambles" I believe
152
we shall be on the way to retaining something that was not working, that was unfair and (in legal terms) a mess, and we shall be retaining it with that risk. I think, personally, this Bill is absolutely right. I think it is good sense; and I believe that in the long run it will be more compassionate to let this Bill go through with complete de-restriction. I do not fear, as many of your Lordships do, that people will be taking advantage of it or exploiting people on anything like the scale that has been suggested. What I have in mind is that the people who run businesses—those who are what I would call the potential exploiters (if that risk is there at all)—have already seen what happens where they virtually provoke legislation in order to give protection when they take undue advantage and, as I have said, where they exploit.
I believe the very fact that it would be possible for Parliament to come back and reintroduce some of these things will create an atmosphere which will make it quite unnecessary. I believe that the outlook of people in industry and in the retail industry is quite different today from what it was fifty years ago. They have seen what happens when Parliament is provoked into bringing in legislation. As a consequence of that, I think a lot of it will not be necessary.
Nor have I the dismal outlook that the noble Baroness has as regards the effectiveness of the trade unions. I believe we are now getting back to a position where the trade unions are going to be more effective in the future than they have been in the past, because they have gone through a phase where they have lost a lot of their influence because they had shown bias and extremism in many areas. That is being removed over the whole of the trade union movement in this country, and I believe that if any protection is needed it will be able to be obtained by codes of conduct, with the influence of the trade unions and with the altered outlook of the people who will be the employers. I do not think there is any need to think that the only answer to these problems is to bring in more legislation; and in this particular instance, if we pursue what we started when we recorded our vote on Second Reading, and if we wipe the slate clean, I am certain that, with the experience of the past, there as an inducement to do the right thing, and we shall find that we get greater efficiency without in any way interfering with fairness or in any way reducing the sort of compassion that we want.
If I am wrong on that, if my judgment is wrong and we do get people who, because of the absence of legislation, will exploit or try to take undue advantage, then I and others who will sit on these Benches both here and in another place will bring legislation back to deal with those conditions. Parliament is continuing: it has done that in the past, and will do it in the future. I believe that, like a lot of businesses, we have got ourselves into a mess. I have called it a shambles. Let us get that clear; and if it turns out that the lessons of the past do not have their influence on the future, then Parliament would have a duty. But if they did have to bring in legislation because my judgment was wrong as to whether or not there would be a need for it then the duty they would have would be to bring in new legislation with the knowledge they had at the time at which they were bringing it in, and not to keep in existence legislation which, enacted even as recently as 1950, is 35 years old.
5.45 p.m.
Therefore, I would ask my noble friend to resist the very seductive and well-presented arguments that have been put up and, indeed, which have come from the Cross-Benches, too, rather surprisingly. I do not think that the consistency will do anything but good, and I would ask my noble friend to resist this amendment. I am certain the outcome will be that we shall have a more sensible arrangement in our retail industry in the future than we have had to tolerate over the last 50 years.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Lord sits down, for the benefit of the Committee would be explain why he thinks that the section in the Shops Act which is in force is not working properly? Would he like to produce that evidence to the Committee? He is talking about "shambles", and if he could explain that it would help us all to consider his speech in another light.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Nobody knows better than the noble Lord that in terms of the law being applied through the courts and everywhere we had got to the point where it was a shambles. All these things added together: you did not know where you were; you knew that certain things that were supposed to be illegal were being disregarded and were not being brought before the courts; and you knew that it was being unfairly applied in one part of the country as compared to another. Nobody knows better than the noble Lord that that was the situation; and I do not believe that we shall get clear of that until the slate is wiped clean so that the thing is allowed to find its proper level, instead of foisting on Parliament legislation based on old-fashioned ideas which bear no relation to the times.
Lord Mishcon: Purely in order to get a logical argument before the Committee—and when the noble Lord presents it we always want to listen to it and see what force there is in it—the part that was the shambles that he was referring to is the principle of closing on Sunday, and deregulation. We are dealing now with labour provisions. Could he kindly tell the Committee, if he wishes us to take his speech as seriously as I am sure he would, what was a shambles about the labour provisions in the Shops Act 1950, and, specifically, what was the shambles in this section?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I do not know how many retail shops the noble Lord has owned or had to operate—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Just a minute: the shambles arose because the inspection of the terms of employment in shops was unfairly applied. On one occasion it was said that there were not enough inspectors in one area while in another area the inspectors were showing bias. I believe that the fairness being shown to the people who had to run the retail shops, because of the emphasis that was put on what
154
was being done in one area as compared to another, justifies the description "shambles" that I have given to it. If the noble Lord had had to operate it and had had to come face to face with it on some occasions, he would very likely have been of my opinion.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, addressed himself at the opening of his speech to the issue of consistency. Let me take the same theme and ask where the consistency is in the proposals which are before your Lordships' Committee. Great play has been made, quite properly, of the advantages which it is said consumers and customers will gain from this measure. A picture has been painted to us of them rushing out and maximising their satisfaction on Sunday mornings in a way they cannot do at any other time in the week. So be it.
What of the owners? Those who own shops and decide to open them on Sundays will do so because they expect and intend to benefit and to gain from it. Although not all owners, particularly owners of the larger shops, will themselves have to stand behind counters on Sundays serving half pounds of bacon or metres of cloth, they will gain.
But who will lose? The burden of Sunday opening will fall upon those who are employed in shops. It will fall upon those who have no option. I will come in a moment to the issue of the option which is apparently offered to those who are already in employment. The burden will fall upon those who will not be able to secure compensation and whose lot will be not as it is now, but worsened by this provision of the Bill.
Historically, as we have heard, workpeople in this industry have been in a weak negotiating position. That is why successive governments have introduced and have maintained the provision of wages councils. That is why, as we have heard, the Auld Committee emphasised the need to maintain and improve the wages councils provisions, and emphasised the need to increase inspection, which is the Achilles heel of wages councils.
Now, on top of what is proposed in the Bill, we are threatened, as has been said by my noble friend Lord McCarthy, with the weakening, or possibly even the repeal, of wages councils themselves. Certainly, there is no proposal whatsoever, so far as I know—and the noble Lord who is to reply will correct me if I am wrong—from the Benches opposite that we should increase the rate of inspection and enforcement by wages councils, or increase the numbers of inspectors in the wages councils inspectorate? If I am wrong, I shall be delighted to hear it.
So the very least we can do is to leave in place the existing meagre protections of the Shops Act which this amendment seeks to do. The alternative, if these are removed, will, I suggest, be an extension of the hours which people in shops are expected to work. But we are told that those who are in employment already will have the protections offered by the schedule which we have yet to discuss. I would not give you tuppence for that schedule in terms of the ability of not the more reputable, but the less reputable, employers to put pressure on their employees. Indeed, I should hope that this amendment would command the support of the good employers—among whom I count the noble

155
Lord, Lord Sainsbury—in order to protect them from the invidious and unfair competition which will be adduced by employers of the other kind. In introducing the amendment, my noble friend Lady Turner talked about this as a modest amendment. I regard it as pitifully little, but as the very least that this House can do on behalf of those who otherwise will bear the burden of the consequences of this legislation.
Lord Glenarthur: We have had a long debate on this issue. It is the first of many concerning shopworkers—a different theme from that which has occupied us in the earlier two days in Committee, and indeed earlier this afternoon. The amendment is similar to the next amendment, No. 19, in that it seeks to reinstate the employment restrictions of the 1950 Act for shopworkers, but I suggest is much more lavish in that it seeks to reinstate the restrictions for all shopworkers up to the age 65, not just those up to the age of 21 to which we shall no doubt come later. This would, in effect, mean that the current employment provisions of the 1950 Act will continue to apply to the vast majority of shopworkers, not just to those aged between 16 and 18 as the Bill intends.
But this amendment seems to smack of something of a contradiction and I think that what I shall say now bears out much of what was said earlier by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. If it is a basic principle that the statutory employment provisions of the 1950 Act are deemed necessary for shopworkers, it is difficult to see why they cease to be necessary merely because an employee is over the age of 65.
In the distributive trades, some 5 per cent. of male employees and 7 per cent. of female employees are aged 65 and over. What of them? The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, began her remarks by using the words "caring"—indicating that what we are proposing indicates less care—and "compassion". I really cannot see that there is much care or compassion, at any rate for those people over 65, so far as the amendment is concerned.
But let me return to the main strand of the argument. The Government believe that the statutory employment restrictions of the 1950 Act are simply outdated and unnecessary nowadays; and this, perhaps, is an answer to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, who quoted what I said on Second Reading. The provisions merely set shopworkers' meal breaks and require weekly half-day holidays and time off in lieu of Sunday working. Those amendments have not been moved. I could elaborate on them. But I cannot feel in 1986 that tea breaks, for example, are the kind of matters which should be written into primary legislation in the way suggested now—
Lord McCarthy: Is the noble Lord saying that tea breaks and lunch breaks do not matter to these workers, or is he saying that they get them without the law?
Lord Glenarthur: What I am saying is not at all that they do not matter to the workers. I am sure that they matter to the workers. They matter to all sorts of people. What I am saying is: is it the kind of matter which should be written into the law in the way that exists under the 1950 Act, and is it not something
156
which could be negotiated reasonably between the people who are working in shops and those who employ them? I shall continue to develop that theme—
The Earl of Stockton: Why not? It has been for 20 years.
Lord Glenarthur: My noble friend Lord Stockton makes the valuable point that it has existed for many years. What I am trying to suggest to the Committee is that just because it has existed for so long it is not necessary now to maintain it, because the conditions have changed. I am endeavouring to explain that circumstances have changed, and to develop the argument so as to explain precisely why they have changed. The fact is that they are ineffective in controlling the length of the working week or day because they do not set maximum hours for adults. Here I am talking about the provisions which already exist. As I have said, there is no reason why shopworkers, like their counterparts in other sectors of the economy—and probably many of us have direct experience of precisely this—should not settle their conditions of employment with their employers. This is a theme which was developed by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I now turn to the question of the wages councils—
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, which is so important and which the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, has so rightly brought to our attention, will be please deal with this matter? Everybody has said that the shopworker is the worker who, unfortunately, is least protected by trade unions. Therefore, is it not proper that we protect those workers by primary legislation, because to a large extent there is nobody who can negotiate for them?
Lord Glenarthur: I am not sure that the noble Lord is right in saying that there is no one to negotiate for them. Let us take some of the instances which we shall need, to explain the situation. Let us take, for example, meal breaks under, I think, Section 19 of the 1950 Act. Are we really to believe that adult shopworkers are unique among employees in that they are unable to sort out their tea and meal breaks with their employers? Are we really to believe that they want or need the full weight of an Act of Parliament to determine those points—
Noble Lords: Yes!
Lord Glenarthur: —and an army of officials to see that they are enforced? I fundamentally disagree. This kind of restriction is totally unnecessary nowadays. The adult shopworkers, like their fellow employees elsewhere, are quite capable of deciding that kind of thing.
6 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has made a fundamental point. The noble Lord the Minister has put forward the view that this should be pursued by negotiation. This is very important. If the noble Lord found from the debates on this Bill and elsewhere that

157
shopworkers had difficulty in getting some employers to negotiate, would he advise his right honourable friend to bring in suitable legislation to support a right to bargain for such workers?
Lord Glenarthur: What I can say is that from Scotland we have some experience of the way the situation works. Perhaps I may develop that theme. If it is the view of noble Lords opposite that working on Sunday or working at any time of the day and meeting these needs is so difficult a matter that this has to be enforced by the kind of legislation which is being suggested, how is it that the system works so well in Scotland? How is it that there are those who actually prefer to work at odd times? How is it that it has become popular not just for the normal weekdays but presumably for Sundays as well?—because, of course, the same needs might apply there in regard to breaks and to conditions of the sort we are talking about now.
Perhaps I may develop my argument slightly, or we shall not get very far with this amendment. I should like to bring in the question of the wages councils, because that is a matter central to the argument we are discussing. The noble Lords, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran and Lord McCarthy, dwelt on this issue. They quoted from the relevant paragraphs of the Auld Report. They are quite right to say that consideration of the role of wages councils was not directly within the terms of reference of the Auld Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, was good enough to suggest that they themselves recognised that. The Government, however, took account of all the points of view expressed during the extensive consultation on the operation of the councils, not least the effect of their provision on employment.
The Government concluded, first, that the system of wages councils should be retained; but, secondly, that the system as it stands imposes unacceptable burdens on employers and that it inhibits the growth of employment, especially for young people. Young people are those whom it is often suggested may suffer most. The Government therefore intend to limit the powers of the councils to setting a single minimum hourly rate and overtime rate for those aged 21 and over. As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, indicated, this decision has already been announced, and a Bill will shortly be laid before Parliament giving effect to it. This is in keeping with the broader strategy of deregulation, and against this background there could be no question of extending the role of the wages councils.
The Government also accept that there may be a case for continuing the restrictions on the hours of work of young people. That is why they have left the provisions of the 1950 Act intact for those over compulsory school-leaving age but under the age of 18. The 1950 Act and preceding legislation clearly distinguished between those shopworkers aged 18 and over and those who are younger. It provided much more detailed restrictions for young shopworkers. It is sensible and quite logical to leave those restrictions well alone until a detailed review can be made of this and other legislation governing young people's hours of work. The Shops Act contains provisions very similar to those in the factories and related legislation,
158
and it would be premature to tackle one lot in isolation from the rest and in advance of the review's findings.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, raised the question of enforcing authorities and why those authorities should be kept as separate pieces of machinery. I hope I have that point correctly. I can tell the noble and learned Lord that it seems sensible to leave the enforcement of the provisions of the Shops Act with the local authorities and the enforcement of the orders of the wages councils with the wages inspectorate. Each authority naturally has its own particular expertise and experience. I do not suppose that the noble and learned Lord would disagree that individual experience of how these pieces of machinery operate in each field is necessary for their proper operation. Secondly, with regard to young people, the Government are conducting a review of all the legislation governing young people's hours of work, and it would therefore be premature to alter the enforcement provisions in advance of that review.
Times have changed. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and other noble Lords who support him to suggest that that is not the case, but the fundamental arrangement whereby people who go to work in shops and in other occupations come to arrangements with their employers has changed in 35 years since the 1950 Act came into force. It would be totally unrealistic to think otherwise. Conditions have changed in dozens of areas, and conditions have certainly changed here. As I said earlier, I do not believe that they any longer require the kind of backing that is provided by this Act. It is a fundamental part of this Bill that this change should go ahead. I have listened with care to the arguments that have been expressed from the Benches opposite, obviously with considerable feeling, but I have to say that I am not persuaded by a single one of them. That is why I must ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
The Earl of Stockton: I must say frankly that I do not like this Bill at all, but we settled that point at Second Reading. I do not like it out of a traditional feeling that we are sacrificing, by what I can only call a sort of Pakistani relief Act, a very old tradition—because that is the chief object of the Bill: to make a lot of small shops legal which are now illegal. We are sacrificing a very old tradition. We are making another move in the gradual secularisation of our people and in abandoning the old principles which made our forebears great and kept them powerful. However, that is not the point now; we have done that.
What I do not see is the argument which my noble friend Lord Glenarthur and my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls and others have introduced: that we ought somehow to go on a quite different issue, a purely economic issue, to this new extreme which seems, greatly to my regret, to have inspired part of my party. There are no longer the principles of Lord Shaftesbury, Mr. Disraeli or Mr. Churchill. We are reverting to a form of neo-Cobdenism based upon the worst elements of the Manchester school, supported by aphorisms that would have done honour to that popular writer, Dr. Samuel Smiles. The paternalist elements and traditions of the Tory Party that come from its very roots are now unpopular. We are making a great error. It is because the people as a whole trusted

159
those whom they regarded as their natural leaders to help them, support them and protect them that we have had the great authority in the past in our country.
This Bill is meant to regulate Sunday trading—that is all right—to make it all legal. We have just rejected an amendment that I thought was attractively argued, which would have meant that shops would have to close on Sunday afternoon. I would have been much happier if the amendment had said that shops should be closed on Sunday morning. But this Bill is quite different. It is saying that because it is impossible to please or satisfy some opinions, and in order to please some strange new doctrine of liberalisation, we should adopt all the worst elements of the liberal Victorian tradition, which has somehow infiltrated my old party like some kind of disease. Are we to abandon a principle that has nothing to do with the main purpose of this Bill?
I do not know the details of the Shops Act because I have only been able to pick them up as I have followed the debate. It may be that some of the provisions of this Bill may be altered. It is said that some will not apply to employers after the age of 65. Sixty-five is a tuppenny age; a 65-year-old is quite a young person!
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Stockton: It is rather a pettifogging argument to say that the drafting stops at the age of 65. I should have thought that there would have been no difficulty about a phrase that made it clear that the provisions covered the whole of a person's working life.
I just feel that we should have in this debate an opportunity for the Government either to accept the spirit of this amendment or to tell the Committee that they will approach this whole problem with a rather more constructive purpose. The Bill is meant to make it possible for people to trade freely on Sundays. Whether or not they will do so on a great scale we do not know. But that is what this Bill is for. It is not meant to make life more difficult for shop assistants. It is not meant to make the conditions of their labour worse. I am not talking now about the kind of shops that probably will not open on a Sunday anyway; great employers of large, well-managed institutions. Or if they do, I am sure that they will not try to exploit their workers. Of course they will not. But there are many small shops that will take advantage of this legislation. They will be just the kind of people who will try to exploit the weak and often transient population who are kind of people likely to become shop assistants.
6.15 p.m.
I would have thought that given the present state of unemployment, especially north of the Trent, such people needed more protection than ever before. As one noble Lord has pointed out, there was 2 per cent. unemployment in 1950. In my old part of the world that I knew so well, it is now more like 13 or 14 per cent. People in such areas are more easily exploited. I do not imagine that the unions there are any stronger or are likely to become any stronger, because in a situation of perpetually moving employees, it is difficult to achieve union recruitment.
160
Perhaps my noble friend will say to the Committee that this amendment may not have very good legal effects. He may say that it has some anomalies but that before this Bill leaves this House, the Government will make sure that we will preserve all the protection that now exists for the people who will be working under it. We may make people free to buy or sell on Sundays, in the mornings or afternoons, because that is what this Bill is for. But it is not meant to do anything else.
Let us remember that the great commandment that was handed down to God's chosen people was perhaps the greatest social reform in the history of civilisation; the concept that every man or woman, however humble, should have at least some period of rest. That was an enormous advance. We hardly realise what it has meant to the history of the world. Let us have our Sunday trading—as much as we like. We know that there have to be many anomalies now. Many people working in the social services, in the police and in other essential services, and in industrial operations that use hot metal all have to work day after day without intermission. But we should so far as we can preserve the existing protection. If this amendment is not the right method then we should find some other way of enclosing in this Bill a clause that will make it perfectly clear that the Bill does no injury at all, and is prevented from doing any injury at all, to the rights that have been so long-won for the humbler people in our country; won as much by both parties but conspicuously as a result of the old Tory tradition. Those rights were won for people who could not protect themselves and who had least power.
Your Lordships should make sure that before this Bill leaves us it incorporates a clause or clauses that will reinstate, in whatever form the draftsman thinks is right, the whole system of preserving rights and of preventing the exploitation of a large class of people who are perhaps among the weakest in our great industrial and commercial system. I beg your Lordships to do that. Whether or not we agree upon this Bill from a sabbatarian point of view is not the issue. It should leave at least this domain with everyone determined that nothing should flow from it that may do some injury to any—and especially to the weakest class.
I fear that I ought not to have intervened, but I listened to the whole debate and I was moved by it. I remember that when I led my party in the House of Commons, I warned young Members that on no account should they attend Committee stages of Bills. I told them that if they did so, they would always want to vote for the amendments because the arguments put up by the Government would not convince them. I told them to stay in the Smoking Room and to come out and vote when the bell rang. I am afraid that I have not followed my own advice today.
I just make this plea. Whether or not one intends to review other possibilities and the suggestions of other organisations, one should not let the fact that something is confusing or untimely serve as an excuse. The sole purpose of this Bill is to allow one to buy and sell on Sundays. Everything that we have built into legislation during the long struggle for the uplifting and benefiting of the mass of our people, and every other right, should be strictly preserved, and if necessary legislatively restated.
Lord Glenarthur: My noble friend Lord Stockton has given us a powerful example of the very important feelings which lie behind so much of his enormous experience. He was quite right to intervene after listening to the arguments, and I am sure that we are all grateful to him for expressing his views with such clarity.
With respect to my noble friend, much of what he said went wider than the amendment we are now dealing with. He touched on all sorts of areas concerned with the Bill. That is, of course, quite understandable because, as he so rightly says, the Bill encompasses a great deal when one is talking about the whole philosophy not just of Sunday trading but of weekday trading, too, and those who work in shops as well as go to the shops to buy whatever they wish to buy.
On this amendment I am afraid there is no question of advising your Lordships that there is any hope that I can take it away and come forward with anything better on the principle involved. We shall come to other amendments in due course and I shall listen with great care to what is said on them. As arguments develop there may be some scope to try to find some sort of way forward. What my noble friend Lord Stockton said in encompassing the whole question of employment in this Bill is that he hopes there is some way of protecting shopworkers in some form.
My noble friend did not, if I heard him right, seek to suggest that this was the only amendment in which there may be scope; but he encompassed the whole employment side of the Bill. We shall have to take those amendments on their merits and no doubt my noble friend, with his great experience, will listen to the arguments that are put forward by those who promote the amendments and to the response from this Dispatch Box.
However, I rest where I did before my noble friend Lord Stockton intervened. Times have changed however much we may regret that they have. There have been changes for the better in many fields that affect shopworkers, shoppers and all concerned. There may be some changes for the worse; and we all have personal views on that. I believe that what we are trying to achieve with this Bill, in allowing for the fact that those changes have taken place over the past 30 years and the way shopworkers come to arrangements with their employers, is not dissimilar from the way that workers in other fields have come to arrangements with their employers. I do not think that it is realistic to suggest that shopworkers are peculiar in the respect that they require this extraordinary and weighty approach to their problems.
I do not detract for one second from their importance and the valuable part that they play in our national life. I support much of what is said on their behalf, but I cannot believe that to proceed along these lines is anything other than an outdated approach to the problem and one that, in the end, will serve neither the country nor those employers in the way that both, in due time, would like to see.
Lord Mishcon: I can well understand the noble Lord's embarrassment after the very eloquent and telling intervention which brought back old memories
162
of an old party that was respected by this Opposition as well as by others.
I merely record this. The noble Lord the Minister has not answered the noble Earl's main point—that is, that this Bill should not in any way decrease the protection given to workers under the 1950 Act. That is not supposed to be the purpose of this Bill. Talk in terms of times changing and suggestions that shopworkers can negotiate with employers were answered very clearly by the noble Earl when he said, as is the truth, that this is a largely unprotected system of employment in our country and that the employees in the industry are even less protected now than in 1950 because of the unfortunate level of unemployment.
That must be faced by the noble Lord the Minister. If he persists in saying, "No, I will not take this away to consider whether 'sixty-five' should be inserted or whether we ought to have an age limit at all; and I am not going to sacrifice my opposition to Clause 2 going out of the Bill", then I say to the noble Lord the Minister that he has painted for himself and for his Front Bench an even worse picture than the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, painted.
Lord Glenarthur: In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, may I say that on this particular amendment I do not in all honesty see scope for taking it away and coming back with an alternative either in principle or in detail? What I said, and the noble Lord did not refer to this, was that I would consider the other amendments that come forward—and there are some down in the names of my noble friends which may have some scope and I shall need to listen very carefully to the arguments—before I decide what can be done. I did not rule out—and this was very much the theme of the admirable speech of my noble friend Lord Stockton—that there may be some scope in due course.
We are now in the position of debating one amendment which relates to one particular aspect and which proposes the age of 65. The next amendment brings us down to the age of 21. What we must do, and what I shall do, is listen with great care to what is said on the other amendments concerning this theme and others before deciding how to proceed. In the meantime, it is only right to stick to what I said on the principle, even if the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, does not like it, that times and circumstances have changed and that what we are doing is not unfair and is perfectly correct and reasonable.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: There are many of us who wish the Bill well but have expressed unease on this amendment, though we do not necessarily or at all wish to cling to modes of protection which are out of date. What we ask is to be reassured that any system that may now supervene will give this class of worker, whom we regard as peculiarly vulnerable, protection which is at least as good as other ways they have heretofore had under statute. If the noble Lord can give that assurance and convince us, speaking for myself, I should be very well content.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked for an assurance. I should

163
certainly like to study what he said, and I shall do that, anyway. But what I cannot give is an absolute assurance from this Dispatch Box now without studying the point that he made. I shall certainly study what has been said. Many valuable points have been made. However, perhaps the noble Baroness would now like to wind up from her side.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Thank you. I have listened very carefully to what the Minister said. However, in view of the fact that he has not found it possible to give the assurances that I seek, I have no alternative, I fear, but to press the amendment. The reason I say that is that I cannot accept the argument that things have changed and we do not now need the protections that were thought necessary in the Shops Act 1950.
I refer to the Auld Report. It says in paragraph 284:
"outside the retail trade this sort of protection"—
that is the Shops Act—
"and often very much better, is usually to be found in collective agreements. In the case of shopworkers, with their weak bargaining position, protection can only be given in this statutory way".
That was written in 1984, which is not long ago.
We have to press the amendment if we are to preserve the minimal provisions in the Shops Act 1950. I think that that was the main thrust of the wonderful speech of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton. He was saying that we should not do away with existing protection in order to provide liberties of a different kind for a different section of the population; and that was the main burden of my speech in moving the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made the proposition that in my amendment I was not looking after people over the age of 65. That age was written into the amendment because it is the state retirement age for men and one hopes that people have pension provision after that age. If the noble Lord moved an amendment on Report to extend the age beyond 65, I should be happy to support it.
The main contention remains. We wish to preserve the minimum protections for people working in shops. As I said earlier, that is one in 10 of the population. I regret to say that there is inadequate trade union organisation among that large group of workers. I repeat that it is not easy to organise a workforce where there is a high turnover and where there is not much legislative assistance to unions to organise and, once people are organised, to get their employers to recognise them. For all those reasons, I wish to press the amendment.
6.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 120.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Bacon, B.

Amherst, E.

Blease, L.

Ardwick, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Aylestone, L.

Blyton, L.

164

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bottomley, L.

Longford, E.

Brentford, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Buckmaster, V.

McNair, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Mar, C.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Melchett, L.

Collison, L.

Mishcon, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Molloy, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mountevans, L.

David, B.

Mulley, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Denington, B.

Ogmore, L.

Denning, L.

Oram, L.

Diamond, L.

Parry, L.

Donoughue, L.

Phillips, B.

Eldon, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rea, L.

Falkender, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Galpern, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Glenamara, L.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Seear, B.

Grantchester, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Grimond, L.

Stallard, L.

Hampton, L.

Stamp, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stedman, B.

Heycock, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hooson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ingleby, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jacques, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Vernon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kagan, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Whaddon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kissin, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cox, B.

Allerton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Ampthill, L.

Davidson, V.

Auckland, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Bauer, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Beloff, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Belstead, L.

Dundee, E.

Bessborough, E.

Effingham, E.

Birdwood, L.

Elibank, L.

Boardman, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bolton, L.

Elton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Erroll, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fortescue, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gainford, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Gisborough, L.

Butterworth, L.

Glanusk, L.

Caccia, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Caithness, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Carnock, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hanworth, V.

Colwyn, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

165

Harris of High Cross, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Harvington, L.

Pender, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hives, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Hood, V.

Hooper, B.

Radnor, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Renwick, L.

Ilchester, E.

Rochdale, V.

Kimball, L.

Rugby, L.

Kinnoull, E.

St. Davids, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lansdowne, M.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Lawrence, L.

Sandford, L.

Loch, L.

Selborne, E.

Long, V.

Shannon, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sharpies, B.

Lyell, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

McFadzean, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mancroft, L.

Somers, L.

Margadale, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Sudeley, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Teynham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Mersey, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Monson, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Tryon, L.

Mottistone, L.

Vickers, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vivian, L.

Munster, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Windlesham, L.

Norrie, L.

Wynford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Yarborough, E.

Onslow, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Orkney, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Oram Lord Oram moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
The noble Lord said: When the Minister was replying to the last debate he said that he could not accept the amendment but that he would look favourably on some subsequent amendment, and the noble Lord referred to the one in my name. I hope that this will be one upon which he can look with a favourable eye for the reasons that I shall explain. In order to appreciate the special purpose of this amendment, as distinct from the last amendment, it is necessary to look not only at what this Bill proposes to do to shopworkers but also at what the Government propose to do in another Bill which has not yet seen the light of day but the outline of which has already been made clear. I refer, of course, to the Bill that will drastically reduce the powers of wages councils.
At the present time, shopworkers have two defences against exploitation. There is Part II of the 1950 Shops Act, discussed during the debate on the previous amendment. Secondly, the position of shopworkers is safeguarded by orders issued by the two wages councils covering the retail trades, one for workers in food trades and one for other retail workers. As I have said, we do not yet know the details of the Bill that will deal with wages councils but we have had a very clear outline of what it will contain in principle.
Mr. Tom King, when Secretary of State for Employment, stated that wages councils would be reformed rather than abolished, but that they would be reformed in such a way that they would have no powers in respect of workers under 21. Moreover, even
166
for the over-21s they would have power only to set a minimum hourly rate of pay and one overtime rate of pay. So far as shopworkers are concerned, this will be, in my view, a gross diminution of the powers of the present councils. At present, they can deal with such matters as holidays, meal breaks and premium rates of pay for Sunday working. But all that, if the Government have their way in respect of the two Bills, will be done away with.
A particular group of workers will be especially disadvantaged if this Bill is not amended. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred, I believe, to what he called the lacuna, the gap in the provisions that the Government are bringing forward together with what they propose to do in the forthcoming wages councils Bill. I refer to the group of workers who have passed their eighteenth birthday. Below that birthday, they will still be protected by the present Bill. But those who have not yet reached their twenty-first birthday will have no protection either under this Bill or under a wages council. The group of people who are aged 18, 19 and 20 will be deprived of the protection of the 1950 Act and they will be deprived in future of any action by the wages council. They will therefore be left without any statutory protection at all.
My amendment would put that right. It would give them the same protection as they have at present under the 1950 Act until the age of 21. It may be said, and it has been said by the noble Lord. Lord Glenarthur, that things have changed and that they can have the protection of their trade unions. What the Auld Committee said, and what was said in the previous debate, makes it clear that it is most difficult to recruit into trade union membership this particular group of workers. It is difficult for trade union organisers to contact them in the very varied circumstances of the retail trading industry. For these reasons, they are most unlikely to have good protection from trade unions. These 18, 19 and 20 year-olds will be in the position of having no statutory protection at all and very weak organisation of their trade unions. It is for that reason that I am proposing in my amendment that we delete "eighteen" and insert "twenty-one". That, I believe, would fill this gap and give protection to what, in other circumstances, is a very vulnerable section of the shopworkers. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I asked a question which the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has kindly repeated. I asked it on the last amendment. I did not press the noble Lord the Minister because I thought that he would probably prefer to answer it on this amendment. It really comes to this. If the over-21s need any sort of wage council assistance, why do not the 18 to 21 year-olds? Their case would seem an even stronger one. I am not particularly wedded to raising the age to 21. For most purposes nowadays people are regarded as adults at the age of 18. But what it seems to me is intolerable and barely understandable is that there is this gap when a group of persons whom one would think more vulnerable than the over-21s are left without either shops inspectorate protection or wages council protection.
Lord Glenarthur: As the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has described, this amendment would retain the provisions not only for young people but also for adults up to the age of 21. The Shops Act 1950 makes a clear distinction between adults and young people. I think that this is the point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was making. That Act lays down more detailed employment provisions for young people. A young person is defined as someone who is over compulsory school-leaving age but under the age of 18. As I think I said in relation to the last amendment, this is in line with the definition of young people in the Factories Act and related legislation, which also contains provisions on permitted working hours of young people.
The Auld Committee suggested that the case could be made for some form of continued protection for young people. We consider, therefore, that keeping the 1950 restrictions pending a review of all the legislation concerned with young people's hours recognises the need which the Auld Report so clearly set out.
We see no need to retain restrictions governing the employment of anyone over the age of 18 in shops. The question was asked: why is it 18 and not 21? I must make it clear that there will be ample opportunity to discuss wages council and pay rates when the Bill reaches your Lordships' House. However, as far as this Bill is concerned our predecessors saw fit to distinguish between young people and adults when setting their conditions of work and we are continuing that distinction for the time being, and, accordingly, we believe that the restrictions on hours for those aged 18 and over are simply no longer necessary.
On the question of the wages councils, again (and may I reiterate this?) they are being retained. However, the response to the consultative paper on wages councils showed a widespread support for reform, and hence the changes which were announced by my noble friend Lord Young in July. These reforms were necessary because wages council statutory rates and premium rates are too high, especially for young people. The effect of these rates is to price people out of work. Our reforms should encourage employers to take on more workers, and they should be encouraged to take on more young workers. It is particularly important at this time, with the regrettably high level of unemployment to which reference was made at some length when we debated the previous amendment.
So far as concerns the suggestion that the reform of the wages councils and the removal of trading restrictions might eliminate practically all statutory measures designed to protect shopworkers, I have to say that wages councils will continue to set a minimum rate and overtime rate for those aged 21 and over; and it is important to remove the over-regulation and the effects on job creation caused by the present system.
I do not think it is fair to suggest that the exclusion of young people leaves them particularly vulnerable to exploitation. The most important thing, as I have stressed, is to get young people into jobs, because in this way they will gain the experience and self-confidence that comes, as I am sure we all realise, with a crucial first job. The exclusion of people under 21 from wages council regulations will, I suggest, help to promote their employment.
168
Although we are discussing one particular amendment, we are naturally bringing into our discussions those which lie ahead of us when we come to the Bill which deals with wages councils. On this amendment I have to say that it would add yet another category of employee for employers to consider; and it would be a completely unnecessary complication. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will see the force of that argument. It is not unrelated to the discussion that we had on the earlier amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will realise that and will not feel it necessary to press this amendment.
Lord Oram: The Minister has explained why "eighteen" is in the Bill, because that is the age which applies to employment in other categories of commerce and industry. He has also agreed with my interpretation of what Mr. Tom King said: that the wages councils Bill will provide wages council protection for those aged 21 upwards. But for the gap in between—those aged 18, 19 or 20—I find his answer most unsatisfactory. As I said in my opening remarks, it is leaving them without the statutory protection of either wages councils or the similar provisions in the 1950 Act. They will be completely without protection other than their trade union membership. As I have explained, and as the Auld Committee makes very clear, that is a most difficult piece of organisation to achieve.
The real reason which the noble Lord has given for leaving that group of workers in such a weak position is that the Government are determined to bring their already poor wages lower still in order to employ them. That is something which we on this side of the Committee cannot accept.
However, I recognise that my amendment overlaps very considerably with a Bill which we have not yet seen and which we shall have the opportunity of discussing in the future. I recognise that it might be better for discussions on these and a wider range of points to be taken up at that time. I am in no way accepting what the Minister has said—in no way at all. But I feel that it would not be appropriate for me to press this to a Division at this stage. We shall reserve our opinion about the wages councils Bill until we see it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I have previously given notice of an intention to oppose the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill. We have had a very good debate on the earlier amendments so ably moved by my colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. That provided a number of insights. It was the first indication by the Government that they may be prepared to accept some amendments on this part of the Bill. That was not in response to the speech by my noble friend but came in the Minister's second intervention after the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, had made his very powerful speech.
The Minister and his noble friends behind him have constantly urged upon the Committee that it should

169
trust the Government, that something will turn up, that they have something in mind, give them time, but that in the meantime they should please pass this Bill unamended, untouched. What my noble friends are saying on this argument is that the Minister should have come forward at an earlier time than the very close vote which we saw on the previous amendment and should have said: "We recognise that we may not have got this right so far as the employment protection clauses are concerned."
As regards Clause 2, the employment clause, we have sought piecemeal and in global terms to test the Minister as to whether there is any hope or possibility of the kind of protections which we believe we need. In response to my intention to oppose the Question, That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill, yet again the Minister has the opportunity to give us, not copper-bottomed guarantees, but the hope for which we have been looking.
In earlier speeches reference was made to the need to protect and retain the existing protections for many workers—not merely those who work in shops but those who work in retailing and distribution. They need not be shopworkers; they may be warehousemen, lorry drivers, or office workers who are ancillary to serving in shops. We are talking in terms of more than two million men and women. A good number of them are unorganised, are women and are part-time workers. We are not talking in terms of a cohesive, single group; we are not even talking in terms of one trade union. The prime unions involved are the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the Transport and General Workers' Union, the General and Municipal Workers' Union, ASTMS, NALGO and others. All have members involved in this trade and all are appalled at the intention of and the necessity for Clause 2.
I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, did the Committee a powerful service in trying to get the Government to face this matter. The general public overwhelmingly think that the Government are simply trying to bring shopping hours up to date. I reject any charge that there is a "clamour" (that word is not mine; it is in the Auld Report) for a general opening of shopping hours. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, for reminding the Committee that the shopping hours have been the main burden of the debate, so why go beyond that remit?
I remind the Minister that people are entitled to be suspicious that the Government are not merely tidying up but restricting. The headline in the London Standard tonight is: "New Curbs on Unions". The Minister will I hope forgive trade unions for believing that part of the nexus of this Bill is a platform used by the Government to tighten, restrict and remove existing protections not just for shopworkers but also for those in retailing and distribution. It is part of the raison d'être of this Government in their attitude to and confrontation with trade union members.
We on this side of the Committee have listened very carefully. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, in debating the earlier amendment on Clause 2, advised, "not at this stage". I have read very carefully previous debates in this House on the Bill promoted by the noble Baroness, Lady
170
Trumpington—the Trumpington Bill. Four members opposite said that in any legislation they wanted to protect the workers in the industry. A great many people support the deregulation of shopping hours. I want to examine very carefully how it affects employees. Those who represent the interests of shopworkers and those in retailing and distribution are in no doubt about what they think of Clause 2. There is no doubt that USDAW detests the whole raison d'être of the Bill. Not only is that union opposed to Clause 2, but it is also opposed to Clause 1. It represents about one million of the two million workers. If organised labour says that it wishes these protections to remain, how can we judge the views of the one million unorganised workers who are primarily women and who are primarily part-time, working 16 or 20 hours a week? I can assure the Minister that the views put forward by the unions involved in these matters reflect very faithfully and well the general interest of members in that particular category.
The Auld Report has been used selectively by anyone who wishes to make an argument, and I am no exception. For the clause stand part debate I have the appropriate references in the Auld Report. Quite clearly that committee went outside its brief and one wonders why it decided to do so in relation to that recommendation. It presented the Government not merely with a recommendation completely to deregulate shopping hours, but it also said that if shopping hours were to be deregulated, there should be a strengthening not only of the wages councils but of the wages inspectorate. I wonder whether the Minister has ever contemplated what the members of the Auld Committee would say if, tonight or tomorrow, they had a conversation with him or this Committee on what the Government have done with their recommendations.
One of the members of the Auld Committee, Miss Frances Cairncross, at a conference organised by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, was quite blunt. She said that there is no logic in the Government's action in respect of the employment clauses following deregulation. The Government do not have a friend from informed sources upon which they sought to prevail in giving advice to the Auld Committee as to the logic and necessity for this. If there is complete deregulation, this Bill will not be a shops Bill but will be an employment Bill. Once the hours have been deregulated, it will be a Bill wholly concerned with the conditions, pay and negotiating stance of trade unions. With no disrespect to the Minister from the Home Office, who has dealt with this matter very fairly, honestly and forthrightly, it is a matter for the Under-Secretary for Employment.
Increasingly the Bill deals with deregulating employment. I say candidly to the Minister that he must tell those outside the House, the many friends of the Government in this House and his political friends in another place why he feels it is right and necessary. One only has to take the views of those who hitherto have written protections into statutes which 35 years later may not seem to be so important, to be reminded (as the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, reminded us), picking up a point made by my noble friend Lord McCarthy, that one radical difference between 1950 and 1985 is the jump from 2 per cent. unemployed to

171
15 per cent. unemployed. I do not intend either to frighten or to warn the Minister that the atmosphere as regards employment in Britain in 1986 is very frightening indeed for those who are unemployed and for those who are on the margin of employment.
The Minister deludes himself if he does not believe that there are some employers who will be forced, by the fierce competition that they will be in once this Bill becomes an Act, to look carefully at a number of matters which may have been the subject of collective agreements. With the disappearance of statutory protection they will say, "There is a chance to trim a fraction of a penny off the wage rates." That is what it is all about. The margins of retailing in 1985 are very fine indeed. The ability of a company, large or small, to survive let alone prosper will depend upon whether it gets its wage rates right.
I am not concerned about later amendments. I am concerned in Clause 2 and with the weakening of the protections which employees enjoy at the moment. They are statutory. There is no need to remove them. The Minister has an opportunity to say why that is necessary.
Earlier this evening I was unable to attend a meeting of the all-party retail group in this House. That is a committee of which I have the honour to be an officer. One of the matters they were going to discuss was the Shops Bill. One of the papers they had was a paper entitled "Reform of Wages Councils in the Context of the Shops Bill". The Minister may not have seen this, and I should like to read what The Retail Consortium are saying about the problems faced because of the juxtaposition of the Shops Bill with no knowledge of the content of the wages councils Bill.
"The Retail Consortium is very concerned, however, at the implications of any removal of restrictions on shop hours for pay and conditions in the retail industry. Thus, the Retail Consortium is concerned that the debate on the Shops Bill should run in parallel to the proposed measures to reform wages councils. It will be important to safeguard against a situation arising whereby wages council orders remain active concerning pay and conditions, after deregulation of shops hours legislation, but prior to new and restricted powers for wages councils coming into force. Ministers have noted the problem but not offered a solution."
Earlier my noble friend Lord Oram dealt particularly with the gap between 18 and 21. It is not the Minister's fault (it is a matter of business management) but we are debating and being asked to approve clauses in the Shops Bill without the benefit of having knowledge of the detail of the other Bill. The Minister was quite right in reminding us that Mr. King, when he had responsibility, gave both Houses a look at the broad sweep of the legislation.
However, we are not looking at whether somebody is going to be able to go out and shop at the garden centre on a Sunday afternoon. We are not talking about someone who may have under-ordered in the supermarket on a Friday night. We are talking about men and women. We are talking about their conditions of work. We are talking about a real aspect of their lives, and that is the kind of protections which they have enjoyed. They are not large, and they have perhaps been bypassed in many good collective agreements not only negotiated by trade unions but agreed by good employers. We are not concerned about the good sense of good employers recognising
172
that in order to get the best out of their workers they need freely to negotiate good agreements. We are concerned about the million workers in retailing and distribution who are not organised at all. We are also concerned about the ambiance, the atmosphere, and environment which will persist once this Bill goes through.
That is why I believe that it is right, in view of the disappointing attitude of the Minister to earlier debates and the clear intention that the Government do not intend to come forward with any meaningful amendments, to move, That Clause 2 shall not stand part of the Bill.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: In parliamentary terms I should have liked the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to say that he would not push this matter to a vote. He has just made a very proper speech on the Question that the clause shall stand part of the Bill. It was full of detail that ought to be taken into account. We also had a detailed debate and an effective speech on the second amendment.
In parliamentary terms I should have felt, particularly in view of the response from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, that it was proper to allow the noble Lord to confer with his colleagues who are responsible for this Bill to see what effect the arguments made on the amendments are likely to have on how they are likely to react in the future.
I do not think that it would be fair to expect an immediate reaction so soon after the arguments have been presented. I would have thought that it was good and accepted parliamentary procedure, knowing that the detailed and proper arguments are on the record, to give the Government a chance to consider the arguments. We still then have another chance at Report stage and Third Reading before this Bill goes out of our hands to another place.
While I accept the effective speech that the noble Lord has just made, I feel that it would have been helpful, having put the remarks on the record, to recognise that the speech would have to be considered and not to expect an off-the-cuff reaction to it. Having made clear the points to be considered, I feel that this matter should not be pushed to a vote.
Lord Denning: I have been rather embarrassed in all the discussions on this clause because in answer to the suggested amendments, what is really being said is, "Wait for the wages councils Bill". I do not have the first notion of what it is, or what is proposed. I doubt whether it is proper, in considering our clauses, to say, "Well, we may have something to deal with all this in a wages Bill which may be brought before the House later".
I should have thought that we ought to wait and consider that Bill, and that we ought to consider this clause on its merits as it stands without any notion of what the wages Bill would come to. Having said that, I would not go so far as to oppose the clause standing part of the Bill.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not think that it is necessary for me to reiterate what is removed in Part II of the

173
Shops Act by this Bill. What I should point out is that Part II contains more detailed restrictions specifically on the hours of young people than those we have been discussing. In particular their maximum hours and their overtime are set, and their employment at night is controlled. Shop occupiers will also have to keep records of their working hours. The Bill before us does not alter these provisions in any way. They are being kept unchanged, at least for the time being. It is important to say that because it sets in context the other areas of the Shops Act to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred and which have been referred to by so many Members of the Committee today.
The policy behind Clause 2 has several strands. So far as concerns adult shopworkers, the Government have accepted the recommendation of the Auld Committee that all the provisions contained in Part II of the 1950 Act should be abolished. This may look harsh at first sight, but let us be absolutely clear that in practice these statutory restrictions for adults are ineffective and very limited in their scope. They do not in fact set the maximum working hours per week for adult shopworkers. Nor do the trading hours' restrictions impose an effective maximum because, after all, shops are free to open now for at least 20 hours a day for six days a week.
Furthermore, it cannot be denied that these restrictions are out of date. We have heard many arguments to suggest that that is not the case. I am afraid I cannot agree. They do belong to another era—one that is long past. They originated in the early days of this century and even the most recent is nearly 50 years old. Yet despite the changes that have occurred since then in the retail industry and in society generally, these provisions have not kept pace with the times.
The 1950 Act consolidated much earlier legislation from the early years of the century. Conditions for shopworkers then were certainly severe; for example, their working hours were excessive and 70 hours or more a week was very much the norm. But these conditions of 70 hours a week and so on are not in existence today, as I am sure your Lordships will only too readily recognise. The reduction is not due to the operation of the 1950 Act, which sets no maximum hours for adult shopworkers. It merely requires a half-day holiday a week, meal breaks are set down and time off in lieu of Sunday working.
The reduction is not entirely due to unionisation either, because, as has been stressed by noble Lords opposite, unionisation is not widespread in the retail sector. The reduction is not due to the limitations on shop hours because at present shops can open for the times and on the days I have mentioned. Yet this does not happen. The general improvements in working conditions for shopworkers are part of the general improvements to be found in so many different sectors of our national life. The reductions are not due to the 1950 Act as it stands today and this is why we have recommended the repeal of the Part II provisions for adults.
All these factors lead to the conclusion, to my mind, that the time for statutory limitations is over. There is no reason why adult shopworkers should be treated differently from other workers who settle their working
174
conditions through collective agreements or by individual agreement with the employer. This does not seem (how can it seem?) to lead to difficulties that cannot he worked out between employer and employee. This is precisely what happens in other sectors of the economy. They do not have, or, further than have, appear to need, this kind of inflexible statutory restriction.
What happens to all those shopworkers who, for example, have some sort of contract? The contract to work in a shop does not strike me as being so enormously different from the contracts that one might have or agree to in so many other different forms of life. It has been stressed—and I referred just now to the fact—that unionisation within the retail world is not as great as it may be in other areas. That is all very well but there still exists the opportunity to come to a sensible agreement on a contract basis. I do not see that in that case retail is so different from other occupations.
However, for young people the arguments are not so clear and the Auld Committee recognised this. Although we do not pretend that these provisions are anything but out of date, other considerations must also be taken into account. Young people who have recently left school may not have reached full intellectual and emotional maturity. They may have educational and recreational needs which should be taken into account in their work patterns. I am sure that is something we all readily understand. The Auld Report suggested that continuing protection could be given by adapting other, more general legislation when Part II was repealed. Tackling the Shops Act provisions in this way, however, did not seem a very sensible approach when we remember that they are just part of a raft of legislation governing young people's hours of work. Earlier I quoted the Factories Act. It would be unreasonable to tackle the Shops Act in isolation from the rest. The Government have decided, therefore, that a more sensible approach is to review all the legislation controlling young people's hours of work. It is, after all, high time that its relevance nowadays is assessed and a careful examination is made to see whether it could and should be updated.
As I have explained to the Committee, that review is in hand. The Health and Safety Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission have been asked to consider it and let us have views by the end of next June. In the meantime the Shops Act provision will be retained intact for young people. I am sure that your Lordships would agree that it would be premature to consider them in isolation from the rest, rather in the same way perhaps as the noble Lord, Lord Oram, generously suggested—although he could not agree with what I had said in relation to the previous amendment—that in view of the fact that wages council legislation would appear in due course it might be best (if I got the drift of his argument right) to deal with many of the matters which he raised when we reached that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, said that he was not asking me for a copper-bottomed guarantee. Indeed, from what I said earlier I am sure he would have realised that I cannot give him a copper-bottomed guarantee. What I have said in relation to the other

175
amendments concerned with employment legislation, which form part of our consideration of this Bill, is that I will listen with the greatest possible care and study all the remarks made in connection with it. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls was kind enough to say that he thought that was a reasonable way to proceed.
I cannot say any more than that. I shall study and listen with the greatest care to the arguments which will be put forward both today and when we next return to the matter. I believe, however, that the changes which this Bill produces for Part II of the Shops Act stand out as being a first-class example of the changes that ought to be made. As I said, I could not agree to both earlier amendments, but I hope that with the further insight to the reasoning that lies behind the view that the Government have taken the noble Lord will not press his case that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has said that he is prepared to look with the greatest possible care at subsequent amendments. I have been under the impression that the Minister considers every amendment with the greatest possible care, but there will be even greater care taken with those in future.
I was also taken by the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. He gave nothing away but in effect said, "Don't press your luck. Something may be coming. Give the Minister time to reflect and to study what has been said". He also used the words—and these are his words—"Perhaps the Minister may be able to confer with colleagues to see what is forthcoming". I do not intend to press this matter to a vote at this stage, recognising that there are other amendments now and that there are other stages of the Bill yet to come.
The Minister ought to be quite clear—as he was kind and courteous enough to explain the context in which he felt unable to accept either amendment—why he wants Clause 2. The reason why shopworkers in particular are entitled to protection above and beyond that enjoyed by others is that, sadly, they receive one of the lowest rates of pay. Wages council rates for adult male workers in 1985 were less than £75 a week. When one looks at the statutory provisions which are being deleted and puts them in the context of the minimum statutory rate of pay for those workers in 1985 being £75 a week, I think one can see why even something that appears to be almost inconsequential to all Members of your Lordships' House because of their personal circumstances assumes an importance which is far greater to the shopworker.
I think the Minister referred to the fact that not many people work 70 hours a week now. I have to tell the Minister that I am told that many in the management grades in retailing are working up to and in excess of 70 hours a week because of the six-day week now. When it becomes a seven day week, I venture to suggest we shall hear many tales of people with responsibility who are forced to work more than 70 hours a week in order to keep their jobs and make their businesses successful.
I am quite content to debate with the Minister subsequent amendments and other clauses to see
176
whether it is possible for the Minister to be more helpful in the future than he has been up to this stage. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Mishcon: Before the Question is put, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister, bearing in mind that the Report stage is on 6th February, could communicate any concessions that he finds it possible to make before that date so that one knows intelligently how one should put down amendments at Report stage and save the time of the House.
Lord Glenarthur: What I said when we debated the earlier amendment was that I would consider carefully the arguments which were put forward on amendments subsequent to the one on which we had a Division an hour or so ago. I undertake to do precisely that. I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to tell as we progress through those various amendments what my inclination is. But I stand by what I said. I will study with great care what takes place. If there is any news that I can give the noble Lord I shall do so. What I am not promising to do, and have not promised to do at any stage, is to bring good news; merely to study what is said and to listen to the arguments to see precisely how we can go ahead.
Lord Mishcon: There is no difference between the noble Lord the Minister and myself on this point. I was merely hoping that we could, as it were, make the wheels move a little easier if the noble Lord the Minister indicated his intentions. Then we would know where we stood at Report stage. That is all I said.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we take a break now. I suggest that we do not resume the Committee stage before half-past eight.
I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Education (Amendment) Bill
7.34 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Exclusion of certain remuneration from Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965]:
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("and, in the interests of clarity, "midday supervision" shall only include the minding of pupils before, during and after the provision of a midday meal.").
The noble Lord said: I pointed out at Second Reading that the term "midday supervision" was insufficiently clear because it could be interpreted as including the many extra-curricular activities that teachers engage in during the lunch break. I am referring to such things as choir practice, dance classes, sports practice, computer studies and so on. These activities are not intended to be covered in the Bill, and I think it is important that it should say so explicitly.
Both functions—that is to say, the supervision of the meal and the conducting of extra-curricular activities—have traditionally been performed voluntarily by teachers. During the present dispute teachers have withdrawn their voluntary goodwill services from both. It is the intention of this Bill that teachers should be largely replaced by external supervisors in the first function as an emergency measure. In the second, they cannot be so replaced: professional teachers are indispensable.
It seems to me that this might give rise to an undesirable situation in which external ancillary supervisors and teachers under special contract were receiving payment while other teachers engaged in extra-curricular activities were not. Under the Bill as it stands, theoretically they could claim payment. This is extremely unlikely to happen. One really cannot imagine a teacher accepting (shall we say?) £1.25 for playing chess with some first-year secondary children for half an hour in the midday break.
Indeed, it is this very attitude towards their services and the suggestion that they will have carefully fixed payment for exact contributions that teachers so bitterly resent. They want to perform such services voluntarily or not at all. But they want to do so in return for a fair valuation of their worth in the form of a fair settlement of the dispute. This clause of the Bill seems to me to be in need of clarification, and also, I think, care should be taken not to anticipate in any way the settlement of the dispute. I hope that the Minister will consider the matter and discuss it further with his right honourable friend.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In supporting this amendment I want to make it clear (and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, would agree with me) that we are very conscious of the drafting defect of this and any other amendment to this Bill. The Long Title of the Bill refers only to amendment of the Education (Grants and Awards) Act 1984 and the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965. Any amendment which is proposed which has any substance, as does the noble Lord's amendment to change (in his case) the definition of "midday supervison", or, in the case of subsequent amendments, to talk about training or minimum standards, ought not to be dependent upon the Remuneration of Teachers Act; in other words, the remuneration of teachers ought not to be dependent upon the provisons made in these amendments.
We perfectly recognise (so the noble Earl can cross out that part of his brief) that there would be a bizarre effect if these amendments were to be carried. This is done simply because the Long Title of the Bill is framed in such a way that there is no other way of doing it than by putting down an amendment which is out of order because it conflicts with the Long Title.
178
It seems to me that the noble Lord, with his life-time of experience, has made a perfectly valid and resonable point about the definition of "midday supervision". It is unclear as it stands, and could lead to a further prejudging of the issue of restructuring, on which the Government are so keen. If the Government seriously mean that the £1¼ billion which they say they have set aside for restructuring is really open for negotiation and that only a very small part of it is to be taken up by the proposals in this Bill, then surely it is in the Government's interest to agree to this amendment, which more adequately defines and restricts the purposes for which these grants are to be made.
The Earl of Swinton: First, I must reassure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that I have not got that in my brief at all. I was not crossing out that bit: I was crossing out the nasty bit which, if the noble Lords were nasty to me, I was going to say back. But they have both been so very kind about this that it was that bit that I was actually crossing out.
In fact, I share the appreciation which has been expressed of the many extra-curricular activities which may take place at lunchtime, but neither those activities nor some of the schools' most basic functions can occur if there is no provision for supervision. When children are barred from the premises at midday the school day is disrupted, discipline may suffer and some pupils may not be willing or able to return for the afternoon's lessons. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, is right when he draws a distinction between supervising the meal and the school generally at midday and the many extracurricular activities which may take place at that time or at times outside the normal school timetable. The latter activities are much more akin to the teachers' normal teaching duties, and it is certainly not our intention that they should be the subject of separate payments.
But I do not believe that the "clarification" offered in this amendment is clarification at all. The meaning of the exclusion from the Remuneration of Teachers Act in Clause 2 of the Bill—namely,
"remuneration paid to teachers by local education authorities under contracts relating exclusively to the provision of midday supervision of pupils in schools"—
is quite clear. This amendment introduces a potential source of ambiguity, since it could be taken to exclude supervision of pupils not taking school meals or supervision in classrooms and playgrounds away from dining areas, where many pupils now bring their own packed lunches to eat.
I really do not think it is in anyone's interest that such confusion could be created by the use of the word "clarification". This clause, as originally drafted, provides for the exclusion of contracts relating to midday supervision only to be outside the scope of the Remuneration of Teachers Act. I think this amendment is unnecessary, and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I thank the noble Lord for his words on the subject. I feel I can say no more, if it is believed that this is sufficiently clear. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert—
(" (2) This section shall not have effect until national minimum standards on the level of supervisory staff have been established.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, it was intended that this amendment should be in my name and that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, should be added to it. I make the preliminary comment about the difficulty of amendment of this Bill and I ask that that be "read into the record", if that phrase is possible this side of the Atlantic.
Let me make it clear that in moving this amendment it is not my intention to delay or wreck the Government's plans in bringing forward this Bill but rather to draw attention to the lack of consideration, the bad timing and the lack of consultation that have taken place in the way in which this Bill has been introduced.
I said at Second Reading that I was a strong supporter of school meals. Even as a child, I was a strong supporter of school meals—and that is saying something, considering the nutritional values and the standards of cooking which prevailed in the schools I went to! I am a strong supporter of school meals both from a nutritional point of view and from a social and educational point of view. I want to make it clear from the outset that any attempt which might be made from any quarter to suggest that school meals no longer have a part to play in the school day or that, for example, one should go over to a Continental day which started earlier, ended earlier and did not have a meal break, I should totally deplore. I believe that my party would feel the same about that.
I should also like to make it clear that our intention is not in any way to delay the implementation of the Bill. I understand that the Inner London Education Authority has already advertised for 1,700 supervisory staff and that the issue is still open to them as to whether applications should come from teachers or not and whether teachers should be encouraged or discouraged as to taking those posts. Clearly, ILEA and a number of other local education authorities, such as Durham, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire and so on, feel strongly that there is a need for urgent action on this matter, and nothing that I am saying now is intended to make it more difficult for them to pursue those objectives.
However, there are problems about the standards of supervision and in particular there are problems if a large number of the posts are filled by people who are not teachers. Perhaps on reflection, a national minimum standard is not the right way to do it and perhaps the Government could propose some less draconian way of doing it than the words I have suggested in the amendment. I am always open to suggestions about that. Certainly, if we look at the task which would face anybody not familiar with schools, coming in for perhaps one and a half hours a day—that may be seven and a half hours a week, which, at the rate of pay which the National Association of Head Teachers suggests might be available from the funds, would come to a total of £20 a week—there is not a
180
great deal of financial incentive and it may well be that there will be a shortage of people who have an understanding of the way schools operate. They will not know the pupils in the school; they will not know the way in which the school operates or the way in which its own internal self-discipline operates. In some cases I fear they will be very much at risk from indiscipline, both in the dining areas and in the grounds or other parts of the school. I should have thought it not unreasonable to suggest that some help might be given by the Government, perhaps not in the form of national minimum standards but certainly in the form of some guidance on the quality of people required and the sort of help that they might need from the teachers and from the heads in order to do an effective job. It is in that context that I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and that of other noble Lords.
Lord Kilmarnock: I think the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whose amendment I certainly support, is right not to specify absolutely that there should be national minimum standards laid down. That indeed may not perhaps be the way to go about it, but I should like to remind the noble Earl of his speech on Second Reading on 14th January at col. 967, when he said:
"The Government envisage that the additional resources will be used to employ supervisors charged with the responsibility for seeing that pupils are effectively supervised at mid-day."
"Effectively" is the operative word there and, for reasons which have been given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, at Second Reading regarding the difficulties that could be experienced by outside staff unfamiliar with the working of the school or even with the names of the pupils, coming in and preserving effective control at mealtimes, I think it is reasonable to ask the noble Earl whether the Government are contemplating, as has been suggested, setting out some guidelines or making some suggestions to local authorities on how they should proceed in selecting staff of this sort. Possibly retired teachers might be prepared to come forward: one does not know. But it seems to me that some sort of guidance is required and I should be very interested to hear the noble Earl's answer.
The Earl of Swinton: I personally believe that there are a number of very responsible people around who can carry out midday supervision. They may well include teachers or of course there may be other people. There are many other situations where children are supervised by adults who are not teachers. It has been suggested that this reduces the midday supervision to mere child-minding, as if that function were not in itself important. I doubt whether many parents would agree. Their first concern must be to see that their children are safe and that their welfare is safeguarded. Many parents have found their lives disrupted because they have been asked, often at short notice, to take responsibility for their children at midday when they had already undertaken other commitments on the reasonable expectation that their children would be looked after by the school.
I think the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, spoke of "strangers"—or perhaps he did not go quite as far as that, but he suggested that perhaps strangers might be

181
brought in off the streets and they would not know the buildings, the children or the school. Perhaps I am exaggerating here, but I should have thought that that was much more likely to be the result of an ad hoc arrangement made to maintain supervision when teachers withdraw at short notice. It is just that sort of situation that we are determined to avoid, and the purpose of our initiative is to encourage authorities to make arrangements which make clear who is responsible for supervision. If people other than teachers are used, there is no reason why they should not be employed on a long-term basis in the same school, so that they can get to know its ways.
I also know a little about school dinners. I know that very often the dinner ladies are some of the most popular people in a school and all the children in the school get to know them well and often look upon them as surrogate mums. I see the children rushing up to get second helpings and so on.
I do not think there is any national scheme by which such people are employed. The Government do not intend to lay down minimum staffing standards for supervisory staff. Generally, matters of this kind are left to the discretion of local education authorities, and rightly so. There are, for example, no minimum staffing levels laid down for teaching staff in schools. We see no reason why the staffing of new supervision arrangements should be treated differently. That does not mean that we are not concerned about the safety, welfare and discipline of pupils in our schools. Far from it. It is just such a concern which has motivated us to introduce this Bill. But we believe very strongly that local education authorities are best placed to decide what is best for their areas.
I hark back for a bit to the time when the Front Bench spokesman on education on the other side of the House was not the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Very often, the noble Baroness accused me of trying to tell local authorities what to do and how to do it, and here we are giving them their heads and letting them decide that they are the best people to do it. I thought that the noble Lord would welcome this, and I was rather surprised that he did not.
The circumstances of authorities vary widely, as do those of schools. It is evident from the proposals already submitted for education support grant approval for this new activity that authorities are approaching the issue in a variety of ways. Those differences no doubt reflect, in large part, differences in their circumstances; differences which it would be difficult to allow for in setting national standards. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to enshrine a requirement for national minimum staffing standards in legislation.
I do not know about the question of a circular, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, suggested. I think that this would be unusual, but I will certainly bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend and ask whether he would consider doing such a thing when this Bill gets the Royal Assent. However, I obviously could not give an undertaking. Having listened to what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am far from totally convinced by the arguments used by the noble Earl. I am bound to say that I do not think it is appropriate for him to contrast the long-term plans, which I assume are the purpose of this legislation, with what we hope is the short-term position of uncertainty created by the industrial dispute between the teachers and the Government. I was going to say "local authorities", but in fact the dispute is with the Government. I do not want to say any more on that. We must all hope that the talks now taking place at ACAS—and I hope that they are continuing tomorrow, although I have not seen the late news on this—will succeed and that the uncertainty which does indeed plague parents at this time comes to a speedy end.
But the contrast is not with the situation during the present dispute, but between the situation that is now proposed and the generally prevailing situation in schools. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that uncertainty for parents is very damaging; indeed, it is very damaging for the pupils themselves not to know where they are, where they are going to be, whether they are going to be sent home, whether their lessons are going to continue uninterrupted. We must all be in agreement on that.
It is quite true, as the noble Earl said, that since 1969 there have not been nationally determined staffing levels for teachers themselves. But, in effect, the Government in introducing this legislation are not saying that there will be no staffing levels. They are just not coming clean about the way in which those staffing levels are going to be imposed. There is a sum of money to be made available for this purpose and that sum of money, as we have learned from debates in another place, is to be divided among local authorities in proportion to the number of pupils in the authority and in the schools, with due provision for schools in, for example, rural areas where the pupils find it more difficult to get home and are more likely to be staving at school.
So, in effect, the staffing levels are being imposed by the Government by financial means, and we have already expressed our distaste for the way in which the Government, on the excuse of the Education (Grants and Awards) Act, are imposing conditions reducing the level of freedom for local education authorities. It is not our proposal in this amendment which is reducing the level of freedom. It is the extension of the Education (Grants and Awards) Act beyond the condition to which it was originally intended to apply which is reducing the freedom of individual local education authorities. It is the Government who are reducing that scope, not those of us who are proposing these amendments. What we are saying in these amendments is that the Government ought to come clean and say that the restriction of financial provision and the availability of financial provision at a certain level is, in effect, a control on staffing levels.
I suppose that we must be grateful to the noble Earl for his response to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. If he is prepared to consider and discuss with his right honourable and honourable friends the possibility of a circular which would give guidance to local authorities, that may be the most that we can hope for

183
at this time. With that prospect in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert—
("(3) Remuneration shall only be paid after local Education Authorities have satisfied the Secretary of State that adequate training has been provided for supervisory staff other than teachers.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, this amendment should, strictly speaking, have been first in my name. Here, again, the matter was not so closely related as to require that it should be grouped with the previous amendment, but it is an attempt to get the Government to recognise their responsibilities in an area where they themselves are saying on what local education authorities should spend their money. I do not need to go over again the arguments which have been put by those who are more closely connected with education than I am, about the need for care in the selection and indeed in the training of supervisory staff.
The suggestion of older teachers coming out of retirement is an interesting one. It may well be that there are some communities where there will be no difficulty in finding people who need very little training. Certainly, I make it clear in the amendment that there is no suggestion that teachers should undergo additional training for something which most of them have been doing throughout their professional lives. But the recognition of training is something which is common to many parts of the public service. There seems no good reason why it should not apply equally to these supervisory staff other than teachers who have, as all noble Lords who have taken part in these debates have said, a very important role to play.
I hope very much that the noble Earl will feel able to say in terms rather similar to the answer he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that, at the very least, a circular could give guidance on the kind of training which would be appropriate for these supervisory staff other than teachers. I do not believe that this is a derogation of the responsibilities or rights of local education authorities. In essence, it is no different from the kind of advice that Her Majesty's inspectors give in the teaching area of schools. I think that this is a modest amendment, but I believe that it would be helpful if it had some response from the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I should just like to add one word to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said. It is important not only that any supervisory staff coming from outside should be adequately trained, but—perhaps more important—that they should be of the right personality. The teacher or anyone in charge of children needs to be the right kind of person. Bearing that in mind, I hope that the noble Earl may be able to use his influence to bring it about that head teachers are closely consulted when the supervisory staff in their schools are being selected. Head teachers will have a much better idea than anybody else what kind of people they want in their schools.
184
The other point which I should like to make has already been made. It has been said to me a number of times that the quality of the ancillary helpers doing this kind of work will largely depend on what they are paid.
The Earl of Swinton: The Government do not accept that additional training should be a statutory requirement—I underline those words—for supervisory staff other than teachers. As with other detailed aspects of new arrangements, we believe that it is right to leave this in the hands of local education authorities. I am sure that authorities will be guided by the principle that new supervisory staff must be capable of performing their tasks and of discharging the authority's duty of care to the pupils in their charge. No doubt some recruits will need short courses of training to fit them for their new role. Authorities have experience of providing training in such circumstances on which they will be able to build.
I can go further than I did on the last amendment in hoping to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The Government have made it clear that, as with other activities funded through education support grant, authorities will be asked to monitor the success of their arrangements. My right honourable friends will wish to be sure that they are achieving their objective of securing adequate supervision before giving approval for ESG support for a further year. There will be a great incentive on authorities to see that their staff are the right kind of people, properly trained and doing the job properly. But in the final analysis it must be left to the good sense of authorities to decide how much training is necessary for staff involved in order to ensure that their schemes are successful. I therefore ask the noble Lord once more to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Earl. It is a sensible suggestion for the Government to make that there should be monitoring and that continuation of the scheme should be dependent upon an evaluation which shows that it is working successfully. I agree with the noble Earl that so far as possible it ought to be local authorities who take the ultimate responsibility for the training. What was being suggested in the amendment was that the Government in their great wisdom might have something to contribute to that debate. The noble Earl seems to think not. Perhaps there is no hope of trying to persuade him on that matter. Perhaps the man in Whitehall—it used to be Whitehall—does not necessarily know best. On the basis of the noble Earl's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until half-past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.4 until 8.30 p.m.]

Shops Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness White): In accordance with the decision of the Committee on 16th December last, the Question that I must now put is, That Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I had given notice of my intention to oppose, at the appropriate time, that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. However, much water has flowed under the bridge since then. Just as I have earlier this evening withdrawn my opposition to Clause 2 in order to allow for a period of reflection, I am equally satisfied that I should not move that Clause 1 shall not stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must still put the Question, That Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of s. 22 of Shops Act 1950.
.—(1) The Shops Act 1950 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 22(1)(a), after "more than four hours on any Sunday" there shall be inserted the words "who has, in the preceding six days, worked a total of thirty nine hours or more".
(3) Section 22(1)(a)(ii) shall be omitted.
(4) In section 22(1)(b), after "more than four hours on a Sunday in any month" there shall be inserted the words "but who has, in the preceding six days, worked a total of thirty nine hours or more".
(5) After section 22(1)(d) there shall be inserted the following new paragraph:
"(c) in the case of a person so employed on a Sunday that person shall receive pay for the time worked on that Sunday at double the rate that would be paid for that work if performed on a weekday, and for the purposes of this paragraph rate shall be determined by reference to the contract of employment or Wages Council order, whatever is higher; and the scope of the retail wages council orders will be deemed to apply to all workers in shops, without regard to the type of goods being sold, except for any distinction between food and non-food shops.".").
The noble Lord said: Noble Lords may remember that in our previous session just before the Christmas Recess my noble friend Lord Shinwell, in a very wise speech, advised your Lordships to read all the speeches and the Bill during the Recess and to return refreshed, and perhaps with something constructive to say.
Lord Glenarthur: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord: I wish merely to raise a procedural point. Does the noble Lord intend to group Amendment No. 20 with Amendment No. 37? It would be very helpful to the Committee if the noble Lord will indicate if that is so, as I imagine it will be.
Lord Stallard: I am pleased to give the Minister that assurance. I shall happily group Amendments Nos. 20 and 37 together.
Amendment No. 37: Schedule 2, page 7, line 15, leave out paragraph 7.
Those were very wise words of my noble friend Lord Shinwell. I took his advice. I read through the reports
186
and the Committee proceedings. I hoped that following the goodwill of the Christmas season and New Year resolutions the Minister would return with at least some new approaches. However, I am afraid that the responses and discussions involving the Minister so far today have dashed those hopes.
If I may share another secret with your Lordships, I resolved at Christmas that I would not be provoked by some Members on the Government Benches in the way that I have been provoked in the last few months. This afternoon I have found it very difficult but I have resisted enough temptation to last me for the next 12 months on that score. I shall try to keep to my resolution this year and not be unduly provoked into making long, rambling and boring speeches.
With this amendment, as with many others, we are seeking, in the words of the old engineer's initiation address, merely to retain—not to improve—the conditions already obtained. We may then seek to improve them. That is really what we are trying to do with Amendment No. 20. The argument so far in response to all the other amendments and discussions has been centred on strong resistance to any attempt to reduce or minimise in any objective sense the vote taken on Second Reading about deregulation—and that aspect has been mentioned again this afternoon.
None of the proposed amendments to Clause 2 so far discussed have interfered with the general objective of the Bill; that is, the objective of total deregulation. The noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning and Lord Simon of Glaisdale, have both made that point, as has the noble Earl, Lord Stockton. The amendments in Clause 2 sought to change the main purpose of the Bill, which is deregulation of Sunday trading. The amendments were all concerned with the working and employment conditions of the shopworkers themselves.
On Clause 1, I was more than happy to support the Bishops' Bench because I share their religious concerns and their concerns about the social problems that I could see flowing from this Bill if Clause 1 were retained. However, my other instinct as a lifelong trade unionist—as a negotiator, a shop steward, and an official for many years—means that I am bound to support amendments that seek to retain the protection for shopworkers that is contained in Clause 2.
Most noble Lords on this side of the Committee will recall the long-drawn-out struggle—mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, in an excellent speech—to achieve improvements in conditions. He made mention of the long battle to bring shopworkers out of the old Victorian sweatshop era and into modern conditions of employment, to enjoy modern improvements. I fear that Clause 2 will take us right back to the old position.
As the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, was speaking, I could not help but think how far the Government party have moved in just a few years. The gap between what was being said by the noble Earl and what the noble Lord the Minister was saying on behalf of the Government was so wide that it was incredible. It was astounding to think how much the Government have moved backwards in just a few short years. That is something that distressed many of us as we listened to the noble Lord.

187
The proposals in Clause 2 remove the protection of sections of the Shops Act. They also remove many aspects of the wages councils' provisions. Clause 2 is bound to leave shopworkers wholly unprotected against further exploitation. There can be no doubt about that position in anybody's mind. Many full-time shopworkers already work six days a week. My noble friend Lady Turner drew attention to the fact that shopworkers are a special case. Of course, they are a special case because of the conditions under which they work at present. If the proposals for the wages councils are carried out the situation will be much worse.
I was pleased to hear the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I have crossed swords with him in previous debates and I was prepared to do so again today until the noble and learned Lord redeemed himself by distancing himself from those who were, on the one hand, supporting the Auld Committee report as the whole basis of this Bill and, on the other hand, taking away the protections for shopworkers, even though the Auld Committee itself had stated in very strong terms that those protections ought to remain. I am sure that I do not need to give the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, the reference, but I will refer the Committee to paragraphs 278 and 288. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will have seen all those references by now.
The Auld Committee felt it necessary to go beyond its terms of reference and state its concern about the possible effects of removing the protections of the Shops Act 1950. The committee recommended that the wages councils be retained for shopworkers. I should have thought that that would carry much more weight with the Minister and the Government, particularly since they have based their whole case on the Auld Committee. The Minister himself has said a number of times that the basis of this legislation is the Auld Committee report. If he had maintained that stance he could have done nothing else but accept the arguments put forward by the Auld Committee for the retention of these provisions to protect the shopworkers.
The other main point drawn out is that there is nothing in the original shop legislation to prevent Sunday employment in England and Wales. That is not prohibited by the 1950 Shops Act. The restrictions on shop opening stem from sections in the legislation concerning trading hours, not employment protection. Therefore, if the aim of the Bill, as we have been constantly told in previous debates, is simply to pave the way for freedom of trade on Sunday, the Bill could simly repeal those sections of the Shops Act and the remainder be left standing. If the main function is simply to deregulate hours the Bill could do that without touching the conditions of employment. Certainly there is nothing in the legislation about employment protection. Nothing in the 1950 Shops Act prevents the Government from repealing the first part and leaving the protection standing.
Instead, the present Bill proposes to repeal restrictions on trading hours and most of the employment safeguards contained in the 1950 Shops Act. These safeguards do not prohibit Sunday working. They only ensure, as the Auld Committee recognised, that workers who have to work on Sunday
188
are adequately compensated for the loss of their normal rest day. That was accepted by everyone. All the conditions related to that. That is the purpose of my amendment because, in the main, I am dealing with Section 22 of the Shops Act. That gives shopworkers the right to equivalent time off in the following week and limits the number of successive Sundays that an employee has to work by restricting Sunday working to two Sundays a month.
I do not consider that to be unreasonable in the context of the discussions we have had. The proposals do not interfere with the main intention of the Bill, which is total deregulation. The proposals can be accepted without interfering with that. I should like to have the Minister's comments on that. The Bill removes all safeguards from everyone except 16 and 17 year-olds. Some employers will be tempted to force workers to work a much longer week. We are already beginning to hear of examples where that is more than a possibility. The removal of overtime and premium rates set out by the wages council will assist in that exploitation. We fear that that will spread beyond the shopworkers to other workers
My noble friend Lord Graham pointed to a headline in the Standard today stating that more trade union curbs are on the way. It seems that is perhaps part of the reason for this attack on the wages council and on shopworkers' conditions of employment. It is to set yet another scene and to attack many others in the circumstances. As we have heard again this afternoon, shopworkers are not particularly well organised, for a number of reasons which are well understood. There are other industries in similar circumstances where workers are not well organised because of the difficulties involved. It may be possible for the Government to pick them off and exploit them in the way that this Bill seeks to exploit the shopworkers.
8.45 p.m.
The effect of my amendment is that Section 22 of the 1950 Act will be retained but modernised. The noble Minister himself said that that section is out of date. My amendment brings it up to date and puts it into a more modern trade union context. Bearing in mind the Auld Committee recommendation, minimum premiums will be provided for Sunday work so that shopworkers will receive compensation for Sunday work which is comparable to that received by workers in other industries. It is feared that the proposals contained in the Shops Bill will be used to put on pressure for similar changes in other industries, as I have said.
Therefore, I share the Auld Committee's concern about the need for protection. I share the concern about the need to protect workers against excessively long working weeks. The hours to be worked are getting longer and the weeks are getting longer. If the Bill goes through there will be a seven-day week of heaven knows how many hours, because the early closing (or half-shut day, as we used to know it) will have gone, too. Therefore, I share the Auld Committee's concern about those aspects.
The amendment provides for time off in lieu; but unlike the 1950 Act we say in the amendment that it is only for those workers who have worked a full working week in the week preceding the Sunday. That

189
is, as it were, a concession to circumstances because we are allowing employers to have flexibility to continue to use part-time workers. So I hope that the Minister, although he has rejected all the amendments to Clause 2, will see that this new clause is an attempt to bring up to date those parts of the 1950 Act that he himself said are out of date and which were not dealt with in previous amendments. I hope, therefore, taking what I have said together with the recommendations of the Auld Committee, he will accept this new clause. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am sure it is my fault because I have only one effective eye and I am inclined to keep that simultaneously on the amendment, the Bill and the Shops Act. However, I do not follow the noble Lord as to why he wants to omit Section 22(1)(a)(ii). I do not think he dealt with that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: While the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, is considering that point, may I raise another query? I am bound to say that I do not understand the amendment, technically. It seeks to amend Section 22 of the Shops Act and to add various bits to it. However, the Committee has already agreed that Section 22 of the Shops Act shall not apply to anybody over the age of 18. That is now excluded. Is the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, arguing that he can go on amending those provisions and that they will have any effect on anybody over the age of 18?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I think I indicated earlier that what many of us want to hear is that there is to be sufficient protection for shopworkers in the future without necessarily clinging to the provisions of the Shops Act 1950. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pointed out, Section 22 now applies only to 16 to 18 year-olds. I wish only to say that while I have sympathy with the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, we shall be making a great mistake if, by amendment, we complicate more an extremely complicated Act of Parliament. If we are to make progress in the direction that the noble Lord would wish, I hope that it will be by simplification rather than by complication.
Lord McCarthy: I find it difficult to follow the arguments of the last two speakers. The position is simple. The Minister told us before dinner that the trouble with this part of the 1950 Act is that it is out of date; we have not been told precisely how. We have been told that time has marched on and left it behind. We tried to say before dinner, "Hang about! That is not an argument because there are amendments on the Marshalled List which in a sense help to bring it up to date". That is what the amendments try to do. To some extent they try to meet the point that times have changed in ways that were not specified by the Government, and there are things which can be done to improve Part II of the Act.
If I understand the argument, what they are now saying is that we cannot do that. Although the Government say that the Act is out of date—it may be out of date and we can bring it up to date—we cannot do that because the provisions do not apply over the area which they would have applied had it not been for
190
the Bill. Because we cannot improve and bring up to date the provisions for people over 18, it becomes impermissible to improve and bring up to date that which remains; namely, the provisions for people under 18.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: With great respect—
Lord McCarthy: May I finish what I am saying? It does not seem to me that that follows. What we are saying is that the scope of over two-thirds of the 1950 Act has been taken away, but that does not seem to us to be a reason why we should not improve the part which remains.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The point that I was trying to make was not the point that the noble Lord has just summarised; namely, now that the impact of Section 22 of the Act is limited to 16 to 18 year-olds that is a reason not to try to improve that part which is left. My objection is that the amendment is not an improvement. It is simply an over-complication.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: May I also comment? The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, appears to accept my proposition that the only effect of the amendment will be on the provisions in respect of those under 18, in which case I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, did not make that clear. On the contrary, his whole speech was directed to the general question of protection for workers in this industry. If the effect of the amendment is, as it seems to me—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, accepts that—only on those aged 16 to 18, that is not to say that that is not important, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, might have told the Committee that to begin with.
Lord Stallard: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord McCarthy for dealing with that point. On the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, I maintain that the new clause will simply bring the Bill up to date. It would insert minimum premia for Sunday working. We have introduced the 39-hour concept. That is the reason for deleting subsection (1)(a), I think it is. But we have certainly introduced the provision for 39 hours or more. That brings the situation up to date. It simply modernises the legislation, as do the other parts of the new clause. They bring the existing legislation up to date by introducing minimum premia for Sunday working which would be entirely abolished by the Bill and which are already out of date in the 1950 Act.
I know that the Minister will accept the amendment. He has said that that part of the legislation is out of date. The way to deal with that is not to demolish or repeal the legislation but simply to bring it up to date by bringing the overtime premia, the days off in lieu and those other aspects of Sunday working more up to date with modern trade union rules and legislation. That is the purport of the new clause.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Does the noble Lord accept—because he has not indicated one way or the other whether he does or does not—that the effect of the amendment, if accepted, would be to bring up to

191
date only those provisions that relate to persons under 18 because of the Committee's decision on Clause 2?
Lord Stallard: Until such time as we further discuss Clause 2 at a later stage in the Bill, I have to accept that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Bill is not complicated but our procedures are. Those who followed the debate closely will know that there was an amendment down to delete the mention of Section 22 of the Shops Act in Clause 2 which would have been a paving amendment to the general approach here. Because of the time-scale and tactics, in order to get the maximum time to debate general principles, that omission has weakened the general strength of the argument that would have been made. But the argument is still valid. Does the Minister want to help me?
Lord Glenarthur: If I were to help the Committee I should only reinforce precisely what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. Amendment No. 18, which I think is what the noble Lord is referring to, was not moved. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, can now apply only to young shopworkers over compulsory school-leaving age but below the age of 18. My noble friend is correct, and that puts us in a dilemma when we are considering the practicability of the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: There is no dispute, but we have taken up 10 minutes on this matter and I am happy about that! The intention is at all times to be consistent. We need to bear in mind the difficulty of the Committee, as we have yet to see the colour of the wages council Bill. We know the intention of the Minister, which is also seen in the Bill, that there will be two rates of pay. One will be a statutory minimum and the other will be one overtime rate. Depending on circumstances and the number of hours, under the wages council provisions there are a range of overtime rates—time and a quarter, time and a third, time and a half, time and three-quarters, double time. We do not argue that if there are to be two rates the second should be double time, but people who statutorily will be forced to work on a Sunday, whether or not they are only 16 or 17, are entitled to be paid double because in our view they are being forced to give up the precious value and benefit of a Sunday.
One of the arguments of those who wish to see Sunday trading is that a decision has been laid down. A large retail company in Scotland paid time and a third. Before the court it argued that it did not wish to pay double time, and the court held that the employee was entitled only to time and a third because he was a part-time and not a full-time worker. We are experiencing a serious attempt to dilute the strength of the case and the commitment of Sunday workers. If it becomes cheaper and easier for employers to employ people on a Sunday—one means of achieving this will be to remove the present protections of the wages council order, which, in certain circumstances, provides for double-time and sometimes double-time and a day off in lieu—anything that we on this side of the Committee see as diminishing existing rights we shall have an argument about.
192
We are not likely to win the argument in the circumstances prevailing at this moment, and it is not being pressed. But the reason for engaging the Minister in this debate and requiring him to put on the record his arguments, which are always fair, is to ensure that these arguments can be studied by people not least in another place and certainly in advance of our seeing the wages council Bill. We want from the Minister greater clarification of how he sees the wages element of working on a Sunday panning out. One argument for abolishing wages councils as they affect 16 and 17-year-olds is the belief that the cost of employing young people is deleterious to the running of a business. The evidence for that belief is not clear. Nor is it understood. We believe that people who have to work on a Sunday are entitled to double-time.
9 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: Once again, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has invited me to say so, I have to say that the amendment tackles the Sunday working provisions of Section 22 of the 1950 Act. Having sought to keep the provisions giving time off in lieu of Sunday working—that is the theme of his argument, although, as he says himself, he did not move that amendment—the noble Lord now seeks to amend the detailed application of those provisions. It appears to be the intention to limit the time off provision to those shopworkers who have already worked at least 39 hours during the six days before the Sunday. The amendment also removes the limit on the number of days that can be worked each month.
I repeat what I said earlier in support of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for whose comments I am extremely grateful. Because that amendment was not moved, restrictions, naturally, apply to the amendment now being moved. I understand that it can be argued that these are perfectly reasonable amendments in that they update Section 22 and limit its application to those shopworkers who have already worked a full week before they come to work on Sunday. But we must not be misled into forgetting the fundamental aims of the Bill, which are to remove shop trading hours restrictions and restrictions on the hours of adult shopworkers. We simply do not believe that adult shopworkers want or need inflexible statutory restrictions on their working conditions. We aim to remove those restrictions completely, not to put an albeit updated package in their place.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord says that he cannot believe that adult shopworkers would wish the restrictions on their shop hours to remain and that they would be in favour of their removal. Would the Minister care to say what consultations have taken place, and with whom they were undertaken by the Government, which have brought him to that conclusion?
Lord Glenarthur: I am just starting to develop the argument on which the noble Lord has intervened. Perhaps, by the time I have reached the end of it, he may be a little more convinced that what we propose is not out of keeping with the circumstances in which we find ourselves today.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I hope so.
Lord Glenarthur: The method by which a shopworker is compensated for working on a Sunday is, I suggest, best left to that shopworker and his employer to sort out. I cannot believe that this is an unreasonable suggestion. It is precisely how millions of other people settle their affairs. Why should shopworkers—I have said this on several occasions today—be dealt with differently? Why should they and their employers be forced into a rigid framework that takes no account of individual circumstances? Surely, individual circumstances are just as important to the noble Lord and his supporters as the collective provisions that would apply if the restrictions contained in these parts of the 1950 Act were to be maintained. Everywhere around us shops stay open longer than they used to do. Shopkeepers have worked out, quite reasonably, with the agreement of their staff, how those longer hours are to be staffed. They use shifts and rotas modelled to the flow and the volume of the trade that shop employers wish to see. Why on earth should they not be similarly inventive when it comes to Sunday working? I am convinced that there is absolutely no advantage in the law being involved in this area.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, went on to refer to matters in the forthcoming legislation on wages councils. Leading on from what the noble Lord, Lord Oram, said earlier, it may be best not to develop that theme further. But what the noble Lord seeks is to retain for adult shopworkers the provisions relating to time off in lieu of Sunday working. As I have said, we are not prepared to accept this. The sort of provision that it entails is outdated and unnecessary. We know that eight million people now work on Sundays either regularly or occasionally. Those not working in shops do not have this sort of statutory provision for time off in lieu which the noble Lord recommends should be retained for adult shopworkers. There is no logical reason whatever why shopworkers should be treated differently. They are surely just as capable as others of sorting out their conditions of employment. That is, I believe, the fundamental answer to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Why should they be constrained by this sort of legal straitjacket? Some may welcome time off in lieu of Sunday employment, and others, quite understandably and reasonably, might prefer extra payment. Shopworkers should have the same freedom of choice granted to other employees who work on a Sunday to arrange these things for themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, if I may say so, was perhaps a little over-emotional when he described what this measure seeks to do in three ways. The noble Lord used the word "attack"; he used the words "pick them off' in relation to the present shopworkers; he then used the word "exploit" them. That is far from the intention that lies behind this measure. As I have said—and as has been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, just now—this measure is designed to bring matters up to date and to make the same arrangements for shopworkers as so many other people in different walks of life have.
Although I have already said this once—if not more—I believe it merits repetition. Do we really want to continue asking an army of officials to enforce the provisions of Section 22 for all shopworkers? Do we believe that shopworkers want or need this degree of
194
control and enforcement over their working conditions? We do not. Neither do we want to impose on employers the enormous burden of recording all the time off in lieu taken by their employees.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, raised the point about consultation. Perhaps I may say to him that the Auld Committee considered all the interests and the views and they consulted widely. The committee recommended the removal of all shopworkers. The Government are retaining the restriction for young people at least until a review can be carried out. I set out earlier my arguments in support of that.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary invited the TUC, when he met them, to comment on the employment provisions in the Bill; and to date they have not commented.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord the Minister graciously gives way. Will the Minister understand that all the unions who have submitted evidence, and all the assessors who had a responsibility to the committee, have said, since the production of the report, that the findings and conclusions of the report are far removed from the evidence upon which they are alleged to have been based. In other words, the report sets out a body of opinion from which the conclusions that have been drawn are very far removed. The Minister therefore will get little comfort from pointing out that the Auld Report listened very carefully to a wide range of people. Those people to whom they listened, including the shops inspectorates, have said that the conclusions are divorced from the evidence which they gave.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord asked me particularly what consultations had taken place. I have given him the answer to that. We have not had a reply from the TUC yet. If the noble Lord insists upon saying that the fact that we have spoken to them and asked for their views is not consultation, then I honestly do not know what is.
Despite the technical sides of the amendment which have been described earlier, there are great issues of principle here. We debated them earlier today, we have debated them again now. I hope that the noble Lord will see the force of those arguments and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Nicol: I hope that the Minister will forgive me—I am trying to understand his point of view. The Minister refers to millions of workers who already work on Sunday. I should like to know who are these millions of workers to whom he refers. I know about the power workers, the local authority workers, and all these other workers, all of whom have strong unions who can represent their points of view. We are talking about shopworkers, who, for a variety of traditional and historic reasons do not have strong union representation. Will the Minister please tell me who these millions are? Will the noble Lord also tell me if he can understand the difficulty which shopworkers are in because they are so fragmented? I do not think that this point has been spelt out often enough. They work in small units. There is a difficulty in organising them. Who are these other millions who are comparable with the shopworkers?

195
The noble Lord the Minister also said that shopworkers at the moment could negotiate rotas and shifts, and so on in order to overcome the difficulties of Sunday working. Yes, they can; but they are doing it against a background of existing legislation which is to be taken from them. What power will they then have to negotiate when this has gone? That is the point which is worrying us.
Lord Glenarthur: If I may answer the second point that the noble Baroness made, yes, I understand the whole point about fragmentation. I said in answer to an earlier amendment that it was perfectly understandable—because the unionisation of shopworkers was fragmented—that that led to the kinds of difficulties which have been described from the other side of the Committee this afternoon. However, the noble Baroness asked, who works on a Sunday? I quoted a figure of eight million, of which about half worked regularly, and the other half not so regularly. There are dozens of examples. The first and most obvious place to start is shopworkers who work illegally—which this Bill will put right. But then there are service industries, agriculture, health workers, transport, manufacturers, police, helicopter pilots—I have done it myself—and all kinds of others.
To take the noble Baroness's analogy further, I honestly cannot believe that it is right for her to suggest that although these particular roles are different, the comparability we are talking about here amounts to the sort of comparability that people have when they arrange their contracts of employment. I said earlier in answer to another amendment that it was not beyond the wit of man in any walk of life to arrange a contract of employment, because that is precisely what so many other people of similar capacity do in so many other walks of life.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Rochester: From the noble Lord's response to earlier amendments, and he has said so again on this occasion, I understood that he believes it is perfectly feasible for adult shopworkers to achieve what they wish to achieve by negotiation through their unions and that, to that end, they are not in need of legislation. However, the noble Lord has also said on a number of occasions that he will study most carefully what has been said, more particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, but also by others, to see whether it is possible, without necessarily reinstating those parts of the Shops Act which are now to be removed, to give more adequate protection to shopworkers than is proposed in this Bill. My question is simply: will the noble Lord confirm that that is still his position?
Lord Glenarthur: In answer to the earlier amendments when my noble friend Lord Stockton intervened with his very excellent speech, I said that I would consider, as I certainly shall, precisely what is said in favour of the various amendments that are being put forward as this Bill progresses. We are not just dealing with Part II of the Shops Act 1950; there are other amendments on the Marshalled List which go rather further. I did say—and I stressed it again before we broke for dinner—that that did not represent a copper-bottomed guarantee to come back with something different but that every case would be
196
considered on its merits. That is what I emphasised to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—I see that he agrees with me—and I hope that that is now clear to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester.
For the benefit of the Committee and perhaps particularly for the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, perhaps I may develop further one point on the question of Sunday working. I should point out that where shops open on Sundays—and we are really talking about Sundays here because we are talking about time off in lieu—the experience has been that Sunday working has proved very popular among full-time shopworkers and among part-time workers. That is the experience in Scotland and it is also the experience in England and Wales. Clearly staff have a variety of reasons for wanting or being willing to work on Sundays. However, there is little doubt that the large stores have little or no trouble in getting sufficient volunteers.
For some, such as students, the incentive to do so is mainly financial. For others Sunday is regarded as a good day to be at work because the shops are not as crowded as they are on Saturdays, and for others, particularly housewives, week-end working provides an opportunity to get out of the house and get back to a conventional working environment at a time when their husbands are available to look after the children; and that does not seem to me to be a totally invalid point. However, for many and for most of those involved there is a combination of reasons for wanting to work on a Sunday.
I have to say to the noble Baroness that in some cases shop working is so popular on Sunday that it has to be rationed. Research has been carried out into this. The noble Baroness may dispute that and shake her head, but it is a fact that that is precisely the position. I point out to the noble Lord that I have proceeded in the way I have in order to stress that there is no good reason to suppose that people do not want the work which is offered on Sundays, or that the arrangements for coming to agreements with employers which I have suggested are in any way out of keeping with other areas of life.
Baroness Nicol: I have the best possible reason for saying that people do not want to work on Sundays. Up to last year I spent eight years on the board of a large co-operative society and for the last four years I was its president. We had the greatest difficulty in recruiting what I might call career staff—people who want to make a career in retailing. Let us face it, these are the people on whom we all rely if the quality of our retailing is to be what people expect it to be. We all say how much shopping is an experience to be enjoyed by the family. Believe me, it is not an experience to be enjoyed unless the quality of people running and working in the shops is up to standard.
We have had the greatest difficulty in recruiting the right people because they do not even want to work on Saturday never mind working on a Sunday. I do not know from where the noble Lord gets his experience, but I can assure him that we have had the greatest difficulty in filling vacancies, and the reason that has been given for that difficulty is that people do not want to work unsocial hours. There is practical experience on the other side. Please accept it.
Lord Glenarthur: I of course shall accept that the noble Baroness has a great deal of experience in her particular field. But I ask her to also accept from research in the other direction—and I gave the example of Scotland and those parts of England and Wales where shops are already open on Sunday—that shops do not seem to suffer from people not going to them because the staff are not career staff and are unable to make places work properly. I do not believe that that is the case at all.
Lord McCarthy: I have found difficulty in understanding what the Minister has said for the last five minutes has to do with the case against the amendment. He has been saying that many people want to work on Sunday. But surely these people who want to work on Sunday so much would not object to getting double time? They would not object to having a 39 hour week. That is all the amendment says.
Lord Glenarthur: Precisely, and that is why I say that it is for them to negotiate with their employers and not for this to be arranged through the statutory provisions that we are discussing.
Lord Stallard: I am grateful to the Minister for the courteous way in which he has dealt with this difficult amendment. I concede that it was made more difficult because we did not move the previous amendments. That perhaps made it more difficult to understand this amendment, let alone move it. I concede that that was one of the difficulties.
The noble Lord mentioned the aims of the Bill. I said in my opening remarks that this amendment, and these amendments we have in the main been discussing on Clause 2, do not interfere with the main aim of the Bill, which is to deregulate Sunday trading. It is not necessarily about hours and employment. I do not think that my amendment interferes with the main aim of the Bill.
The Minister then went on to ask why would the workers need statutory protection. I said in my remarks that the Auld Committee—and I share their concern—said at paragraph 288:
"we strongly urge the retention for retail workers of the machinery of the Wages Councils for the fixing of satisfactory wages and premium rates".
That is what this amendment is about: the fixing of premium rates and satisfactory conditions.
They also said in paragraph 278:
"for all those who do work on Sundays or late at night, there should be adequate recompense".
They recognised too the difficulties for these workers because of the lack of organisation in many outlets. They recognised that because of those difficulties they needed this statutory protection, and they wanted it retained. I and my noble friend share these aspects of the Auld Report.
The point about why it is so popular has been dealt with by my noble friend Lord McCarthy. Of course it is popular and necessary for many workers because they are on such low pay. I could give statistics; and my noble friend Lord Graham gave statistics of women working full-time who took home round about £57 a week after working a six day week. Because they are so lowly paid of course it is popular if they can
198
work on a Sunday or at the weekend at double time, and a day off in lieu, and so on. That is bound to be popular.
However, it needs this statutory back-up in this Bill. I respect the Minister and his credibility when he said that it is not the intention of either him or the Government to exploit. He chided me about my use of the word "exploitation". But from my experience of negotiating and sitting for hours and hours, month in and month out, opposite employers, there are some employers who will take advantage of any piece of legislation which will give them the chance to exploit still further the conditions of their workers. That is a sad fact of industrial life and it exists in the retail trade as well. While I accept that it is not the Minister's intention, that will be the outcome of this legislation if we remove the statutory protection from the shopworkers. I am disappointed that although the Minister was kind in some of his remarks, he has not found it apposite to accept this new clause. I therefore withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of s. 71 of Shops Act 1950.
.—(1) The Shops Act 1950 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 71(1) for the words "every local authority" there shall be substituted the words "Wages Inspectorate", and the words "within their district" shall be omitted.
(3) In section 71(2) for the words "every local authority" there shall be substituted the words "Wages Inspectorate", and the words "by the local authority" shall be omitted.
(4) Section 71(4) shall cease to have effect from the date of the passing of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to amend Section 71 of Part V of the Shops Act 1950 which the Government propose shall remain. This part of the 1950 Act deals with enforcement. In other words, in this respect it deals with the enforcement of those parts of Part II of the Act which the Government are allowing us to keep: the regulation of holiday rights, meal times, hours of employment and so on for young persons. We are proposing that the method of enforcement for those people still covered by that part of the Act shall be changed.
At the moment the enforcement mechanism for the Shops Act 1950 is the local authorities' trading standards department. The effect of the amendment is to transfer those responsibilities to the Wages Inspectorate. I hope that the noble Lord will find that this is one of those amendments where he will not merely study and listen to everything which we say, as he said he would, not only consider the amendment with the greatest possible care, as he said he would, but perhaps go a little further, somewhere in the direction of what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said before dinner—I am sorry he is not at the moment in his place—when he suggested that something might be forthcoming. Perhaps the something that might be forthcoming is in this amendment.
We can put forward several arguments for this amendment. The main job of the trading standard departments of local authorities under the old Shops Act 1950 was the prevention of Sunday trading. That is no longer their function. That is being done away with. Indeed, a considerable part of their functions,

199
even under Part II of the Act, is now being done away with. We are saying that in one respect there is no sense in giving them a small part of what is left of the enforcement provisions of the Shops Act if what is left is an employment Act. It is an employment Act which is a form of employment protection. The best people to carry out that form of employment protection are the people who perform that function in the wages field, namely the Wages Inspectorate of the wages councils. Our first argument is that it is logical and sensible to do it that way.
Secondly, and we make no apology for this, we say that it will be easier for the young persons who are covered by the legislation. It will facilitate effective enforcement from their point of view. We do not agree with the Minister who has said in the past that all kinds of problems of enforcement and anomalies have arisen. Nevertheless, there has been a shortage of enforcement officials and we believe that there would be an additional complication for those workers who were left covered by this part of the Act if they had to go to one authority for under-payment (that is to say the Wages Inspectorate) and another authority to enforce, for example, the rights on meal breaks, lunch breaks or matters of that kind. We are saying it would be better if the same authority were responsible for these two aspects.
9.30 p.m.
Thirdly, and I should say this while I am on this point, this idea once again was an idea of the Auld Committee. They looked at the position of shopworkers; they looked at the position of young shopworkers and they thought that, if we were to remove some of the protections in the 1950 Act, a good place to put them—and we have made this point already tonight—would be with the Wages Inspectorate. Therefore, we would say that our amendment is not only more effective and better from the point of view of the workers but also in line with the proposals of the Auld Committee.
Finally—an argument which I should have thought might commend itself to this Government in particular—we consider that this would save money. We consider that this saving of duplication might be a cost saving as well because the chances are that the Wages Inspectorate will be losing quite a large volume of their work in view of what will happen, we believe, as a result of wages council legislation. It might be possible for them to take up this additional work for young workers under the 1950 Act rather more efficiently and with rather more cost-effectiveness than would be the case if we had two different systems of enforcing two different aspects of what is really just employment protection. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I think I can be short with this amendment. We have here a proposal radically to alter the way in which the remaining provisions of the Shops Act are enforced and there lies with the amendment an implied criticism of the way in which local authorities have carried out their long-standing functions in this area. The noble Lord spoke about logicality, about enforcement and the question of the Auld proposals and then spoke about cost. But the reasons for keeping the status quo on enforcement are,
200
first of all, that the local authorities have expertise and experience on the implementation of the Shops Act, whereas the Wages Inspectorate enforce, and are equally experienced in, completely different provisions which of course are those of the wages council. I believe it is sensible and logical to leave things as they stand. Secondly, it is premature to make any changes to the enforcement of the Shops Act provisions for young peole until the review on young people is carried out.
The noble Lord suggested that the idea of securing economies might be an argument which would find favour with me, but I have to say that that is not the case. The task of policing the employment provisions of the Shops Act really does lie better with the inspectorate, I suggest, in the way that the noble Lord understands and I cannot really see how any saving would materialise nor can I accept that the wages inspectors would do the job any better. I am afraid that this is not the thing which my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls thought might come. I hope the noble Lord will see the force of the arguments and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister lays great faith and confidence in the ability of local authorities the better to fulfil their obligations under law and statutes in the future than they have in the past; because there is no shadow of doubt that the prime culprit for the law being brought into disrepute has been the unwillingness of council after council to enforce the law.
Lord Glenarthur: Surely, the point there—and the noble Lord is absolutely right—is that they have not enforced the law because there is no logic whatever in the law.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If it is to be left to each council or to anyone in the land to come to their own conclusion as to what is logical or not, and therefore to enforce or not, when they are enforcement authorities then the Minister has opened up an enormous problem. The inspectorate who have had the responsibility of enforcing the shops legislation up till now have said to the House, and have said to the Auld Committee and to everyone else, "Wherever a council has provided the resources and the support we have found no difficulty whatsoever in enforcing the law". That has been a fact. Now we are going to find in the future that all sorts of laws are needing to be enforced, but at the same time we have a Government which in their finance policy towards local authorities are making it increasingly difficult for councils who wish to enforce the law and to carry out their obligations to do so because of the restrictions which are placed upon their ability either to engage properly-qualified people or to do so in the required number.
The Minister may believe that, with a change in this law, it will be different. If this Bill finally gets to the statute book the question of shopping hours will be a thing of the past from the point of view of policing or inspectorates. It is the intention of Clause 1 to abolish all the restrictions on shopping hours, and what one will be left with is an employment Bill, not a Sundayhours-regulating Bill.

201
The logic of what my noble friend Lord McCarthy has said is perfectly obvious. There may well need to be a beefing-up or a strengthening of the Wages Inspectorate in order to carry out these additional functions, but one of the myths that has been perpetuated in some quarters in local government is that in some way or another, with the passage of Clause 1 of this Bill, their responsibilities will diminish. I have news for them: if in fact shops are to be open on seven days instead of six, although they may not have to police the hours of opening on the seventh day they will have to make sure on the seventh day that all the other protections which Parliament has given are carried out.
Whereas at the moment they can say, "We do not need to go there on a Sunday because the shops are supposed to be closed", come next year the shops will be open and they will have to investigate and enforce all sorts of regulations. Or are we to have it that the shopkeeper can say, "We need not worry on a Sunday because although we can be policed on six days they are not really going to make sure that we comply with the law on the seventh day"? There is going to be a greater need for more people to enforce the law. The existing laws in respect of consumer protection, in respect of the Offices and Shops Act, in respect of health and hygiene and in respect of safety will all need to be supervised on a Sunday: otherwise, some laws will be known as "six-day laws" and some as "seven-day laws".
The case that I make—and of course I let the Minister intervene—is that this amendment seeks to strengthen provisions and to ensure that the workers, bereft of so many other things, have the possibility of a visitation while they are working on Sunday to ensure that their rights are being complied with.
Lord Glenarthur: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but can he explain to me why it will be so necessary particularly to inspect these shops on Sundays if shopping on all days of the week is totally deregulated? Can the noble Lord tell me what is going to be so particularly special, in this narrow sense which involves the Health and Safety Executive, as to mean that shops will have to be regularly inspected on Sundays in the way he suggests?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister is naive if he does not believe that there is a category of shopkeeper or establishment keeper who, if it is possible for his premises to be inspected for a range of things on six days more rigorously than on the seventh, will not relax the provisions of the law on the seventh. It is a fact of life. I am not talking about the large, reputable storekeepers, the chains or the big businesses: I am talking, in a nation of shopkeepers—the Minister and his noble friend sitting beside him are shaking their heads. Whether they do not believe it is possible for shopkeepers to be other than absolutely law-abiding, I do not know.
For instance, we are talking in terms of wages and the present responsibility of the wages inspectorate to make sure that minimum wages are paid. There will be people on a Sunday who are one-day workers, there will be people who are casuals or part-timers and
202
there will be regulations to be policed. So we are simply saying that once Clause 1 of this Bill is enacted a great deal will be removed, but the nature of the Bill will be changed. It will cease to become a Bill concerned primarily with hours and it will become a Bill concerned primarily with conditions of work.
Lord Glenarthur: I am afraid that I find the noble Lord's arguments most unpersuasive. This discussion started from the whole question of the load that will be placed upon wages inspectors and centralisation of costs and administration, as propounded by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. On that I have to say that it is extremely unlikely that any savings would result, because wages inspectors would have to be trained in the new provisions and that would have a cost.
But, without pursuing the noble Lord down the avenue of inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive and others inspecting shops onSunday—and I do not believe that it will be quite the difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, suggests—they can be inspected at other times of the week and, no doubt, occasionally on Sundays as well, without adding enormously to the costs.
I have to say that to increase the functions of the Wages Inspectorate surely runs counter to the widely accepted philosophy that regulation in so many fields should be removed and deregulation should be the order of the day. It also runs counter to the policy on wages councils which it is agreed is a matter to which we shall return at a later date.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord tells us that this is not the something to come. He has not yet shown his copper bottom. We only hope that it comes before the night is out. He does not deal with two of my arguments and he puts forward three of his own. I think that one of them is an own goal, and I will come to that.
First, if I may say so—and I say this with sincerity and regret—it seems to me a criticism of a fine body of men to say that the Wages Inspectorate could not do this little job. It is a very simple job. The Wages Inspectorate works partly on complaints. People complain that they are not getting the rate and, in this respect, they would complain that they were not getting the breaks. To say that the Wages Inspectorate could not go in and find out whether or not people had breaks, and that they would have to be specially trained to do so, is an insult to a fine body of men. I think that the noble Lord just thought it up. I do not think he got it from the Box. I do not think it stands up, and he knows it.
I come to the second of the noble Lord's arguments. He said that maybe there is a case, but we cannot discuss it and do it, because the Government are reviewing the position in relation to young people. This has been said many times today and it is getting very worrying. I should like to ask—and perhaps the noble Lord will intervene and tell me—what is the relationship between this review of conditions of young people and the Government's proposals for wages councils? Will the Government's proposals for wages councils, which will change the position of young people and other people as well, have to await the result of this review? Does the noble Lord want to tell me?
Lord Glenarthur: I cannot at this very moment give a precise date as to when the review will be complete. I said earlier that the review is under way at the moment. I will certainly try to find out and perhaps at a convenient moment later in the proceedings, or in a minute or two, will let the noble Lord know. But I cannot say precisely whether or not the review will be completed at the time when the wages council legislation comes forward.
Lord McCarthy: I thank the noble Lord for telling me that but I hope he sees the implications of what he is saying. If it be the case—and I should be very surprised if it were the case—that the Government are not going to introduce a Bill dealing with wages councils into this place or the other place before they get the review of young people through, published and considered by the Equal Opportunities Commission and whoever else does it, and if they are going to wait, that is fine and the noble Lord has an argument. But if they are not going to wait, if they are going to introduce a Bill in another place before this review comes in, the noble Lord cannot use as an argument to me that nothing can be done until the review comes in. It does not affect the wages councils, so why should it affect the 1950 Shops Act?
Lord Glenarthur: The review is concerned with hours of work and not with wages as such. The wages council legislation and the matter of hours of work for young people have some points in common in a general sense. That review is being conducted at the moment but it deals with hours, not specifically with the items to which the noble Lord is referring.
Lord McCarthy: That does not convince me. What I am saying is that the Government are quite happy to go on making changes in the conditions of protection of young people. They do not use that as an argument except when we put down amendments. Then they use it as an argument and say changes cannot be made because they are undertaking a review.
Finally, the noble Lord says that there is something wrong with the way the matter is dealt with at the moment. The noble Lord is the one who says this—we do not say it. The noble Lord claims that the poor old local authorities cannot enforce this part of the Act because, he says, it is all nonsense. If the noble Lord is going to retain this part of the Act, surely he ought to let someone else have a go at trying to enforce it. If the noble Lord says it is being so badly enforced, why not let the Wages Inspectorate have a go? But I shall not push this to a vote. I am still hoping that there is something to come and so I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Schedule 3 to Shops Act 1950.
. For the Third Schedule to the Shops Act 1950 there shall be substituted the following:
"THIRD SCHEDULE

INTERVALS FOR MEALS
No person shall be employed for more than 2 hours and less than 4 hours without a break of at least 10 minutes.
No person shall be employed for 4 hours or more, but less than 6 hours, without a break of at least 20 minutes.
No person shall be employed for 6 hours or more, but less than 7 hours, without a break of at least 45 minutes.
No person shall be employed for 7 hours or more without 3 breaks, one of not less than 45 minutes and two of not less than 10 minutes each, spaced at reasonable intervals throughout the shift.".").
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to amend Schedule 3 to the 1950 Act, which also remains, and it deals with the intervals for meals. The Committee will remember that the Minister has said that there ought to be more flexibility. He has said in several ways that this part of the Act is out of date. What we are suggesting is that the situation should be changed so that it is more flexible and in a way more modern.
The present position is that workers covered by this part of the 1950 Act are entitled to a 20-minute break after six hours, to a three-quarters of an hour dinner break if they are employed over the period 11.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. and to a half-hour tea break if they are employed from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. It is reasonable to suggest, if this is what the Government are telling us, that this was a system of rights introduced for workers who were overwhelmingly full-time—shopworkers who overwhelmingly were expected to work, the great majority of them, through the period from 11.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. unless they had a specified meal break. It was to deal with a pattern of work which was very largely full-time in the 1950s and beyond that these provisions were enacted in the first place.
It is the case now—and in this sense we admit it—that there are aspects of the 1950 Act which require bringing up to date. It is the case now that far more people than shop assistants are working part-time. Women are working quite fragmented work patterns and shift work. Therefore what our amendment seeks to do is to provide a system of breaks which is not related to the hour of the day but which is related to the length of time which people work. What it provides is a 10-minute break between two and four hours, a 20-minute break between four and six hours, a 45-minute break between six and seven hours, and a 45-minute break plus two 10-minute breaks for a period of over seven hours. We accept openly that this is an attempt to improve the provisions made for those workers who are now covered by the Act but we think there is widespread evidence that this is necessary.
One of the central arguments that has been between us in this Committee all day has been that the Government assert that circumstances have changed for the better. We argue that in many respects they
206
have changed for the worse. We argue that the kind of workers who are coming into shopwork now are much more difficult to organise. They find it more difficult to act for themselves and therefore they need statutory protection that much more. We argue that although there may be many good employers who would make all such provisions whether or not they were statutory, there are also many employers who would not. There are many cases where we have evidence that employers are not observing the rights that exist now.
We therefore accept that circumstances have changed; but in the respect with which this amendment is concerned, we say that they have changed for the worse. That is the argument for our amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: As the noble Lord has described, this amendment attempts to update the existing provisions of the Shops Act by replacing the third schedule to the Act, which sets out the intervals for meals for shopworkers, with a detailed schedule of the breaks that employees must be given depending on the number of hours worked. I believe that I am right in saying that as a result of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, not moving his earlier amendment, we are now in rather the same position as before in respect of that amendment, in that Amendment No. 20 can now apply only to young shopworkers. I see that the noble Lord nods in assent.
Our aim in this Bill is to deregulate the restrictions on the working hours of adults, and I cannot believe that the Committee would wish to see those restrictions replaced with more detailed provisions that would place an additional burden on employers and make hours or work less flexible for employees. Moreover, the Government's proposals to retain the existing provisions for young people are more generous than the provisions suggested in the noble Lord's amendment. Where the hours of work of young people are between 11.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. or from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., a dinner break of at least 45 minutes and a tea-break of 30 minutes will continue to be given under the 1950 Act. Under the noble Lord's proposal, a young person employed for up to four hours at whatever time would get a break of only 10 minutes. That does not seem to be particularly helpful to young shopworkers and I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I have never worked in a shop but I have worked in the City. I was employed under an agreement that set out my wages, my time off for holidays, my hours of work and my lunch breaks. Surely a shop would do the same, whether it was a large shop or a small shop. In the case of shops owned by Pakistanis or Indians, they are usually small shops that are run by a family. A family shop would not need such a provision because the brother would go off for one break, and then the sister would go for another, and so on.
In the case of a larger shop employing four or five people, they would stagger their meal breaks and coffee breaks. In a larger shop still, it would be up to the managers of the departments—whether it was

207
the cosmetic department or the department selling socks—to decide when each of their staff will take their coffee breaks and meal breaks. One cannot legislate as to when people must take such breaks, because that would cause the whole shop to close down.
Whether an employee works for a shop, a bank or a stockbroker, he will sign a piece of paper stating that he is being employed at a certain salary and that his holidays and meal breaks are such and such, depending upon the number of employees working in that company or, as we are discussing, store. The staff will take their breaks in rotation. One day a person may break at 11 a.m. and on another day at 11.30 a.m. One cannot put such provisions in legislation. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, must surely realise that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The world referred to by the noble Lord who has just spoken would be nice if everyone who worked in shops was covered by circumstances of the sort he has outlined. Of course, the overwhelming majority of those whom we seek to protect already have good protection, either under the law or under collective agreements—collective agreements which are industry-wide, and in which the employers are well organised enough and sensible enough to combine and the trade unions with members in those industries do likewise, so that agreements are made.
Even when agreements are not made, in that kind of enterprise there are a range of others where sensible, commonsense, fair arrangements are made between the owner or manager and the 20, 10, 6 or 60 people who are working in the enterprise. That is absolutely right. But at a time of high and rising unemployment, and at a time when there is, we maintain, an attack upon the protections which workers enjoy, it is not unreasonable to think in terms of those who will be looking towards Parliament for their protection and not to the beneficence of employers.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: With great respect to the noble Lord, if we do that we are setting a precedent for every Tom, Dick or Harry, who will rely on Parliament to say what they are to do. They will all lobby their MPs and we shall have masses of legislation determining what meal breaks we have, whether we can sleep, die, eat, drink, go to a disco or to the pub, or whatever.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord raises the spectre that if we are to envisage every aspect of life—
Lord Brougham and Vaux: The noble Lord is saying that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: With great respect, I am not. I am saying that the people covered by this Bill, who are affected by this particular provision, deserve consideration.
208
Clause 2, which now stands part of the Bill, saw fit to strike Sections 17 to 22, inclusive, from the existing Shops Act 1950. There was a purpose and a reason. I hear the Minister, and I can follow the argument about them being out of date and the intention to replace them. But that does not stop me, from my experience—which is not greater than that of anyone else here, but comes simply from keeping my eyes and ears open—and with some current experience in retailing (with interests which I have declared), fearing the possibility that if, by not being a member of a trade union, people are denied the opportunity of collective agreement, then they must look to Parliament. That does not mean to say that every aspect of our life is to be the subject of parliamentary control and oversight.
I genuinely believe that this attempt is designed to try to get the Government to see that we are concerned and worried about the situation. Noble Lords on this side of the Committee are not speaking, as it were, out of the blue. We have been advised by our friends outside in the trade union movement that they want to see these protections retained. We believe that a good case has been made.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord the Minister makes two arguments. One of them is much more effective than the other. He says that it cannot be done because the object of the Bill is to deregulate. Every time an amendment is tabled which arrests the inevitable and inexorable process of deregulation he believes that the Government can stop us by just saying, "We cannot have that because it arrests the process of deregulation". We say that deregulation irrespective of the consequences for workers' rights and the protection of workers is something that we do not support. That goes back to the speech much earlier today of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton. He said that in this Bill the Government are giving us another example of deregulation and nothing but deregulation irrespective of the consequences and in particular irrespective of the consequences for workers' rights.
10 p.m.
The Conservative Party has always in the past believed that the employer has a natural power in the labour market and that it is stronger, more powerful and more effective in general than the power that the individual worker has. That is the argument which justifies the legalisation of trade unions—that workers have a dependent relationship and need combination to match employer power. It follows from that that if for some reason they cannot match employer power, the state steps in in certain limited respects and protects them by law.
What is involved in this legislation, and what has been said, I am afraid, by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, tonight, is that the matching power argument, which has justified legislation to allow trade unions and to regulate matters on behalf of workers who are not thought to be able to organise trade unions, no longer applies if the object of the exercise is the inexorable process of deregulation. If that is the case I do not know what it is that the noble Lord is going to find for us and what is to come.
I accept his second argument but I do not think that it is an argument against us. It was put forward in reply

209
to the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux. He says that there are some respects—and I accept this—in which my amendment gives workers fewer rights than they have now. That is true in a narrow area, but it exchanges them for more rights in a wider area, which shows what a modest, moderate amendment it is. We do not want to regulate everything. We are trying to bring matters up to date. We think that in broad terms the proposal is preferable, but it is not a revolution. It is not regulating people so that employers cannot run jobs. It is a modest example of the matching power argument, but this Government do not believe that argument. In the argument for deregulation everything must go. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Holiday entitlement for shopworkers.
.—(1) Any shopworker who has worked for an employer for a period of one year or more shall be entitled to receive from that employer a minimum period of paid annual holiday for four weeks.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above "paid annual holiday" means time off paid at the level of remuneration that the employee would normally receive if they had been working.
(3) Shopworkers with less than one year's service shall be entitled to minimum holiday allowance calculated on a pro rata basis according to the proportion of the year that they have worked.)
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 23, and perhaps this time the Minister will smile upon an amendment and we can achieve something at the end of this debate.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My noble friend will be lucky!
Baroness Turner of Camden: Indeed, I hope to be lucky. The reason for the amendment is that we wish to put into the Bill provision for shopworkers to have a statutory entitlement to holidays. Again, I refer to the Auld Report and to the same paragraph to which I referred earlier, paragraph 287, which states:
"We set great store by the preservation of the role of Wages Councils in fixing statutory minimum weekly rates, holidays and holiday pay for the retail trades".
Paragraph 288 states:
"We understand that the Government has been considering the abolition of the Wages Councils without replacing them with any similar machinery. If this were to happen, we believe that there would be a strong likelihood of exploitation of some shopworkers".
That was referring to exploitation in relation to holiday entitlement.
Already the holiday entitlement of shopworkers as provided for in wages council regulations at a maximum of four weeks falls behind typical rates in more organised sectors of the economy. Five weeks is quite a standard entitlement in many well organised areas of industry and commerce.
Earlier one noble Lord asked whether we had legislation on everything. We do not have very much legislation in that area in this country, but in virtually all European countries, unlike Britain, there are across the board legal minimum entitlements to holidays for all workers. In Denmark, France, Luxembourg, Spain
210
and Sweden the basic entitlement is five weeks. In Belgium, Greece and Norway it is four weeks. In West Germany and the Netherlands there are legally enforceable minima as well. But in Britain, if the Government proceed with their intention to prevent wages councils from setting legal minimum holiday rates, and if there is no protection at all for holidays in this Bill, it is our view that many workers will find themselves deprived of paid holidays altogether. For example, I understand that a recent survey of instant print shops in London—a new development and a new type of shop in a highly competitive area not covered by wages councils—found that three out of 10 firms gave no paid holidays of any kind to their workers.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: The noble Baroness has mentioned European countries. Can she give a wages and holidays comparison of what happens on the Continent and in the United Kingdom? We would then be able to understand the argument.
Baroness Turner of Camden: In relation to shops and shopworkers, I do not think that that is terribly relevant. It has already been pointed out that shopworkers are among the lowest paid in this country. Indeed, wage rates for women working full time in the industry were quoted at less than £75 a week. These are very low wage rates indeed. If you compared them with wage rates for similar grades of people working on the Continent you would find, I believe, that they compared very badly. I do not think, with respect, that what the noble Lord says is relevant to my argument so far as holiday entitlement is concerned.
The aim of the amendment is to make some basic provision for shopworkers. Without that, it is our fear that they will not have, in some instances, any holiday entitlement at all from some of the more unscrupulous traders and employers.
The Minister has referred earlier to the way in which he believes that the terms and conditions should be regulated so that the individual should be free to bargain terms and conditions of employment with his employer. That argument, it seems to me, proceeds from the assumption that the individual applicant, looking for a job in a labour market that is already over-stocked, with large numbers of people after each job, is on all fours with the employer with whom he is negotiating the terms and conditions of employment. That is patently not the situation. My noble friend Lord McCarthy made the position clear when he spoke on his amendment.
This is not a situation of equality. The individual now seeking employment in a shop—this involves mostly women—has very often to take what is on offer because that is the only job available. In that situation, unless there is statutory protection from Parliament, the individual is going to suffer. As already indicated, shopworkers are not easily capable of being organised into units for various reasons. I shall not go over the reasons again; they have been thoroughly explored in previous debates. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My noble friend the Minister will no doubt deal with the basic question as to whether it is right to insert in the Bill a statutory provision in respect of paid holidays for shopworkers. I have some doubts as to that general issue, but it is, I believe, a matter for my noble friend to deal with. I wish to raise only two specific points on the amendment that the noble Baroness has moved.
The first subsection referring to "any shopworker" would seem to include part-time as well as full-time shopworkers. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is really arguing that a part-time shopworker, perhaps working only a limited number of hours on a limited number of days in a week, should really be entitled to four weeks' paid holiday from her employer. That would seem to me a very serious imposition on the employer, and quite unjustified. If the noble Baroness would be kind enough to give me her attention—I am sure that she is getting terribly good advice from the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, but I happen to be in possession of the Committee at the moment—I also have considerable doubts about subsection (3). It means, as I understand it, that if somebody has been employed for only three months he will then be entitled to a week's paid holiday. I think that that will make it extremely difficult for those small shopkeepers who take on a shopworker for a limited time. I should have thought that that was a very oppressive provision to insert.
However, on the basic issue I express a doubt as to whether this should be made statutory. I think that that is for the Minister to deal with.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Baroness has set out her amendment very reasonably indeed. While I should be delighted if I were in a position to say that this was appropriate, I am afraid I have to disappoint her again and say that I cannot say it is appropriate to the Bill. It seems that what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve here is to incorporate into the Shops Bill provisions broadly comparable with provisions currently in wages orders issued by wages councils. The objective seems to me to circumvent the Government's proposals to reform wages councils which we have talked about earlier.
Perhaps I should say that under the wages councils legislation we are retaining only the most important elements of pay—the minimum rate and the overtime rate—in the interest of deregulation and removing burdens from employers. All other matters, including holiday provision, will be left for negotiation between employer and worker, always remembering that the terms and conditions of existing contracts cannot be varied unilaterally.
I must make clear to the noble Baroness that your Lordships will have ample opportunity in due course to consider that legislation as it passes through your Lordships' House. I do not believe, since it relates so closely to that Bill, that this is necessarily the right place to discuss this, although I fully understand the reasons for the noble Baroness bringing this forward. That is perfectly acceptable.
I have to say also that the Shops Act does not currently make provision for the annual leave entitlement of shopworkers. I cannot see any reason why this Bill should be extended to do so. I very much
212
share the view of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that this is a matter which is best left to the collective or individual arrangements between employers and employees. It is not a subject which requires the full force of the law to be brought to bear, with all that that implies in terms of inflexibility, enforcement burdens and bureaucracy. I hope that the noble Baroness will see the force of that argument as well.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I wonder whether the Minister would care to say what kind of opportunity or avenue of redress there would exist for those workers in such establishments who are not able to secure sound sensible, amicable arrangements with their employers, not merely for holiday entitlement but for other matters. The Minister is perfectly entitled to say that the majority of workers—whether they are in shops or in other establishments—with good employers, as most of them are, see the sense of coming to terms on a range of matters, one of which is holiday entitlement. But my noble friend gave an illustration of a survey taken—not in 1950 but in 1985—of certain workers in certain circumstances whose employers are not as enlightened as many others. I wonder whether the Minister would care to tell us, in the absence of some statutory provision, what kind of redress would be available to an employee who is not receiving his fair entitlement in such an organisation, shop, or establishment, and who is fearful of raising the matter in such a way in the present climate of unemployment. What avenue of redress has such a worker who is not getting his fair entitlement?
Lord Glenarthur: The answer to the point made by the noble Lord lies in the fact that there are many other workers—the majority, it appears from the figures which have been bandied about, certainly of those who are not retail workers—who come to arrangements with employers to meet the very concerns which the noble Lord expresses. We have had examples quoted very often during today's proceedings about employees who work in other areas on whatever day of the week it may be. Although ultimately, of course, there is recourse to law in the fact that a contract will have been entered into if employees are to be employed in shops, I honestly cannot see that sensible and totally practical arrangements for the benefit of both employer and employee cannot be reached in a rather more civilised fashion than through the court, although at the end of the day the court obviously exists.
10.15 p.m.
I sincerely believe that we are delving into the realms of fantasy here. I take the noble Lord's point that not every shopkeeper will necessarily be as good as his word. Sadly it is a fact of life that that will perhaps be the case. On the other hand, there are a great many shopkeepers—and I am thinking particularly of small shopkeepers—who at some time will have been workers in shops themselves, will have become attracted to the profession, and will know precisely what difficulties lie in store for their workers if they start to impose conditions—and unacceptable conditions at that—which they would not like to have applied to them.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am sorry that the Minister thinks that this is not an issue upon which he can come to terms with us on this side, although I accept the force of some of the arguments he has made. On the other hand, it seems to me that the only real reason for pressing this amendment was our fear that if the wages councils disappear there will simply be nothing left there at all. That is why we wanted to table an amendment that protected the position of these shopworkers. As I said earlier when I made a statement in support of the amendment on which the Committee divided, deregulation of shop hours is one thing and protection of workers is quite another. It was in that context that we put down on the Marshalled List this set of amendments.
As regards the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, if I may take subsection (3) of the amendment first, it is not unusual to have situations outside shop working where people have a holiday entitlement pro rata during their first year of employment. It is very common. We find that in many agreements that are negotiated in various parts of industry.
As to the point about people who are employed part-time, Clause 2 states that paid annual holiday means time off paid at the level of remuneration that the employee would normally receive if he had been working. If he had been working part-time, it would be part-time remuneration. However, in view of what has been said and in view of the late hour, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment having made those points in its favour.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Rights of established shop workers concerning Sunday working]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("at the commencement of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, which is to leave out the words:
"at the commencement of this Act",
at the end of Clause 3. Its effect would be to give to shopworkers employed after Royal Assent the rights given by this clause and the first schedule to those employed at the time of Royal Assent. If this amendment is made, some consequential and rather technical amendments would have to be made to the first schedule which would shorten it and simplify it. Indeed, that would be an advantage because, to put it mildly, the first schedule is a bit of a jumble as it is at present drafted.
I have not drafted those consequential amendments, partly because the amendment that I am moving is enough to enable the principle to be decided, and partly because the consequential amendments to the first schedule would be better done by parliamentary draftsmen and it would give them a chance to reconsider the drafting of the schedule as a whole.
I should like to invite noble Lords' attention to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum on the first page of the Bill where it refers to Clause 3 and Schedule 1. It says that they are to:
"establish two new statutory rights for shop workers who are in employment before the commencement date. These are a right not
214
to be dismissed for refusing to do shop work on Sunday; and a right not to have other action, short of dismissal, taken against them by their employer because they have refused to do shop work on Sunday".
I should point out that these new rights are not confined to those shopworkers who already work legitimately on Sunday or who work in shops which are already open on Sundays, whether legally or illegally.
As this is my first speech on this Bill, may I say that I support the need for it and the broad logic of it, but I am genuinely worried by the anomaly created by Clause 3, which is good in itself so far as it goes, but the consequences have to be considered. I am glad to say that my noble friend Lord Wolfson, with his unrivalled experience of the retail trade in Scotland as well as in England and Wales, is also worried about it, as he will tell your Lordships.
I understand that my noble friend Lady Trumpington was originally going to reply to this amendment, but alas she has had to retire to her bed as she is not feeling well, and so I look forward to what my noble friend Lord Glenarthur—who has played such a splendid lone hand, and perhaps a more lonely hand than he is accustomed to playing—has to say.
These new rights under Clause 3 are given to all shopworkers on the day that the Bill receives Royal Assent. Of course one is glad that the Government have proposed this against the advice of my learned friend—if I may so describe him; he often used to appear before me when I was Recorder of Guildford, and in fact more than anyone—Mr. Auld and the two ladies who sat with him.
Let us just think this Clause 3 through for a moment. Consider, for example, a man working in a shop which does not yet open on Sundays, and assume that after the Bill is passed the shop opens on Sundays and the man concerned refuses to work on Sunday mornings or evenings because he sings in this church choir. Thankfully he will not have to do so because Clause 3 protects him and preserves his rights.
But suppose his 18 year-old son also sings in the choir and is now at school, but after Royal Assent leaves school and joins the retail firm in which his father is employed, and wants to do so and considers that he has good prospects there. If that firm then decides to open its shop on Sundays and the boy, like his father, wants to go on singing in the choir and refuses work, he will not have the benefit of Clause 3. I suggest that that is a ridiculous situation, and one which the Government should no longer tolerate.
In fairness to the Government, I assume that they did not foresee this anomaly. If they had done so, it would not have been said at Second Reading on 2nd December last, as my noble friend Lady Trumpington said at col. 1169:
"I do not believe it would be right, nor could we defend a decision, to give special privileges to new recruits after commencement date".
I hope it may console her and my noble friend Lord Glenarthur to be reminded of the words of the famous Sir Winston Churchill when he said:
"During a long life I have had to eat my own words many times, and I have found it a very nourishing diet".
I therefore hope that we shall not hear that said again, because the example that I gave is not an isolated one.

215
It could be multiplied and varied many times when religious and family reasons are remembered.
The purpose of this amendment is to get the Government off the hook of an anomaly which, possibly accidentally and with the best intention, they have created. It accepts the principle of the Bill; it does not interfere with Sunday opening or Sunday trading; it does not restrict the hours when it may take place. However, I suggest that this amendment would make the law more workable because nothing could be more awkward in a retail business than having some workers in a shop entitled to refuse work on Sundays and others in the same shop compelled to work against their will, thus creating a sheep and goats situation. It is almost unbelievable.
Some noble Lords have said at earlier stages of this Bill that lots of people have to work on Sundays so why should shopworkers be exempt. My answer to that is that there are quite enough people who, even with the flexibility which employers try to achieve, have to work on Sundays, are compelled to do so, not always willingly, and the fewer the people who have to be compelled as a result of the law the better. We pride ourselves on being citizens of a free country and we should try to preserve the freedom of all our people to work or not to work on Sundays so far as that can be achieved.
I understand that the Government might say that it is up to an employee, any recruit (if I may borrow the phrase again) joining a retail firm after Royal Assent to get a clause written into his contract, with or without the help of his trade union, exempting him from Sunday working. But why should employees, who may feel strongly about this, have to risk refusal of such a clause and the disadvantage which refusal could bring? Surely it is wrong to place them in that position. It would be better to protect them by statute than by forcing them to find their own protection in negotiation from what may be a position of weakness. I hope that I have said enough to convince my noble friend.
Lord Mishcon: Your Lordships will have noticed the anxiety that I have in supporting everything that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said and to do so officially from these Benches. He has advanced so many reasons so well that I do not intend to make a repetitive speech. It is far better to leave it with what the noble Lord said. I am sure that when we listen to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson (whom I am so glad to hear is supporting this amendment), we shall find possibly that the hours from seven o'clock this evening until half past ten tonight will be known in your Lordships' House as "In Search of the Thing". At last we have found it!
10.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I trust that your Lordships will not accept this amendment and that the Government will consider it with considerable reserve. Far from correcting an anomaly, it creates a whole number of new ones. What it seeks to do is to ensure that persons entering shopworking employment after the commencement of the Act should have the right not to work on Sunday without being punished for
216
their refusal. In other words, to give them the exceptional right that is given to pre-commencement employees.
There are three reasons why that is unacceptable. The first is the compelling one that no one is compelled to enter employment. It is quite true that one does not have complete freedom in this world; but, on the other hand, you cannot isolate shopkeeping and shopworking from all other activities. They are all part of a total employment situation. That is enough in itself to negative the amendment. No one is compelled to work on Sunday who enters employment after the Act comes into force. It is purely a matter of agreement between him and his potential employer. Let us look at it from the point of view of the potential employer. Why should he be compelled to accept someone for weekday working only when he wants an employee who will work on Sundays? It may be for a few weekdays only in the week: it may be only for half days; but if he wants someone to work Sunday, albeit that man wants to sing in the choir, why should he be compelled to take that man?
But the second reason, quite apart from the fact that no one is compelled to work on a Sunday without being penalised—it is purely a matter of his choice—is that this amendment, like so many others we had earlier in the Bill, exemplifies the tunnel vision. It looks only at the retail trade. It closes its eyes to all the other economic activities. Why should a potential shopworker in the retail trade be treated any differently, for example, from a potential attendant at a cinema? Yet nobody suggests that a potential worker in a cinema should be given the right to demand that he or she should be employed only on weekdays because he or she wants to sing in the choir on Sundays.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, still lives in Gray's Inn, I think, when he lives in London. He shakes his head. But he did so recently. All round him, all round Lincoln's Inn (where my noble and learned friend used to live and may still do so) and around the Temple, where we live, every Sunday there is the banging and rattling of printing presses. On the Embankment and in Holborn the streets are lined with the cars of the workers in the newspaper offices. The narrow streets between the Embankment and the Strand are blocked by enormous juggernauts loading and unloading enormous bales of paper. To all that hubbub, all that concourse and all that activity, the ears of the proponents of this amendment are absolutely deaf. Their eyes are blind, their nostrils are closed at the stench. Why? It is because all their senses are concentrated in horror at the shops in Gray's Inn Road, in Holborn and in the Strand that might open on Sunday in order to serve the people who are working in the newspaper offices. They are working in the newspaper offices to produce Monday newspapers which, for all I know, are delivered to the premises of right reverend Prelates and certainly to your Lordships' Library, where they may even be glanced at by the proponents of this amendment.
That is the occupational tunnel vision; but there is also the geographical tunnel vision. So far as I know—though the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, may be going to tell us to the contrary—there

217
has been no call for this sort of amendment to the Scottish law, where retail trade is unregulated. So you get an occupational tunnel vision and a geographical tunnel vision.
The third reason is that, to all intents and purposes, this amendment is unnecessary because the law substantially (and I do say "substantially") does what this amendment does. For that it is necessary to go to the schedule. It is very complicated, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, says, particularly because it is couched in the negative. But if one turns it round and looks at it positively, I can give the argument but I come to this summary: a shopworker is bound to do Sunday shop work and I think his employer is bound to employ him and pay him to do so, if either of two matters arises. One of them is if, previous to the Act, he was doing shop work on Sunday under a contract of employment, whether written or unwritten. That of course does not apply to the persons covered by the amendment, because they were, ex hypothesi, not in employment and not doing shop work before the commencement of the Act. But he is also bound to do Sunday shop work if he agreed in writing on or after the Act to do the shop work. That is the only situation to which this amendment can apply; but under the opening sections of the employment protection Act of 1978, which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, to our commiseration, knows off by heart, every contract of employment has to be reduced to writing. So the only difference is that the contract is in writing under the schedule or has to be reduced to writing under the employment protection Act. So for those three reasons I hope the Government will resist this amendment.
Lord Denning: I take a different view. I hope this amendment will be carried by your Lordships' Committee. My noble friend Lord Renton has given you a good illustration, if you please, of a man who goes regularly to church on Sunday morning and Sunday evening. If he is employed before the commencement of the Act and is afterwards required to do Sunday work and he says, "I can't: I want to go to the choir", he has a remedy for unfair dismissal, if he is dismissed on that account. But then, as my noble friend says, take his son, 18 years old. Three weeks after the Act is passed he does just the same: he is employed by that employer and when he wants to go off to the choir the employer says, "Oh no; you've got to do your Sunday work." That young man has no remedy at all according to this clause.
That was the employee's side. Now I want to take the case of the employer, the shop, which up to the commencement of the Act has not opened on Sundays and has employed no people on Sundays. In those circumstances, there is no trouble. Then, three weeks or so after the Act is passed the shop owner says, "We are going to take advantage of this new Act; we are going to open on Sundays". Then someone says, "I don't want to work on Sundays; I want to go to church or to choir on Sundays". The employer replies, "Oh, no!—we can't have you going off there. You must work on Sundays when we want you to, and if you won't work on Sundays you are sacked". Ought not that man to have his compensation for unfair dismissal? Surely he should. That is my first point. That is the practical situation, which has been illustrated so well by my noble friend Lord Renton, of
218
what happens when the employee changes, and I have spoken of what happens when the employer changes, to Sunday working.
But the crucial criticism of this clause is that it brings in this terrible Schedule 1. I have never seen a more appalling piece of drafting, with references and cross-references. In order to understand it, you have to find out what an "established shop worker" is. If any of your Lordships or any lawyer tried to find out, it would be an awful job. He has to be employed on the day before the commencement of the Act and have been
"continuously employed as such during the period beginning on that day and ending with the relevant time".
You then have to turn over the page and see what "the relevant time" means. Then you have to go to some section of a 1978 Act and you have "in relation" to one paragraph and "in relation" to another paragraph. Good gracious! it is a most impossible piece of drafting which the Government have tried to introduce in order to support this clause.
I hope sincerely that this amendment will be accepted and, if it is, that that schedule can be made very simple, in a sentence or two. So I hope that your Lordships will accept this amendment.
Lord Wolfson: After the very stimulating remarks of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Simon and Lord Denning, I feel that I am entering a minefield, but I do so with my eyes and ears open. I think one should get the matter into perspective; namely, that the Sunday shopping Bill is about retail trading and is not about cinema ushers, nor is it about choir singers. I hope that the Government will give favourable consideration to the reasoned amendment expressed so sincerely and ably by my noble friend Lord Renton and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, concerning the provision of uniform employee protection. This does not derogate in any way from the main purposes of the Bill. Indeed, I believe that they would be enhanced by removing an obstacle to its harmonious implementation.
Like many of your Lordships, I feel distinctly unhappy about the proposed differential between existing and new staff. For those holding religious beliefs, or wanting to spend Sundays with their families, it would be quite invidious to differentiate between people at present in retail employment and those seeking entry. In practice, I doubt whether it would be effective. As one engaged in the retail trade, I believe that the clause as it stands could lead to an anomalous situation in the future, such as the Bill is seeking to eliminate from the past. An employee now enjoying protection would lose it on joining another firm, and would apparently not be covered in the event of rejoining the original employer. This could well lead to resentment and would not be helpful to good human relations in the trade. This is one of the most important facets of business. It could also have the effect, which is not intended, of inhibiting occupational change.
The overall objectives of the Bill are sensibly seeking to bring legislation into line with modern conditions. Scotland has had Sunday trading for many years and in my experience it has worked successfully without

219
two-tier staff arrangements. I believe that the objectives of the Bill would be fully met by the same treatment in England and Wales. As the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, said in his inimitable manner, these objectives are to allow shopping on Sunday and not to penalise anyone in the process. I hope that the Government will look upon this reasoned amendment with sympathetic understanding.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Shaughnessy: I should like to support the amendment under discussion. I was under the impression that we were here to deal with the Shops Bill but I understand that we are back to the tunnel again, according to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Simply stated, my reason for supporting this amendment is that I think Clause 3 is clearly discriminatory. A set of rules apply to somebody on day one, and on day two when this Bill becomes law another set of rules apply. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, suggested, Schedule 1 is totally incomprehensible. It is to me as a tyro. It also has a mistake, I think. Page 4, line 24 reads:
"or, if more than one, the principal reason"—
which I think should read "reasons". Surely that should be straightened out. Whether that is or is not an error, I want to support the amendment because it is clearly an attempt to eradicate what is an instance of discrimination in this Bill.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Whatever view your Lordships may take on my noble friend's amendment, I am sure they will wholly agree that Schedule 1 is a miracle of bad drafting. I hope that my noble friend will speak somewhat firmly to his department and to the parliamentary draftsman and ask them not in future to serve up to Parliament such a professionally incompetent piece of work. But that does not conclude the issue.
I differ from my noble friend Lord Renton, as he knows, always with regret, as I do with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. My noble friend Lord Renton posed the issue in a quite emotional way of the regular shopworker bringing his 18-year old son in for the first time and the son wanting to sing in the choir. I am bound to say that at 18 I should have thought his voice would have broken anyhow, but that is by the way.
The real difficulty about my noble friend's amendment can be summed up in a couple of sentences. The Government, I think rightly, are seeking to secure the position of existing shopworkers because they joined this trade on the basis of the law being that shops did not open on Sunday even though, as your Lordships know, they have in fact been doing so for years. But they joined on that basis. Then when Parliament in its wisdom decides to change the law they should be protected from adverse consequences of the change of law. I think that is a reasonable provision such as has quite often been included in Acts of Parliament. But it is quite a different thing to say that people who become shopworkers after the
220
commencement of the Act, coming into a trade which they know can and does involve opening on Sundays, should be given similar protection.
It seems to me difficult to justify such protection for this reason. Every day people are joining other professions or taking jobs in other occupations that involve Sunday work. Indeed, we heard earlier a most dramatic account of the noise created by those who work in Fleet Street.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: May I interrupt the noble Lord?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I will just finish the sentence and then I shall give way to the noble Lord with the greatest pleasure. I was only going to say that a great deal of noise emerges from Fleet Street of one sort or another.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord poses possibilities and makes presumptions on the part of employees entering the retail trade. I pose this situation to the noble Lord. Take the case of an establishment that, when this Bill becomes law, states that it has no intention of opening on Sundays because it does not believe in Sunday trading. Say that a person becomes an employee of that company in such circumstances—because it is that shop's policy not to open on a Sunday. What if subsequently the firm is compelled to open on Sundays owing to competition? What kind of redress does the noble Lord envisage such an employee would have?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I believe that such an employee should certainly be able to obtain redress under his contract of employment. If his employer seeks arbitrarily to alter the terms of his employment after he has joined the firm, I have not the slightest doubt that he would have a remedy there. He would have also a very genuine cause for complaint.
The noble Lord distracted me—I am sure inadvertently—from what I believe to be the core of this matter. It is this. Every day people are joining trades that involve Sunday work. Every day, after this Bill becomes law, people will be becoming shopworkers knowing that it is a trade that involves Sunday opening too. What justification is there for discriminating between those two classes of people by providing for those who go into shop work protection that would be given—rightly, I think—to those already at work there? Anybody else going to work in transport, on the railways, or in Fleet Street—any of the 8 million people we are told will be involved—will not be given such protection. This seems to be the most indefensible discrimination between one man and another.
If your Lordships will reflect on the fact that it involves discrimination in respect of people going into new jobs, then many of your Lordships will see how unfair it would be to the great mass of workers to give a special privilege to those entering shop work simply because shop working on Sundays was illegal in the past although it is going to be legal now.
Lord McNair: It is very late and I shall be very brief, but I should not like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to feel that he has no support from this corner of the

221
Committee. He moved his amendment most eloquently and I certainly hope that I shall have an opportunity to support him, if not tonight them on some other occasion—if necessary, in the Lobbies.
When this Bill was first introduced I found myself in a great quandary. I was not sure what I thought of it, and I am certain that I was not unique in that. I therefore went out of my way to ask all sorts of people their views of the Sunday opening of shops. One of course receives many different answers, but the most common response—and I am sure that it is the one that would command the majority of the whole country—is, "Yes, let shops open on Sunday if they want, provided that nobody is compelled to work on Sunday if they do not wish to do so". That seems to me to be the purpose of the noble Lord's amendment and it has my full support.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I have listened and if I have tunnel vision then I plead guilty to having tunnel vision; but I am not convinced by those who do not support my noble friend Lord Renton and his amendment tonight. I feel very strongly, as the noble Lord who has just spoken said, that the crucial part of the whole business of repealing the Shops Act is that there should not be coercion to work on Sunday.
Coming from Scotland, as I do, I have seen the working of Sunday shop opening for some considerable time and I firmly believe that those who work in those shops on Sundays feel quite happy about so doing. However, I see a case arising where, under this two-tier arrangement—if I may call it so—which this plan of the Government seems to envisage, considerable trouble could be caused particularly for those who have strong consciences about working on Sunday. Therefore, it worries me considerably that a Government who believe in the freedom of the individual are pressing this sort of arrangement at this time in this Bill.
I say only this to the Minister. I believe this is a case where it would be helpful if he could look again at the intended arrangements, because there is one certainty that has come from the discussions; that is, that the laws passed in 1950 are not working. We are clearly dealing with a situation where the law is being flouted and if we are to deal with the situation properly we must ensure that any laws we pass do work in the future.
Lord McCarthy: The centre of the argument against the amendment seems to be that nobody need work on Sunday and that nobody need work in a shop. With great respect, that seems to be a tunnel vision 1950s argument. Perhaps it was true in 1950, when unemployment was 2 per cent. or less, that nobody need work in a shop or on a Sunday because there were plenty of jobs available for everyone.
But now unemployment is much, much higher and for large numbers of people, particularly married women, employment in a shop is the best available opportunity of employment. If they refuse employment in a shop, and if they do so three times, and give as a reason that they would have to work on Sundays, they might not get any unemployment benefit, because it would be disallowed. Large numbers of people might have to work in shops and
222
might have to work on Sundays or get no work at all. That is why they ought to have some rights of the kind suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Viscount Brentford: I briefly make a couple of points in support of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton. Anomalies are being flung around in both directions, so far as I can see. It seems to me that the biggest anomaly in this part of the Bill is that arising from whether one person is employed a week or two earlier than another. What is a week or two in a situation which may arise five or 10 years hence? I believe that that anomaly should be ruled out. The amendment will help to prepare the way for other amendments which are to come which will tidy up the first schedule. I therefore support this amendment.
I have the deepest sympathy for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in what he suffers on Sundays. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look favourably on any subsequent amendment that the noble and learned Lord may introduce in order to give him more rest in his area on Sundays.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am grateful to the noble Viscount but I fear I do not deserve his sympathy because I no longer live in the area concerned.
Viscount Brentford: I thank the noble and learned Lord. This amendment does not affect the principle of the Bill. It bears saying again that this amendment is purely to remove an anomaly from the Bill. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look sympathetically at it.
11 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: After the various examples that have been given perhaps I ought to declare an interest and say that I sing in the choir and so does my son! Be that as it may, my noble friend Lord Renton has made it clear that the intention of his amendment is to extend the protection offered by the Bill to new recruits, if I may use the word that he used, and not to confine it, as the Bill now does, to shopworkers employed on the day before commencement of the Act. As he said, the amendment would not have quite the effect that he intends because it does not amend Schedule 1, in which the proposed new rights are set out in substance.
My noble friend went on to say—and I was delighted to hear it, coming from my noble friend, who usually has helpful suggestions to make about either the draftsman or the drafting—that in this case he was sure the parliamentary draftsman would be able to put the matter right. I note the points made about drafting.
If I may correct a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, that in paragraph 4 "reason" should perhaps have an "s" at the end, I can assure him that if he reads the passage with great care he will find that the word should be in the singular because it refers to the principal reason.
Lord Shaughnessy: I acknowledge my error and apologise to your Lordships' Committee.
Lord Glenarthur: Not all all. But I go further and say that, although I honestly cannot claim that it is possible instantly to redraft, I understand the point that it is a complex schedule. I do not know whether there is scope for improvements in the drafting, and I take the point that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made. I shall see what can be done, but it is very much in the hands of the parliamentary draftsman. The provision has been worded with great care. I should not like my noble friend to feel that I am holding out too much of an olive branch, but I shall see what can be done.
The reason why the Bill distinguishes between existing and future shopworkers is clear and straight-forward. It will radically alter the position of existing shopworkers, many of whom may have been attracted to shopwork in the first instance because they would not have to work on a Sunday. I can well understand the concern of existing workers, and our proposals recognise their special position. But I do not believe that a similar consideration applies to new recruits, despite the sincere way in which my noble friend Lord Renton proposed his amendment.
In what ways are shopworkers different from other employees in industry, or whatever, where Sunday working is expected? I am bound to say that I do not find a very great difference. They will join in the full knowledge that Sunday working is expected, and if they do not wish to work on a Sunday they can either come to some arrangement with their prospective employer or they can look elsewhere for an employer who will perhaps meet the needs that they have.
The Bill offers protection to those shopworkers in employment on the day before commencement but not to those joining the industry after that date. With respect, I suggest to my noble friend Lord Renton that that is entirely logical. It is important to provide protection as soon as possible once the Bill has become law and Sunday trading is legalised; but I feel that it would be wrong to make the protection retrospective.
Today people in many walks of life have to work, at least occasionally, on a Sunday. It is not only people in public service—such as the police, hospitals, transport and so on—but also those in manufacturing, agriculture and of course in the leisure industries. A recent study suggests that as many as 4 million people have to work regularly on a Sunday and almost another 5 million work occasionally on a Sunday. I have not seen any great outcry that people are working on Sundays at swimming pools, restaurants or at estate agents. We must recognise that the pattern of working life for many people includes an element of Sunday working.
Extending those rights to new employees would also place a great burden on employers, especially the small shopkeeper. If new full-time employees are able to refuse to work on Sundays, small shopkeepers with less labour flexibility than large stores may have to employ additional staff for Sunday working. This could increase their costs and reduce their competitiveness.
I must also point out that extending the rights in Schedule 1 to new recruits would, in any event, prove of very limited value. The proposed rights apply only to those in employment. This is covered in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the schedule. They cannot apply to, or protect, potential employees. Thus, an employer can
224
always refuse to take on an applicant if he does not agree to work on a Sunday. There would be no safeguards for those unable to get jobs because they were not prepared to enter into a contractual obligation to work on a Sunday.
We have heard many powerful speeches both in support of and against this amendment. They were compelling speeches that will need to be studied with great care. I noted particularly that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, could not agree. It is always, I find, rather difficult to disentangle the various legal arguments when the noble and learned Lords on the Cross-Benches discuss matters in that way.
I wish, however, to say this to the Committee. I have the utmost respect for the manner in which my noble friend Lord Renton put forward the amendment. It would be dishonest of me to say anything other than that I do not hold out too much hope. The noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning and Lord Simon of Glaisdale, are in disagreement about it. Many statements drawing on experience have been made on each side. They have been made with great force. It is only right that I should read with great care all that has been said. I shall gladly do so. I do not know whether this is the elusive "it" to which we referred earlier. I hope that with the assurance that, many important points having been made for and against the amendment on all sides of the Committee, I shall study with great care all that has been said, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: Of course, one must be thankful for small mercies. I am grateful to my noble friend for the clearest indication yet that the Government are prepared to think further about an amendment moved on this Bill. I shall say a little more about that in a moment. Meanwhile, I would like to thank the 10 noble Lords other than my noble friend on the Front Bench and myself who have spoken on the amendment. Eight of those noble Lords supported it; two of them did not do so. The arguments of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, must be carried to their logical conclusion. That is that everyone should have to work on Sundays if compelled to do so and that no-one should be given the kind of protection envisaged for existing shopworkers under Clause 3. Frankly, I do not find that—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will my noble friend allow me to intervene? What he says is the exact converse of what I said. I went out of my way to make clear that I accepted the view that those who had joined the shop working trade on the basis of Sunday work being illegal should be protected but that there was no reason whatever for applying this to new entrants. That is quite the opposite of what my noble friend is trying to attribute to me.
Lord Renton: With deep respect to my noble friend, he has, I think, rather quickly misunderstood me. I was saying this. If you carry it to its logical conclusion, the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the argument of my noble

225
friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is that because some people inevitably have to work on Sundays no one should be given any protection at all except those already covered by Clause 3. I do not think, quite frankly, that that is a tenable position.
Perhaps I may say this also in the light of what was said by my noble friend Lord Wolfson, with his tremendous experience of the retail trade in this country. It is possible that few people carry a greater responsibility in the retail trade than he does. He came out quite clearly contrary to the view expressed by my noble friend, Lord Glenarthur. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said that this amendment would create a greater burden on employers. My noble friend Lord Wolfson said that if the Bill was not amended as proposed it would create an invidious position among the workforce in retail businesses. Therefore when my noble friend considers this matter afresh—and I am very glad that he is going to do so—I hope that he will bear in mind what my noble friend Lord Wolfson has said.
At this late hour it would be impracticable and not welcome for me to suggest that we should divide on this amendment. We shall trust that by the Report stage the Government will have had fresh, and I hope better, thoughts on the matter. In that hope, which I am sure is not a vain one, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Davidson: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

British Railways Bill
The Queen's Consent signified and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past eleven o'clock.

  ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BELFAST
  ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BELFAST
  DUICH MOSS: ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF PLANNING PERMISSION
  DUICH MOSS: ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF PLANNING PERMISSION