Sitting of 23 January 1986

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

  BERKSHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Considered.
  Amendments agreed to.
  To be read the Third time.

  SWANSEA CITY COUNCIL (TAWE BARRAGE) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 30 January.

  LOTHIAN REGION (EDINBURGH WESTERN RELIEF ROAD) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the provisions of paragraph (4) of Standing Order 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 30 January.

  PETERHEAD HARBOURS (SOUTH BAY DEVELOPMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered upon Thursday 30 January.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Drug-related Offences
    Mr. Alex Carlileasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been convicted of supplying heroin or the possession of heroin with intention to supply in each of the years 1982 to 1985; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of drug-related offences during the most recent period of 12 months for which figures are available, compared with the number for the previous 12 months.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office (Mr. 4David Mellor): The available information relates to persons found guilty of or cautioned for offences involving controlled drugs. The total numbers found guilty or cautioned for such offences in the United Kingdom in the years 1982 to 1984 were 20,300 in 1982, 23,300 in 1983 and 25,000 in 1984. Within those totals, the numbers who were found guilty of supplying. or of possession with intent to supply, heroin were 210 in 1982, 260 in 1983 and 570 in 1984. Corresponding figures for 1985 are not yet available.
    Mr. Carlile: As convictions largely depend upon the importation of drugs, will the Minister assure the House that, while the Government are rightly considering precautions against the importation of rabies through the Channel tunnel, they will also seriously consider the level of precautions to be taken against the importation of drugs through the tunnel? Will the Government be prepared to come to the House in due course and make a statement about the level of security against the importation of drugs?
    Mr. Mellor: That is a fair point. Work on the matter is already in hand. There is no reason to think that security for the Channel tunnel will pose any greater difficulties than in the case of the other methods of getting into the United Kingdom. However, that is a matter worthy of consideration and it will receive it.
    Mr. Fraser: Does the Minister realise that most of the people convicted of supplying heroin are addicts and that the police have success only when they catch a dealer who is rich, ostensibly respectable, and is not an addict? The real problem is that the drug squads in London do not have enough manpower to follow the leads up to the higher levels of supply. What is the point of banning overtime for policemen when one is trying to stamp out the serious drug trade in London? Will there be any change in manning procedures for drug squads?
    Mr. Mellor: The Metropolitan police drug squad has already been increased in size, and authority has been given for a further 50 officers to be recruited. Mainstream officers are also engaged in work on drugs. It is no longer left solely to drug squads. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the strength of the Metropolitan police has increased by about 4,800 officers while the Government have been in office. When one adds to that the creation and increased

    433
    resources of the national drugs intelligence unit and the creation in regional crime squads of designated drugs wings, involving an increase of 20 per cent. in the strength of regional crime squads, I think we are taking the steps that the hon. Gentleman wants. Perhaps he will appreciate that in due course.
    Sir Edward Gardner: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the importation and possession of heroin is a great problem, there is an equally serious, if not worse, problem looming up behind it and threatening to overtake it—the possession and importation of cocaine? Will he assure the House that every step will be taken to ensure that that traffic is stamped on as quickly and severely as possible?
    Mr. Mellor: Yes. I know that my hon. and learned Friend has had the same experience as me in seeing what is happening in America. An additional squad has been formed in Customs to deal with investigations into cocaine. We and others have warned about the problems of cocaine and the dangers that the United States experience reveals. So far, I am happy to say, there has been no sign of the great explosion in cocaine that some predicted. The seizure figure by Customs of 73 kilos in 1983 and of 79 kilos in 1985 does not show a great increase. But we are not complacent about the matter.
    Mr. Martin: Has the Minister contacted his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State north of the border about the fact that, after public houses, council houses are being used to push drugs, which is causing a great nuisance, particularly in my constituency and, no doubt, in council estates throughout the country, to tenants who want a quiet life? Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to advise local authorities on what action should be taken?
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman made an effective speech on that point two nights ago. I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is aware of what he said. He sits on the committee that I chair. The hon. Gentleman's point is important and will be treated as such by my colleagues in the Scottish Office.

    Crime Statistics
    Mr. Easthamasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the increase in the number of crimes for the most recent period of 12 months for which figures are available over the preceding 12 months.
    Mrs. Clwydasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state, for the most recent 12 months for which figures are available, the number of victims of crimes of violence compared with the number in the 12 months ended March 1979.
    Mr. Patchettasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the crime figures for 1985.
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the percentage increase in crimes of violence against the person in the 12 months ended September 1985; and if he will give similar figures for the 12 months ended March 1979.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): In the 12 months to September
    434
    1985 the total number of notifiable offences recorded by the police increased by 5 per cent. Figures for the whole of 1985 will be available in March. The number of offences of violence against the person recorded by the police in the 12 months to September 1985 was 119,400 compared with 88,100 for the 12 months ending 31 March 1979. In percentage terms, the number of offences of violence against the person increased by 6 per cent. during the 12 months to September 1985, compared with an increase of 7 per cent. during the 12 months to March 1979. Information on victims is collected regularly only in relation to homicides.
    Mr. Eastham: Do not those figures clearly show the dismal failure of the policies of the Government, who went to the nation promising that they would improve law and order in Britain? Has the Home Secretary taken notice of the petition deposited in the House yesterday on behalf of Chief Inspector Brian Woollard, who has been making inquiries into corruption in London, and makes an allegation that there has been interference by freemasonry? As he has already referred to the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, what action is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take?
    Mr. Hurd: As the hon. Gentleman certainly knows, recorded crime has been rising at a roughly steady rate for 30 years now. The difference between Conservatives and the Opposition parties is that we have a strategy for dealing with that problem, and Opposition Members have only slogans and divisions. I shall look carefully into the point about freemasonry, which does not arise from this question.
    Mrs. Clwyd: does the Secretary of State agree that women are suffering far more under this Government from massive increases in crimes of violence and fear of violence? What will he do about that dreadful situation?
    Mr. Hurd: I have already tackled that, as the hon. Lady knows, by increasing the penalties for attempted rape. The Metropolitan police in particular, as well as other police forces, have been devoting a great deal of attention, with our encouragement, to handling with greater sensitivity the crimes to which the hon. Lady refers. I think that that is beginning to have an effect.
    Mr. Fatchett: To what extent does the Home Secretary accept that the Government's own policies contribute to those appalling crime figures? Are the Government responsible in any way for the record increase in crime?
    Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my earlier answer, he would have heard that the rate of increase in recorded crime has been roughly steady for 30 years now, so his question does not arise. Neither we nor the country will take seriously criticisms on that point from the Labour party, which left our police forces in tatters when it left office, with morale at rock bottom. That Labour party still includes in its ranks people who base their activities on a desire to undermine the police and separate the police from the community.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Are not the police complacent about crimes of violence in some parts of the country? Is the Home Secretary aware of a case in my constituency where the home of an elderly couple was broken into? The couple were savagely beaten by the attacker. They suffered bruises and were badly injured. One of them was briefly hospitalised. The charge that was brought was one

    435
    of actual bodily harm—a minor charge. The police gave bail without referring the matter to the court, and when I tackled the police about the case I was told that the chap had been given bail because of the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Is that not a disgrace, and will the Home Secretary hold the fullest possible inquiries into that case in the county of Cumbria?
    Mr. Hurd: It is open to the hon. Gentleman or to his consituents to make a complaint against the police if they feel that they have mishandled that case. In my discussions and visits I have not found among the police any complacency towards crime, especially the attrocious kind of crime that the hon. Gentleman described.
    Mr. Malins: Given that there is a great deal of auto-crime in London, will my right hon. Friend say whether motor manuacturers could be encouraged to introduce into new cars extra measures to prevent such crime?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed. That was one of the fruits of my right hon. Friend's seminar at 10 Downing street the other day, when it was agreed that there should be a new British standard which would cover the security of cars. My hon. Friend is correct. The rate of auto-crime is extremely high. It is worth pointing out that 60 per cent. of the offences take place against unlocked cars.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the public think that some of the sentences imposed for the most bestial crimes of violence, compared to those for crimes against property, bear no relation to reality? Is he aware also that some of our courts seem to the public to be utterly out of touch with reality?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Hurd: I note what my hon. Friend says, and that he has some support from the Benches behind me. It is not for Parliament to lay down how courts should sentence, but to provide them with adequate maximum sentences. That we are doing. As my hon. Friend will be aware, we tried in the last Session to include in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 a provision which would have helped allay public anxiety about lenient sentences. Unfortunately, that provision was thrown out in another place. We are still considering how to revive that subject.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: In the light of the serious crime figures, and as the Thames valley has the worst police-to-population ratio of any force except Norfolk, will my right hon. Friend guarantee today that he will seriously consider the Thames valley chief constable's request for 200 extra officers as soon a possible?
    Mr. Hurd: We have, and there is good news on its way to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Home Secretary realise that in the relatively short time that the exchanges on this question have taken place there will have been a serious assault, a robbery and several burglaries? How does the Secretary of State reconcile that unpalatable fact, and the dramatic increase in the number of offences that have occurred since the Government came into office, with the Prime Minister's assertion that it is the Government's duty to protect its citizens from crime?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows about this subject. He knows better than to put that kind of jejune question. We have a coherent and defensible strategy, of
    436
    which on the whole I believe that the country understands and approves, to deal with crime. It would be substantially more effective if it enjoyed the support from the Opposition that it deserves.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the electorate is becoming increasingly exasperated by the Labour party's attitude towards this matter? At a time of rising crime, surely they should support the Government's policy of putting more police on the streets and more resources into policing rather than criticise and undermine the constabulary, which is the hallmark of what the Opposition Front Bench says?
    Mr. Hurd: That is the point which, in my less eloquent way, I was trying to make.
    Mr. Kaufman: The Home Secretary spoke about the Government's strategy against crime. Is he aware that, in a war, a general whose strategy resulted in ever more casualties and ever more defeats would be court martialled, if not put up before a firing squad? Will he please explain why, after seven years of this Prime Minister, and after all the hot air and the public relations gimmicks, crime is now worse than it has ever been in the country's modern history?
    Mr. Hurd: Prime Ministers, of whatever party, neither create nor abolish crime. I read in the correspondence columns of The Guardian that the Opposition are fumbling their way towards a policy on law and order. Might I suggest that they start by putting their own house in order?

    Air Weapons
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to seek to amend the laws and regulations relating to the ownership and use of air weapons; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): We have no plans to do so at present. The controls on air weapons are already strict, and most owners use them safely and responsibly. Nevertheless, we will keep the situation under review.
    Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of notifiable offences recorded by the police concerning air weapons has increased year after year, and that there is plenty of evidence of increasing misuse of air weapons, especially by young people? Is it not time that the Government reviewed the complicated legislation on the matter, which relates to four age groups, and at least considered raising the age limit for the possession or ownership of such weapons? Will they require people to notify their local police station that they have such weapons, thus avoiding the bureaucracy of the certification system?
    Mr. Shaw: I fully understand my hon. Friend's anxiety about any increase in crime involving weapons that can cause serious injury, if not fatality. I hope, however, that he will be modestly encouraged by the fact that the rate of notifiable offences involving air weapons increased by 1·2 per cent. in 1984 as compared with 1983. I am not satisfied with that, but the problem is not so much lack of legislation as making greater efforts to enforce existing legislation. I accept the need for greater effort in the areas of greater need.
    Mr. Michie: Does the Minister agree that there are responsible clubs which could control the use of air weapons, and any other weapons, but that some recorded incidents are not necessarily criminal? Bus drivers are sometimes sniped at. That happens in many cities and could be extremely dangerous. The Minister said that the number of offences increased by only 1·2 per cent., but there is much evidence, if the Government are prepared to seek it out, to show that there is a growing tendency towards the misuse of air rifles in such a way as could cause serious injury. Will the Minister institute a survey?
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood me. I quite accept the need to control and reduce the number of recorded offences involving air weapons. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that many sections of the population are at risk. We must increase information and training available through clubs to ensure that young people, many of whom acquire these weapons through their parents, are correctly instructed in their use.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that what I have drawn to his attention in correspondence and have had drawn to my attention by a constitutent—the possibility of buying air guns, crossbows and revolvers through catalogues available to the general public without restriction—is clearly wrong and should be considered with the greatest possible urgency in the interests of doing something about this increasing problem?
    Mr. Shaw: I agree that there is a problem that may require consideration.
    Mr. Soley: Is the Minister really surprised that the Opposition and his Back Benchers, some of whom went to see him about the matter more than a year ago, believe that the Government's policy on law and order has failed? Crimes of violence and other offences of that type are increasing faster under this Government than they did under any other. The Government have done nothing to clamp down on the availability of weapons such as crossbows, air weapons, guns and others. Will the Minister now act on our recommendations to him a year ago and set up some form of committee to consider the availability of guns and the corresponding availability of guns that are then required by the police? The matter is far too serious to be left any longer.
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will recall that offences involving firearms were increasing at the rate of 49 per cent. in the year that Labour left office, while 20 per cent. is the current figure. Substantial actions have been taken to restrain the availability and the misuse of firearms. The question relates to air weapons. I accept that more must be done to restrict the availability of air weapons and to ensure that persons can be trained in handling them.
    Mr. John Browne: Does my hon. Friend accept that the murder of PC Yvonne Fletcher aroused strong feelings, which overwhelmingly—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about air guns.

    Police (Special Branches)
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the operations of the special branches of the police forces in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurd: I am satisfied that the chief officers of forces in England and Wales take sensible measures to ensure that the operations of their special branches are carried out properly and effectively, having regard to the provisions of the Home Office guidelines on the work of a special branch issued on 19 December 1984. I pay tribute to the dedication and resourcefulness of our special branch officers.
    Mr. Winnick: It comes as no surprise that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied. Is it not interesting that while the Home Secretary and the Conservative majority on the Select Committee were satisfied that all was well with the special branch, abuses occur which come to light, such as the vetting of the BBC? Does that not demonstrate that on matters of civil liberties — I am not discussing the excellent work undertaken by the special branch against terrorism—there are abuses that should be put right?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman had his go at the Select Committee, but he did not persuade its members that his analysis was right. I have no objection to the hon. Gentleman keeping an eye out for possible abuses and drawing them to the attention of the House, but he has not proved his point today.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that he will pay personal attention to all the reports and statements that have been forthcoming, which state that the rank and file in the Tottenham area are disturbed by the events leading up to the riot and by what happened at the riot?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes. Partly with that in mind, this week I invited the London executive committee of the Police Federation to come and see me, as the police authority concerned, not specifically to deal with Tottenham, but to discuss its point of view about the policing of London.
    Mr. Ryman: Is the Home Secretary aware of the great resentment of police officers at special branch officers going to other police divisions without informing the head of the police division that they are visiting the area? That causes much resentment in the police divisions. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, like the flying squad officers, special branch officers wander round the country without prior notice, thus offending many local police officers? They can easily be identified, because most special branch officers have large moustaches and wear carnations.
    Mr. Hurd: I do not believe that moustaches on officers are a widespread complaint. However, if the hon. Member has a specific example that he would like to put to me, let him do so.

    Civil Defence
    Mr. Patrick Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to improve the emergency broadcasting system.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: The main improvements involve the strengthening of installations at certain BBC transmitters and the extension of the wartime broadcasting service to include its local radio stations.
    Mr. Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend accept the urgency of the need to press ahead with improving communications between local authorities and local

    439
    communities, especially now that it is generally accepted that civil defence personnel and facilities can be used for all major hazards, including civil hazards?
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right. We are pressing ahead and will push the matter through as fast as possible. My hon. Friend will be aware of a private Member's Bill on this subject.

    Violent Behaviour
    Mr. Livseyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent inquiries he has made into possible links between violence depicted on television and violent behaviour by young people.
    Mr. Hurd: The Home Office research unit published a review of the research on this subject in 1977. Work is in hand to update the review, and will be published later in the year.
    Mr. Livsey: In view of that statement, will the Secretary of State consider publishing a consultative document which can be discussed publicly, as there is great anxiety about the issue?
    Mr. Hurd: There is no doubt from my postbag, especially from letters that I receive from right hon. and hon. Members, that substantial anxiety exists. The Home Office receives about 20 letters a day on the matter. That is why I took an initiative just before Christmas. I am to some extent reassured by what the broadcasting authorities have said and done since then. The House will have a chance to go further into the subject on Friday.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the public as a whole are sick and tired of the amount of violence shown on television? If the broadcasting authorities are unable or unwilling to deal with that problem, surely the Government must step in at once.
    Mr. Hurd: Parliament has given the broadcasting authorities — the IBA and BBC governors — in the charter and in Broadcasting Act 1981 clear and specific duties which it has not given to the Government. Most hon. Members would agree that that is right, but it is perfectly reasonable that the public, including the House, should keep a close and watchful eye on how the broadcasting authorities perform those responsibilities, and draw their own conclusions.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Secretary of State aware that the BBC is currently discussing the updating of its guidelines about portraying scenes of violence? Will he consider making that document available for the Adjournment debate so that the House can discuss the matter and see whether there is a distinction between television violence which is vicarious and prevents the acting out of violence, and television violence which encourages violence? There is evidence on both sides of the question.
    Mr. Hurd: I accept that. I welcome what I have been told about the BBC's intentions, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The House will have an opportunity on Friday, and perhaps thereafter, to express its views more clearly on the subject.
    Mr. Lawrence: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that not only the BBC, but ITV, has this week announced plans
    440
    to reduce the amount of violence shown on television programmes? Is that attempt to self-regulate the industry not extremely welcome and long overdue?
    Mr. Hurd: It is extremely welcome.

    Rape Victims (Compensation)
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will invite the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to reconsider the amount of compensation paid to rape victims.
    Mr. Mellor: The board is responsible for reviewing the general level of awards in recognition of changes in the levels of civil damages, and carries out such review s when it considers them necessary. It would not be right for my right hon. Friend to intervene in that process.
    Mr. Ashley: My question does not ask the Home Secretary to intervene in the reviews. It asks him to invite the board to reconsider the amounts paid to rape victims. Will the Minister please answer the question? While he is at it, will he consider whether it is reasonable to invite the board to take account of the long-term psychological damage which is imposed by rape and to seek information from organisations working with rape victims?
    Mr. Mellor: The right hon. Gentleman asks Ministers to intervene, which would be unprecedented in the 20 years that the board has been in operation. In January 1984 the board assembled a panel of 41 judges and senior lawyers who were invited to give an opinion on what should be the starting figure—I stress the starting figure—for rape awards, upon which additional awards could be made in particularly bad cases. It was only after consideration by that panel, including several women lawyers, that the present level of awards was set. It would not be right for the Home Secretary to intervene in this quasi-judicial exercise.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an important but tiny strand in the whole vexed question of compensation payments made in a variety of different ways for a variety of different reasons? Does he also agree that there are serious dangers in following too readily the path followed in America towards high compensation payments in other areas, which simply attract litigation of all kinds?
    Mr. Mellor: The purpose of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is to make awards on behalf of the community to people who have been damaged by crimes of violence. I am happy to say that under this Government the level of awards made last year had risen to £35 million from £13 million in the last year of the Labour Government.

    General Household Survey
    Mr. Stuart Hollandasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information on the incidence of crime he derives from the general household survey.
    Mr. Mellor: Information from the general household survey is used to assess the true incidence of burglaries and thefts in dwellings. For example, comparison of burglary figures with general household survey and British crime survey figures suggests that in 1972, 45 per cent. of

    441
    burglary offences were reported to the police. In 1983, nearly 80 per cent. of such offences were reported. This may be a result of greater confidence in the police, or insurance demands.
    Mr. Holland rose— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We have more than 10 minutes of Question Time to go.
    Mr. Holland: Despite the figures that the Minister has quoted, he must be aware that household survey figures seriously underestimate the real incidence of crime, which is up 40 per cent. from 1979, at the time of the outgoing Labour Government. Surely the Minister is also aware of the correlation between rising crime and unemployment, especially in inner city areas. Will he tell the House what measures he will take to improve matters, and what measures the Government intend to take to remedy the underlying causes of crime by bringing jobs back to the inner cities?
    Mr. Mellor: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to risk his academic reputation by making spurious claims of the kind that he has just advanced. The general household survey and the British crime survey show the existence of the dark figure of crime, that is, crimes which for many years have not been reported. The surveys also show that in certain sensitive crimes, like burglary, the proportion being reported has increased, suggesting that the kind of simplistic comparisons between reported crimes in one year and another made by the Opposition are superficial and not worthy of the breath it takes to utter them.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is my hon. Friend aware that the chief constable of Northamptonshire has said that he will have difficulty in following up minor crimes if his resources are not increased? Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the duty of the police to investigate every crime that is reported?
    Mr. Mellor: It is certainly the duty of the police to investigate every crime. The level of resources that they devote to each crime is a matter for local decision. We are reviewing the strengths of all police forces. There is provision for an increase of 1,000 police officers and civilians in 1986–87, and that is on top of the 13,000 increase in police officers and civilians that has taken place in England and Wales since 1979. I shall ensure that the claims of my hon. Friend's county force are not overlooked.
    Mr. Dubs: However one looks at the figures, it is clear that in six years of Conservative Government the crime rate has increased by 1 million a year. The Government have no excuse for that.
    Mr. Mellor: I appreciate the Labour party's desperation to win some spoils from law and order. It is depressing that during two Question Times in a row the Opposition should parrot this stuff. I suspect that they would be better occupied taking up the Home Secretary's challenge to devise a policy, rather than leave it to the editorial writers of the Guardian to do it for them.
    Mr. Cash: In relation to the questions that have been asked this afternoon about obscenity on television—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid we are past that.

    Police (Ethnic Minority Officers)
    Mr. Altonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the numbers and percentage of serving police officers from ethnic minorities.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): On 30 November 1985, 753 police officers —0·62 per cent. of the total police strength in England and Wales—were members of the ethnic minorities.
    Mr. Alton: Will the Minister tell the House how many policemen have been recruited from the ethnic minority into the graduate training scheme? Given that that scheme will be used for the high ranking officers of the future, do the Government intend to try to attract more people from the black and ethnic minority groups?
    Mr. Waddington: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figure now, but I shall write to him about it. It is most important that the question should be on the Order Paper. I do not think that any of us underestimates the importance of the matter. We should bend our efforts towards attracting more members of the ethnic minority into the police.
    Mr. John Mark Taylor: Can my hon. and learned Friend reassure the House that in police recruitment aptitude and ability will continue to be the paramount considerations?
    Mr. Waddington: That is absolutely right. I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned that point. In the Scarman report it was made plain that it would not be right to lower educational standards, nor would it be right to have quotas and give the impression that there are second-class policemen. We cannot deal with the problem in that way.
    Mr. Boyes: What exactly is the Minister doing to encourage more people from the ethnic groups to join the police?
    Mr. Waddington: For a number of years there has been an annual advertising campaign, directed not so much at those who will join the force but at the opinion formers so that they may preach the gospel that the police service offers a good career. Most important of all, the police should continue to take steps to gain the confidence of the ethnic minority communities, and, of course, hon. Members and others should build up the confidence of local communities in the police and avoid denigrating them. It is that sort of behaviour, all too prevalent on the Left, which destroys so many of our efforts.

    Prison Staff
    Mr. Forthasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with prison staffing levels and recruitment; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mellor: We are satisfied that prison staffing levels and recruitment are sufficient to meet the general requirements of the prison service. Prison officer numbers at over 18,500 are higher than ever before, and represent an increase of around 17 per cent. since 1979.
    Mr. Forth: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. In view of the Government's excellent prison building

    443
    programme, is he satisfied that there is sufficient and adequate provision for the recruitment of further prison officers to staff the enhanced prison accommodation?
    Mr. Mellor: We took a decision late last year to increase the numbers that could be recruited in the present financial year. I assure my hon. Friend that the matter is kept under constant review.
    Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister consider the reply that he has just given to the House? Will he confirm that he has had constant representations from the Prison Officers Association about the inadequacy of staffing in prisons, such as Winson Green in Birmingham, which leads to both convicted prisoners and those on remand being locked in their cells for 22 or 23 hours a day?
    Mr. Mellor: I acknowledge that, despite the Government embarking on the largest increase in expenditure on the prison system this century, problems still remain. One is that the increase in the number of prisoners means that we are still below the authorised staffing levels in some prisons. I accept that that has unfortunate consequences in some establishments, including Winson Green. We shall continue to do what we can to tackle the problems.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend accept that morale is an important factor in recruitment and in the retention of prison officers already in post? Will he therefore order an immediate investigation into the scurrilous attack made on Monday in the Daily Mirror against prison officers at Rudgate prison in my constituency, so that their good name may be cleared quickly?
    Mr. Mellor: The individual who made those allegations was himself a former prison officer dismissed from the service for dishonesty, so he obviously has an interest in saying such things. We have no reason to think that any of the allegations are true, but the matter is being investigated, as my hon. Friend wishes.

    Police (Firearms)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days' training per year is given to police officers on the use of firearms.
    Mr. Hurd: The Association of Chief Police Officers, in consultation with the Home Office, has recommended to all chief officers of police in England and Wales that the basic training course for firearms officers should last a minimum of 10 working days, and should be followed by regular refresher training four times a year for two consecutive days on each occasion. Once they have qualified as authorised firearms officers, some officers undergo additional specialist firearms training; the length of such courses varies according to the type of weapon involved and the duties likely to be undertaken.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Home Secretary agree that this training rightly takes up a considerable amount of time and is extremely expensive? Is it not therefore essential that police officers should be armed on only the absolute minimum of occasions?—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Hurd: I had some difficulty in hearing the hon. Member—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hurd: —but I take his point. It is worth while telling the House that the number of firearms issued to the police in 1984—the last year for which I have figures—is down on 1983 by more than 16 per cent.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Nellistasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to attend a reception in honour of the Prime Minister of Israel and shall later preside at a dinner for the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
    Mr. Nellist: Before the Prime Minister loses another member of her Cabinet to the Brittangate scandal, will she send a message to Mr. Rupert Murdoch of News International, one of the millionaire owners of Britain's undemocratic press, that he is not a first world war general filling the trenches outside his Wapping plant with rolls of barbed wire — [Interruption.] — and that industrial serfdom, where the workers become the property of the masters, should have disappeared from this country centuries ago?
    The Prime Minister: He is, in fact, trying to get rid of restrictive practices which should have been got rid of years ago, as they affect the future of some of Britain's most distinguished newspapers.
    Mr. Walters: The parents of Yvonne Fletcher, who live in my constituency, have understandably been very upset by the decision to allow the return of a member of the Libyan People's Bureau to this country, and indeed, to Wiltshire. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that this will not be looked on as a precedent for other members of the bureau?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the case is unique. My hon. Friend will be aware of the circumstances, which are that Mr. Ben Rahba applied for a visa to re-enter the United Kingdom in order to rejoin his English wife and children. The application was rejected by the Home Office because of his presence in the bureau at the time of the shooting. Mr. Ben Rahba exercised his right of appeal, and the adjudicator found in his favour.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether she is currently maintaining her Government's policy of allowing the pound to find its own level?
    The Prime Minister: I have no change to announce in interest rates, if that is what the right hon. Gentleman means.
    Mr. Kinnock: The question that I asked was very plain. I hope that, on reflection, the Prime Minister will find it in herself to respond to that question, because the whole country is interested. Could she then tell us if her policy, to which she is not prepared to make an addition today, is going to continue, and, if so, for how long?
    The Prime Minister: The exchange rate is one of the factors that one looks at in continuing the policy of having as top priority the reduction of inflation.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is highly desirable to persuade our partners in the European fighter aircraft project that this should be a European programme, bearing in mind the health of our defence industries, especially Ferranti, the largest private employer in Edinburgh?
    The Prime Minister: When the European fighter aircraft project gets under way we shall have a radar competition later this year. When that competition is held, I am sure that Ferranti, which has an excellent product, will be a very strong contender.
    Dr. Owen: The Prime Minister, having lost control of her Cabinet, has now also lost control of the economy. Is she aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now widely thought to be in favour of joining the European monetary system? If interest rates rise, as many fear will happen tomorrow, will she make it clear to the House that this will be accompanied by a decision to join the EMS?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will first get control over his own small party before he criticises others.
    Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if pension funds were forced to invest in a national investment bank under the control of a Labour Government, that would inevitably lead to investment in loss-making undertakings, which would jeopardise the pensions of millions of people who are in occupational pension schemes?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. We must ensure that that never happens.
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hoyle: If interest rates rise, will not the Prime Minister be ashamed of the fact that this country will have the highest interest rates of any developed industrialised country, except Italy, and that that will mean that mortgages will rise, which will have a devastating effect upon those with the lowest incomes? What will she say to those poor people who believed the Tory propaganda about a property-owning democracy?
    The Prime Minister: It is not propaganda. We are gradually bringing about a far wider spread of house ownership and of share ownership than ever took place under previous Governments. Rises in interest rates are unwelcome. The Government have pledged themselves to take whatever action is necessary to keep down inflation. The markets have been unsettled this week as the price of oil has fallen, but the Bank of England has maintained its current dealing rates.
    Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday marked the sixth anniversary of Dr. Andrey Sakharov's banishment to Gorki? The whole House—I venture to think without exception — condemns unequivocally the holding of prisoners of conscience anywhere in the world, either without trial or on the basis of trumped up charges. Will my right hon. Friend, at the earliest opportunity, make representations to Mr. Gorbachev about the case of Dr. Sakharov?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that we should have special memory for Dr. Sakharov's
    446
    fantastic efforts to try to get some liberty in the Soviet Union. We condemn this kind of action wherever it occurs, and we admire Dr. Sakharov's moves for liberty.
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ross: Does the Prime Minister agree that the present spate of massive takeover bids is bound, in the long run, to lead to even greater redundancies in this country and will put even more pressure upon smaller businesses to improve the economy of the country? Will the Prime Minister encourage her Ministers positively to discriminate in favour of the smaller businesses in this country, which are so beleaguered by high interest rates, increasing council rates and all the other charges?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposition that in order to increase wealth creation, and in particular job creation, we need to pay particular regard to the policies that affect small businesses. We try to do just that. The numbers of small businesses are increasing. The numbers of self-employed are also increasing. That is good news.
    Mr. Harris: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that earlier this week she raised with President Mitterrand, either in English or in French, the very serious crisis in the tin industry? If so, can she say whether there has been a favourable response towards a settlement of this deep crisis?
    The Prime Minister: I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's particular interest in this problem. I raised the subject of the crisis in the tin market. I believe that there is now an increasing amount of co-operation among the European nations.
    Mr. Ashdownasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree with her hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) that the chief pressure for high rates in the shire counties this year is the Government's policy on the rate support grant?
    The Prime Minister: No. There was a decision this year to move towards giving more money to the inner cities, and I am afraid that did cause great trouble with the shire counties. We are urged in the House constantly to give more attention to the inner cities, and we find it a bit hard to be criticised for doing what we have been urged to do.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all the teachers unions, except the National Union of Teachers, seem to be willing to try to find an accommodation through ACAS? Is it not high time that the NUT started to put the pupils' interests first?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, and I hope and believe that it is. I should like to pay tribute to those many teachers who have stayed at their posts honourably and conscientiously and borne the heat and burden of the strike action of those who have not.
    Mr. Faulds: Did the right hon. Lady impress upon Mr. Peres the essential need for Israel to accept the validity of the PLO in any negotiations towards a peace treaty in the middle east? Will she try to make him understand that, if he does not use the moderate influence of Chairman Arafat, he, or his successor, will have to face a much less moderate and more radical leadership of the Palestinians?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows the position, and it has not changed. Mr. Peres is in favour of direct negotiations between Israel and the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation within the framework of an international conference. I do not think that there is any question of accepting the PLO until it accepts resolutions 242 and 388, renounces violence, and accepts the right of Israel to exist.
    Dame Jill Knightasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dame Jill Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is much interest in the talks that she had yesterday with Mr. Peres, in which one would hope that she did not adopt the belligerent attitude of the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)? Is she able to tell the House of any advance made or of any solutions put forward in regard to the middle east situation?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot suddenly come out with new solutions. One knows this particular aspect of world politics very well and the difficulty of finding a lasting solution which will give peace and security to all states in the region. The talks which I had with Mr. Peres were not only enjoyable but very interesting and constructive. I hope to visit Israel later this year.
    Mrs. Clwydasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Prime Minister think that her current placing in the opinion polls is a reflection of the way that people feel about the way she runs the country?
    The Prime Minister: I think that there is only one answer to that—no. I hope that we shall go forward to the next election and win for the third time with an even larger majority.
    Mr. Evennettasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evennett: Despite the recent pressures on the sterling exchange rate, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm her commitment to lower interest rates in the long term and lower income tax for the people of this country? Will she ignore totally the Opposition Front Bench, whose economic policy would bring this country to absolute ruin?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly support the last aspect of my hon. Friend's question. We would all like lower interest rates, but there are other things, like the level of inflation, at which we have to look as well. We would all like lower taxes, and that means being very careful in budgeting for public expenditure. With regard to keeping industry competitive, it is vital that any wage increases should go hand in hand with productivity increases.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the Prime Minister find time to discuss with the Minister for Health the cataclysmic drop in the morale of nurses as a result of the implications of the Griffiths report? Is she aware that the disillusionment of nursing officers is creating a crisis in the Health Service? Will she meet representatives of the Royal College of Nursing at the earliest opportunity?
    The Prime Minister: As I said during Question Time on Tuesday, I visited a large hospital last Friday. I did not find the situation as the hon. Gentleman reports it. I found good morale, and some nurses have the opportunity to apply for the jobs of managers.
    Mr. Stanbrookasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stanbrook: The two best things about the Channel tunnel project are that thousands of jobs—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
    Mr. Stanbrook: I am about to ask my question, Mr. Speaker. The two good things are the thousands of jobs that it will create and the fact that it will involve no expenditure of public funds. Will my right hon. Friend now look around and find similar projects for the application of those two principles?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend puts his finger on a most important point. Six and a half years ago it would have been unthinkable that we could agree a Channel tunnel scheme and have it privately funded. II is enormously exciting that we have done so, and we should look round for other similar projects.

Westland plc
3.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the outcome of the inquiry into the disclosure of certain information in my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General's letter of 6 January.
As the House knows, the chairman of Westland plc, Sir John Cuckney, wrote to me on 30 December 1985 asking whether Westland would no longer be considered a European company by the Government if a minority shareholding in the company were held by a major international group from a NATO country outside Europe.
This question was of fundamental importance to the company in making its decision as to what course it was best to follow in the interests of the company and its employees. It was therefore essential to be sure that my reply should be in no way misleading to anyone who might rely upon it in making commercial judgments and decisions.
The reply was accordingly considered among the Departments concerned, and the text of my letter of 1 January 1986 was agreed in detail by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friends the then Secretary of State for Defence and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and finally by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. My letter was made public.
Two days later, on 3 January, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence replied to a letter of the same date from Mr. Horne of Lloyds Merchant Bank asking him a number of questions, covering some of the same ground as my own reply to Sir John Cuckney. The texts of the letters became public that same day.
My right hon. Friend's reply was not cleared or even discussed with the relevant Cabinet colleagues. Moreover, although the reply was also material to the commercial judgments and decisions that would have to be made, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was not invited to scrutinise the letter before it was issued.
On the morning of 6 January, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General wrote to my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence. He said—and I quote:
"It is foreseeable that your letter will be relied upon by the Westland Board and its shareholders.
Consistently with the advice I gave to the Prime Minister on 31 December, the Government in such circumstances is under a duty not to give information which is incomplete or inaccurate in any material particular."
The letter continued:
"On the basis of the information contained in the documents to which I have referred, which I emphasise are all that I have seen, the sentence in your letter to Mr. Home does in my opinion contain material inaccuracies in the respects I have mentioned, and I therefore must advise that you should write again to Mr. Horne correcting the inaccuracies."
That is the end of the quotation.
I have quoted extensively from the letter which, as hon. Members will know, was published a week ago. As I have already indicated, it was especially important in this situation for statements made on behalf of the Government, on which commercial judgments might be based, to be accurate and in no way misleading.
That being so, it was a matter of duty that it should be made known publicly that there were thought to be
450
material inaccuracies which needed to be corrected in the letter of my right hon. Friend. the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) of 3 January, which, as the House will recall, had already been made public. Moreover, it was urgent that it should become public knowledge before 4 pm that afternoon, 6 January, when Sir John Cuckney was due to hold a press conference to announce the Westland board's recommendation to shareholders of a revised proposal from the United Technologies Corporation-Fiat consortium.
These considerations were very much in the mind of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the copy of the Solicitor-General's letter was brought to his attention at about 1.30 pm that afternoon of 6 January. He took the view that the fact that the Solicitor-General had written to the then Secretary of State for Defence, and the opinion he had expressed, should be brought into the public domain as soon as possible. He asked his officials to discuss with my office whether the disclosure should be made, and, if so, whether it should be made from 10 Downing street, as he said he would prefer.
My right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that, subject to the agreement of my office, he was giving authority for the disclosure to be made from the Department of Trade and Industry, if it was not made from 10 Downing street. He expressed no view as to the form in which the disclosure should be made, though it was clear to all concerned that in the circumstances it was not possible to proceed by way of an agreed statement.
My office were accordingly approached. They did not seek my agreement: they considered—and they were right — that I should agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the fact that the then Defence Secretary's letter of 3 January was thought by the Solicitor-General to contain material inaccuracies which needed to be corrected should become public knowledge as soon as possible, and before Sir John Cuckney's press conference. It was accepted that the Department of Trade and Industry should disclose that fact and that, in view of the urgency of the matter, the disclosure should be made by means of a telephone communication to the Press Association. [Interruption.] Had I been consulted, I should have said that a different way must be found of making the relevant facts known.
The report finds, in the light of the evidence, that the Department of Trade and Industry acted in good faith in the knowledge that it had the authority of its Secretary of State and cover from my office for proceeding. An official of the Department accordingly told a representative of the Press Association of the letter by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and material elements of what it said. The company was also informed. The information was on the Press Association tapes at 3.30 pm.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was, in my judgment, right in thinking that it was important that the possible existence of material inaccuracies in the letter of 3 January by the then Secretary of State for Defence should become a matter of public knowledge, if possible before Sir John Cuckney's press conference at 4 pm that day. In so far as what my office said to the Department of Trade and Industry was based on the belief that I should have taken that view, had I been consulted, it was right.

451
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has authorised me to inform the House that, having considered the report by the head of the Civil Service, and on the material before him, he has decided after consultation with, and with the full agreement of, the Director of Public Prosecutions and senior Treasury counsel, that there is no justification for the institution of proceedings under the Official Secrets Act 1911 in respect of any of the persons concerned in this matter.
In order that there should be no impediment to cooperation in the inquiry, my right hon. and learned Friend had authorised the head of the Civil Service to tell one of the officials concerned, whose testimony would be vital to the inquiry, that he had my right hon. and learned Friend's authority to say that, provided that he received full co-operation in his inquiry, the official concerned would not be prosecuted in respect of anything said during the course of the inquiry.
The head of the Civil Service did, indeed, receive full co-operation not only from that official but from all concerned. My right hon. and learned Friend tells me that he is satisfied that that in no way interfered with the course of justice: on the facts as disclosed in the inquiry there would have been no question of proceeding against the official concerned.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: After persistent efforts, we have managed to pull a statement from the right hon. Lady. It had a detail produced not by frankness but by guilt—unerasable guilt. That stain will stay with the right hon. Lady for as long as she endures in politics. Her excuses are completely implausible. She cannot justify or excuse the conduct of her Government in any one respect.
In this squalid story, we have been told that the leaking of the Solicitor-General's letter was authorised —authorised by the right hon. Lady's office and connived in by her office, all, says the Prime Minister, with her subsequent endorsement. We must ask the Prime Minister, especially given her personalised and centralised style of government, where she was on 6 January so that she could not be contacted on a matter as basic and essential as this. She has a duty to tell the House what she was doing when her office, as she says, was getting on with the business by itself.
We have been told that the matter was authorised. What was actually authorised was a conspiracy by people in the Department of Trade and Industry and people from the right hon. Lady's office to disclose certain parts of a letter written by a Law Officer to another member of the Cabinet about a matter of important public business. That was their way, we are told, of putting it into the public domain. That was the route chosen — not by open means, but by subtefuge and dishonest means.
We have been told that there was an inquiry. Indeed, there have been answers in the House from Ministers, including the Prime Minister, saying that an earnest inquiry was being undertaken in the normal fashion. We have to ask: why was there an inquiry when everybody knew what had happened? Why was there an inquiry when everybody knew that there would be no prosecution because the dispensation had been given? The only precedent comparable with this act of contrived insincerity is the way in which Macbeth so fiercely looked around for Duncan's murderers.
452
We hear from the Prime Minister that an immunity was offered. Why was that the case when it was plain that there was to be no prosecution?
We have heard a shabby story—an effort to defraud the public. The fact is that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and everyone else involved would have got away with it were it not for the fact that in this democracy ultimately the Prime Minister had to make a statement. They would have dealt with the former Member of the Cabinet, the Secretary of State for Defence, not by the means available to the Prime Minister, if she believed that he was acting contrary to the national interest—not by sacking him—but by trying dishonestly and covertly to subvert him. That is a profound dishonesty. For the Government to leak in order to inform and influence public opinion is normal. For a Government to leak in order to discredit anyone is shameful. For a Government to leak in order to subvert a member of that Government is the action of a Government who are rotten not just to the core but from the core, and they should go.
The Prime Minister: I totally reject much of what the right hon. Gentleman said. As he has seen from the Solicitor-General's letter, the Government had a duty to give accurate information, and not to give any misleading information, because that information could be used to make commercial judgments. Because there was a possible inaccuracy, it was important to get accurate information into the public domain in time for the meeting at 4 o'clock. I agree, as I have said, that it should have been done by a more correct method. The fact is that I was not consulted, as I indicated in the statement. Yes, I did institute an inquiry and the right hon. Gentleman would have been the first to castigate me if I did not.[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence. The Prime Minister deserves a fair hearing.
The Prime Minister: I instituted an inquiry. It started on 14 January. I instituted that inquiry to find the full facts because they were not known. The inquiry reported on 22 January and I have made a full statement today, 23 January.
Sir Edward Gardner: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that if, as appears to be the case, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had been aware, or been made aware, of what he believed to have been the misleading information which could have seriously damaged the future of Westland, there would have been an overriding and imperative duty to correct that misleading information to protect Westland from further damage and that if he had not fulfilled that duty he would have been failing in his duty as Secretary of State?
The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. and learned Friend's analysis is the correct one. The Government had a duty to see that no misleading statements were made. Therefore, possible inaccuracies had to come into the public domain at the relevent time because commercial judgments were about to be taken.
Mr. David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that her statement reveals yet another chapter of shabby and astonishing behaviour in the higher reaches of her Government? Does she recognise

453
that she owes the House and the Civil Service an apology? She allowed nine days of a charade of an inquiry when she could have cleared up the matter in 10 minutes by calling in her colleague, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and her own press officer.
Why was the Solicitor-General not told that his letter was to be used in this way? Why was the right hon. Lady's colleague, the then Secretary of State for Defence, not told that the letter was to be made public? If it was so important to make the matter public, why was there not a clear Government statement of policy rather than the hole-in-the-corner method used? Is the right hon. Lady aware that, if she were living in the real world outside and this inquiry had been conducted, she would now be on a charge of wasting police time?
The Prime Minister: The inquiry was set up to establish the facts—
Hon. Members: You knew.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
The Prime Minister: If I had refused demands for an inquiry, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) would have criticised me. The inquiry established many facts which were not known to me. The right hon. Gentleman said that I could have cleared up the matter without an inquiry. That is not what he would have said had I failed to follow that course.
Mr. Alex Fletcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are Conservative Members whose first consideration in this matter is the integrity of Government? Is she satisfied that the statement that she has made this afternoon has enhanced the integrity of her Government?
The Prime Minister: I have tried, having set up an inquiry and received the full report yesterday, to give as full an account as I possibly can, because the House deserves to have it.
Mr. Michael Foot: Does the right hon. Lady recall that a week ago, when I asked her about it, she said that the inquiry was going ahead but it was not the custom in any sense to make a report to the House, and she was not going to do so? When she gave that answer to the House and drew a veil over the proceedings, saying that the inquiry was going to proceed, she must have known all the facts. So she was concealing the truth from the House and the country. When will she apologise for that?
The Prime Minister: No, the right hon. Gentleman is not correct. I did not know all the facts, and that is why an inquiry was set up. It is not the usual tradition or custom to give the outcome of such inquiries. There have been rare exceptions when that has been the case. One such exception was on 1 July 1976, when the results of an inquiry were published and a statement made about the disclosure of information regarding child benefit. When I got the result and the report of the inquiry, I knew full well that it would have to be one of the exceptions, when a full statement would have to be made. I have made such a full statement because that was what the House wanted and required.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we need lessons in leaking, we have only to read the Crossman and Castle diaries, from which we would learn that previous Labour Governments leaked like sieves?
The Prime Minister: I think that there would have been a different way had there been more time. Hon. Members should remember that there was a time constraint. It was urgent because of that meeting at 4 o'clock that afternoon.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Prime Minister aware that, as I listen to and watch this tawdry saga rattle on, I no longer care about the relationships between Trade and Industry Ministers and industrialists? I no longer care whether the machinery of Government is being run properly. All that I know is that if as Home Secretary, I had set up an inquiry, and people came back and said, "But, sir, you authorised it", I should have resigned.
The Prime Minister: No. I have, in fact, in a long statement, given the facts, I hope, showing that I was not consulted. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have the decency to accept that statement.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: If what I said in the letter, which was apparently so difficult, caused such concern, as it was in the hands of No. 10 and the Department of Trade and Industry on the Friday afternoon, and there was no protest from colleagues about its contents, and as the first that I heard of concern was late on the Saturday night, when the Solicitor-General told me that he would be writing on the Monday, would it not have been possible for colleagues to have considered, discussed and perhaps even agreed any withdrawal of anything in my letter that was misleading? As I did respond to the Solicitor-General, and as the text of his letter has been published, would it not be now right for the text of my reply to be published as well? Does the Prime Minister accept that every word of the letter that I sent to the European consortium stands uncorrected by any statement by this Government?
The Prime Minister: The problem would never have arisen had my right hon. Friend cleared his letter with the Solicitor-General because it was upon the basis of that letter that commercial judgments would have been made. My right hon. Friend did not do that. He knew full well that I had cleared every word of my letter because it was thought that it might be included in or material to the prospectus. Had my right hon. Friend cleared his letter, this problem would never have arisen.
Dr. David Owen: Will the Prime Minister now tell the House when her office told her that it had given cover to the Secretary of State's office to reveal the letter? Did that happen on 6 or 7 January? When did that happen, and why did she not tell the House as soon as she knew that her office had been involved in the leak? How can the Prime Minister continue to hold the high office that she does when she constituted a leak inquiry in the full knowledge that her office, and by implication she herself, was fully involved in this whole sordid affair?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has fully taken into account every single thing in my statement. The inquiry was set up to establish the

455
facts. An enormous number of the facts were not known to me until yesterday—22 January—when I received the results of the inquiry.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, like the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), are not really interested in listening to the facts of the full account given by my right hon. Friend. What view does my right hon. Friend think that the House might have taken of any Minister in any Government placed in such an invidious situation by the action of a colleague who had failed in his duty to ensure that correct information was made public as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it would have been much easier, as the facts were commercially sensitive, if the relevant letters had been cleared as mine was with the Solicitor-General. It was vital to have accurate information in the public domain because we knew that judgments might be founded upon that and that the Government could be liable if wrong judgments were made as a result of misleading information. It was to get that accurate information to the public domain that I gave my consent.
Mr. Jack Dormand: The Prime Minister said that it was an open decision taken by No. 10 to release the letter to the Press Association. Did the Prime Minister see Mr. Chris Moncrieff on the "9 o'clock news" on television last night? Mr. Moncrieff said that there was no way in which he would reveal any details about that letter, about who or where it came from. Is not the right hon. Lady aware that there is no more honourable a member of the Press Gallery than Mr. Moncrieff? Why should Mr. Moncrieff say those words in contradiction to what the Prime Minister has told the House this afternoon?
The Prime Minister: I do not believe that there is a contradiction. I have set out the full facts as a result of the inquiry and I have set them out extremely carefully and accurately. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider them with the same care that I have given to expressing them.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this is probably the House of Commons at its worst when political parties which hope to obtain power and destroy the prosperity that the Government have created wish to make bogus points pretending that they are matters of principle? Should not those parties consult their consciences?
The Prime Minister: I repeat that the report of the inquiry was submitted to me on 22 January. On the basis of the report of that inquiry, most of the facts in which were new to me, I have faithfully reported to the House.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the right hon. Lady aware that as she and her Government sink deeper into the bog of deceit and chicanery, almost her only remaining memorable words will be that there were commercial decisions involved, and that Governments before hers have been activated by considerations higher than that?
The Prime Minister: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says, but when commercial decisions and different reconstructions are made on the basis of a
456
prospectus, legal obligations follow and information should not be misleading. I should have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accept that.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: When the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry addressed the House at length last week, did he know that he had authorised the leak?
The Prime Minister: The inquiry was under way. It has now reported and given the facts.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: When did the Prime Minister's press office first tell her what it had done?
The Prime Minister: I have given as full an account —[Interruption.]—of the inquiry that I established to establish the facts. I have said that I was not consulted at the time.
Mr. George Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me, as one who worked as a political correspondent in this building for 13 years, that the events which took place in the Department of Trade and Industry, which she has outlined, differ not one jot from the regular practice of Labour Members when they were in government? Will she take it from me that, if there is anger and criticism on the Conservative Benches, much of it relates to the way in which a comparatively straightforward issue is being blown up into so grotesque a debate?
The Prime Minister: Because of the duty to see that accurate information on a commercially sensitive matter was in the public domain, the decision was taken. I have said that I was not consulted at the time. I set up an inquiry to establish the facts. It has established them.
Mr. Jack Ashley: In view of this afternoon's exchanges, does the Prime Minister consider that in six months' time she will still have the same team and that she will be captain of that team?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
Mr. David Crouch: I wonder whether I may make a comment as a Back Bencher who has never understood the workings of the official or unofficial channels or the difference between an official statement or a statement attributed to a spokesman. The information that was released was of such importance that it should have been released at that time by whatever means.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is making a comment on the practice of non-attribution. I accept that many comments could be made about that.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Prime Minister, who has always sought credit for being the Prime Minister who is always on the job, answer one simple. question? When was she told by her officials of their involvement in the agreement to disclose the Solicitor-General's letter by the Department of Trade and Industry?
The Prime Minister: A vast number of the facts in that report were not given to me until yesterday. I am not going to tease out what was and what was not. A number of the facts which came in that report were not known to me until yesterday.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must bear in mind that we have business questions after this and that this is an Opposition day with two important debates. I propose to allow questions to continue for a further 10 minutes.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: While there may be some hon. Members on both sides of the House who think that in this fast-moving situation a public statement would have been preferable to an unofficial leak, is it not wrong to allow disagreements on this matter to distract us from the fact that thousands of jobs could have been put at risk if the Government had allowed the board to take a decision on the basis of conflicting advice from different Departments? Now that this matter has been disposed of, should we not let Westland get on with the job?
The Prime Minister: I agree with the points in my hon. Friend's question about the public statements and allowing Westland now to get on with the job.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: As it is obvious that the whole episode was conceived to get rid of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), whose job was filled within 10 minutes of his leaving the Cabinet, will the Prime Minister tell us what he did wrong to merit such treatment?
The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) took his own decision.
Mr. John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I was in my constituency on Friday and Saturday and that a large number of —[Interruption]—did not mention Westland to me? Is she further aware that in my postbag I did not receive one letter on the subject? Has not the matter been blown up by the press and seized on by the Opposition who are short of ammunition to use against the Government?
The Prime Minister: I heard two thirds of what my hon. Friend said and agreed with it wholly. I am sure that the other one third was marvellous.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Prime Minister aware that, instead of the robust, fighting statement from her that we were promised by the press, we have had a shoddy, pathetic statement which will not convince most people but which is a perfect illustration of the deceitful way that the Government go about their business? Is she further aware that, while we are, of course, all pleased that no civil servant will be used as a scapegoat, it is plain that if the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had the least idea of what honour meant, he would have resigned by now?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has omitted to mention the fact that I deliberately set up an inquiry to establish the facts. It has established the facts. I have reported to the House upon them within a day of receiving the report.
Mr. John Wilkinson: As it was the Government's clear, collective decision before Christmas that Westland's future should rest with the decision of the shareholders and the company, how did my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Defence come to write that extraordinary letter to the chairman of a merchant bank which was acting on behalf of one of the parties involved with the potential rescue? In those circumstances, was it not right for the Law Officer and my
458
right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to take extraordinary measures to give the true and accurate facts?
The Prime Minister: It was a unique situation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had a duty to see that the facts were available at the relevant meeting. It would have been better if we had all followed the same procedure during that difficult and sensitive period and cleared our letters with other Departments and with the Solicitor-General.
Mr. Bryan Gould: On this issue and many others, have not the Government become one where the merest assertion of Prime Ministerial power and patronage is deemed sufficient to sweep aside principles and honour?
The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. There are some who would allege that Prime Ministerial power was not sufficiently in evidence during part of the incident.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all hon. Members would prefer accurate information to be placed in the public domain? The information had to be accurate for the shareholders of Westland. Would it not have been better if, instead of leaking a small part of the Solicitor-General's letter to do the most damage to a colleague, there had been a delay so that the reply of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), which was accepted by the Solicitor-General, and the evidence for which the Solicitor-General had asked, could also be released so that the shareholders could make a proper judgment?
The Prime Minister: I think that it is essential to get into the public domain the fact that there were possible inaccuracies which were relevant to that situation. I accept at once that it would have been better if a statement had been made or if the information had been released in a different way.
Mr. Dick Douglas: The Prime Minister has given us certain detailed information as to the factual accuracy of what happened. Can the Prime Minister help me as I am a layman and not a lawyer and, as I understand it, the Solicitor-General's expertise is in legal matters? What vital legal consideration was at stake on this issue? Did the Solicitor-General know that his letter would be leaked?
The Prime Minister: In the letter which I quoted, and which the hon. Gentleman knows has been released fully into the public domain, the Solicitor-General said, in respect of what my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence had written:
"It is foreseeable that your letter will be relied upon by the Westland Board and its shareholders.
Consistently with the advice I gave to the Prime Minister on 31 December, the Government in such circumstanes is under a duty not to give information which is incomplete or inaccurate in any material particular."
That is because of the prospectus point.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Prime Minister aware that when in future the people of Britain examine these days, they will say that the Prime Minister did not tell the truth? Is the Prime Minister aware that in 1963 Mr. Profumo, in admitting to the House that he had deliberately misled it, was found to be in contempt, and that he admitted his contempt? Does the Prime

459
Minister not accept that this matter would be best dealt with by the Committee of Privileges, which is in a position to find out the nature of the contempt that has taken place?
The Prime Minister: I totally reject and resent the hon. Gentleman's assumption.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Is the Prime Minister aware that, whatever the faults of the Government in handling this situation—and there have been grave faults — nothing justifies the farrago, the hypocrisy, the humbug and the cant that we have had to endure from right hon. and hon. Labour Members?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Throughout, I thought it absolutely vital that, as Westland had the choice, it should be able to make that choice on the basis of accurate, and not misleading, information. That will continue to be our policy.
Mr. Terry Davis: Does the Prime Minister think that it should need an inquiry for her to learn what had been authorised by a member of her Cabinet?
The Prime Minister: Had I attempted not to have an inquiry and said, "I will do it internally," right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been the first to criticise.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the general judgment will be that we have had a candid speech? It was clearly in the national interest, and in the interest of the company, that the information should have been discussed. All we are talking about is the manner of the disclosure, and that is an essentially trivial and minor matter. Does my right hon. Friend also accept that the electorate will not easily forget those who perpetuate this matter out of narrow, personal and political interest?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I only add one thing—I wish that the manner of the disclosure had been different and more orthodox.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Prime Minister has told the House that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry authorised what she called "material elements" in the Solicitor-General's letter, and not the whole letter. The Prime Minister said that this was covered by Downing street. Can the right hon. Lady tell the House to whom Mr. Ingham is accountable and who decides his standing orders?
The Prime Minister: I have looked carefully at the statement, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to look carefully at the statement to see what was agreed and what was accepted. It was drafted absolutely in accordance with the report that I received. I should like to say that Mr. Ingham has served successive Governments with devotion and dedication, and I have great confidence in him.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: My right hon. Friend did not mention this in her statement, but may we take it that the writer of the letter, the Solicitor-General, gave his approval in advance that part of the letter should be selectively leaked to the press?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir, and I deeply regret that.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Prime Minister said that she feels that the information in the letter could have been made public in other ways than through a leak. Can the Prime Minister say in what ways it should have been given to the press?
The Prime Minister: It is now a hypothetical question. The alternative way would have been to make a straight statement. As the hon. Gentleman knows, things were not easy at that time. The people concerned—I say again that I was not consulted—were up against a severe time constraint, as I said in the statement.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend find it remarkable that the Opposition's indignation on the question of leaks is selective? Why, for instance, do we not hear about the leak of Sir Raymond Lygo's letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)? All this hot air amounts to the fact that if a leak will damage the Government the Opposition will highlight it, and if it does not damage the Government they will ignore it completely.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I repeat again that I believe it was right not to have potentially misleading information at a time when important commercial decisions were about to be taken which involved the future of a particular company.
Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance now that when she has "teased out" the details, as she describes them, she will tell the House exactly when she was told of her officers' involvement in the disclosure?
The Prime Minister: I set up an inquiry to find out the facts. I discovered most of the facts when the inquiry had been reported.
Sir Peter Hordern: It has been known for many years that the people who stand in the greatest danger in this place are Lobby journalists. They risk being run over and tripped up by Cabinet Ministers and others trying to tell them secrets. Of course it would have been better to make an open statement at the time, but we are making too much fuss about a tiny company—one about the size of a moderate hotel in north London. It is time that we got on with some proper business.
The Prime Minister: As I understood it, we had a clear duty to see that accurate and not misleading information was put into the public domain at the time. My right hon. and learned Friend carried out that duty, and I agree that his judgment of getting it into the public domain was right. but I did not like the way in which it was done.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Because of the wholly unsatisfactory and unconvincing nature of the Prime Minister's statement and replies this afternoon, I wish to give you formal notice that I shall, at the appropriate time this afternoon, seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a statement to make.

Departmental Minute
4.20 pm
Mr. Speaker: Following points of order yesterday, I have looked at the further document handed in by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) yesterday which purports to be an extract from the official minute of the meeting held on 17 October between the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Sir John Cuckney. I note that there are only minor differences between this extract, and the words quoted by the hon. Member from the minute which he said he was using when he put his original point of order to me on Monday.
These differences do not affect the ruling I have already given that the passage in the speech of the Secretary of State, of which complaint has been made, was not a quotation. It is to be expected that if an accurate account is to be given to the House of a meeting, doubtless some words will be found to be common to both the account and any record of that meeting. But our rule is concerned solely with quotation, and I have ruled that there was no quotation on this occasion.
I confirm what I said yesterday. I am not responsible for looking behind what is said in the House to check whether words used by Ministers are also to be found in official documents. It would put an impossible burden on any Speaker to ask him to do that. I intend to continue to uphold the house's rule on this matter as set out in "Erskine May" which has now been quoted several times, and in so doing, I shall be continuing to act in exactly the same way as my predecessors have done.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have made my ruling and nothing arises.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I merely wish to thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have another point of order altogether.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take it after the business statement.

Business of the House
4.22 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a business statement. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 27 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Airports Bill.
TUESDAY 28 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Social Security Bill.
Motion on the London Regional Transport (Levy) Order.
WEDNESDAY 29 JANUARY — Opposition Day (5th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the leader of the Liberal party. The subject for debate to be announced.
There will be a debate on a motion to approve the recommendations of the House of Commons (Services) Committee Report 1984–85 relating to research assistants.
THURSDAY 30 JANUARY—There will be a debate on the Army on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 31 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Housing and Planning Bill.
Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. When are we likely to have a debate on the public expenditure White Paper? Will he reassure us that there will be a debate on the White Paper on the Channel fixed link well before the signing of the treaty between France and Britain in about three weeks' time? Does he agree that it would be intolerable if Britain were tied in to a binding treaty before Parliament had had a chance to give its view on the issue and vote on it?
Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that there is an early statement on Denmark's position in the EEC now that the Danish Parliament has rejected the reform package? Finally, when will the House get an opportunity to debate the Green Paper on rate reform?
Mr. Biffen: Perhaps I might answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions in reverse order. A statement will be made on the rate reform proposals. Perhaps through the usual channels we could then consider the appropriate time for a debate. I shall of course draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to what the right hon. Gentleman said about Denmark and the EC in the context of the reform package. I recognise the continuing interest for another debate on the Channel tunnel in the context of the White Paper. I do not think that there is any likelihood of the treaty becoming effective before the House has considered the matter. Finally, I hope that we might be able to consider further through the usual channels a debate on public expenditure.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend is aware that the textile and clothing industries employ one in 10 of those employed in manufacturing in Britain. I am sure that he is also aware that the multi-fibre arrangement is at a critical stage. If the Danish Parliament is able to stand up for the best interests of the Danish people, will he ensure that this Parliament has an opportunity to express its views on how the MFA is going and the European approach before any agreement is signed?
Mr. Biffen: I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety about some of the European Commission's proposals. The best thing that I can do is refer his remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. David Steel: Would it be convenient for the Leader of the House to know that, in view of the number of questions that the Prime Minister has just failed to answer, I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) intend to provide the House with an opportunity to debate the matter further next Wednesday?
Mr. Biffen: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for filling the tantalising gap that had been left in my reference to Wednesday's business.
Sir Trevor Skeet: Does my right hon. Friend remember that on 16 December we had a debate on science which was rather heavily interrupted by two very long statements? Is he aware that, since then, three important scientific publications have been put before the House? May we have another debate in Government time to discuss these matters fully and effectively?
Mr. Biffen: Of course I should like to consider the request of my hon. Friend, embellished as he now is with a knighthood. However, I do not want to give rise to too high expectations for too soon.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Does the Leader of the House remember being in the Chamber on Tuesday when the Secretary of State for Social Services made a very bad and unsatisfactory statement about Crown immunity? Is he aware that it was reported yesterday that 64 people had been made ill by salmonella poisoning? Does he agree that the case for abolishing Crown immunity is stronger than ever? Is it not time that we had a debate on the subject?
Mr. Biffen: I know that all of these things are in the eye of the beholder, but I thought that my right hon. Friend made a measured and thoughtful statement and that the right hon. Member made an intemperate riposte. However, I know that he has a long-standing and sincere interest in this issue and I shall draw his remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Tony Marlow: As, somewhat unsurprisingly, consistently and totally regrettably, the European Community seems to be operating with an illegal budget, may we have a debate so that we do not have to condone that illegality by forking out for what it is asking for?
Mr. Biffen: I would not like Liverpool and the EC to find an unintended similarity. My hon. Friend raises a significant point and I shall refer it to my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that, when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was Home Secretary, he made a clear commitment to end by the end of 1983 the routine use of police and court cells to hold unconvicted and unsentenced remand prisoners? As police and court cells have continued to be used routinely virtually every night since to hold such people in appalling conditions and at great expense, may we now have a debate on the matter?
Mr. Biffen: I do not have before me the exact terms of the commitment to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but he will know that our exchange takes place in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and I am sure that he will have taken note of the hon. Gentleman's question.
Dr. Alan Glyn: The contract for pharmacists cannot be implemented without primary legislation, which was not forthcoming in 1985. When will such legislation be introduced?
Mr. Biffen: I shall look into that point.
Mr. Max Madden: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the widespread anxiety in the textile and clothing industries about the implications of the renewal of the MFA? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a statement is made after next week's meeting of the Council of Ministers, which will discuss further the mandate for renewing the MFA? Will he also note the requests made in an early-day motion signed by me and others?
[That this House, recognising the vital importance of the textile and clothing industry for the United Kingdom's balance of trade and as the employer of one in 10 of all those working in manufacturing industry, emphasises the damage that would be done to the industry by any failure to secure an effective renewal of the Multi Fibre Arrangement; views with alarm the terms of the European Economic Community's draft negotiating mandate which would inevitably permit an increase in imports, including a diversion of imports from better-protected markets to the United Kingdom; urges Her Majesty's Government to insist on a European Economic Community mandate which fully protects the interests of the British industry; and demands that no final decision is reached in Brussels until the matter has been further debated in the House.]
It demands that the House debates the issue before the mandate is finalised so that the views of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House can be expressed before a decision is made.
Mr. Biffen: I have, of course, familiarised myself with the terms of the early-day motion to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and with the considerable number of signatories that it possesses. The best thing that I can do, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), is to have the matter referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, so that he may take account of the points raised.
Mr. Robert Banks: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on tourism in the United Kingdom. Will he give the House an early opportunity to debate that important report and to discuss its findings?
Mr. Biffen: That is certainly one of the many claims upon the time of the Floor of the House that are made by the reports of Select Committees. I shall take account of what my hon. Friend says, but he will understand that I have real difficulties, because there are so many reports. As far as possible we must include them in our more general considerations.
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this is an Opposition Day. I shall call the hon. Members who have been standing, but I hope that they will ask brief questions.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: In view of events in the early hours of Tuesday morning, which led to the temporary exile of my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), has the Leader of the House looked at the early-day motion in my name calling for more time to be given to debate the Welsh rate support grant.
[That this House regrets the failure of Her Majesty's Government to make sufficient time available for debating in the House the rate support grant order for Wales representing as it does the major allocation of resources to local Government, with far reaching consequences for ratepayers and the level of services; and calls for a minimum allocation of half a day's debate for this order in future, so as to ensure the opportunity for the expression of the points of view of all political parties representing Wales in this House.]
Mr. Biffen: Exile is the inevitable lot of political revolutionaries. I am sure that, although the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) merited all that happened to him that morning, the House appreciates the difficulties that arise in the consideration of the Welsh rate support grant. There are many established political interests, which seek to be called during debates on the matter. I shall certainly do what I can in the future.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is appalling that we do not yet know the subject for debate on the Liberal Supply day motion? Does my right hon. Friend consider that the confusion that arises in the alliance is evidenced by the fact that the alliance voted for the local Government Bill on Second Reading and against it on Third Reading?
Mr. Biffen: In spirit, my hon. Friend is compelling on both points, but he is on stronger ground on the second.
Mr. David Alton: In view of the debate on Wednesday about the position of research assistants in the House, does the Leader of the House recall the assurances that he gave me and my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) that when the debate was held it would cover the position of lobbyists who may hold passes as research assistants. Will the Leader of the House give an opportunity to discuss the matter on Wednesday?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly look into the matter and I shall be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend believe that generally we should get back to reality? Will he find time to debate a motion that the House recognises and takes note of the recent report of the chief economic advisers to the National Westminster bank, which concluded that only four other nations in the world can now match Britain for economic growth, price
466
stability and a strong balance of payments, and recognises that encouraging enterprise and individual initiative, and ensuring that the state is the servant, not the master, is the best way to economic prosperity?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes an excellent summary of the formidable case for the Government's economic policy. He has only to await the Budget and the debates following it for an opportunity to deploy it more fully.
Mr. John Ryman: Is the Leader of the House aware of the continuing scandal of the National Coal Board refusing to accept the decision of the independent colliery review procedure tribunal, which is this week conducting a hearing into the proposed closure of Bates pit in Blyth? I received a letter from Mr. McGregor about the matter only today. Is the right hon. Gentleman now in a position to make a statement on behalf of the Government about the matter?
Mr. Biffen: We always have these good-natured exchanges week after week after week. I wonder what happens? Do they appear in a provincial newspaper, or is the National Coal Board paralysed at the prospect that they will be terminated? However, I shall certainly look into the matter.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: In the hope of saving the Leader of the Opposition from moving his motion under Standing Order No. 10, may we have a debate next week on leaks, and leaks that are not leaks? We could then go into the history of leaks that have occurred under Governments of both sides, certainly since I have been in the House.
Mr. Biffen: I am essentially a traditionalist as well as a creature of the usual channels. If the Leader of the Opposition says that he will do something, I believe that I should wait and see what he does.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see columns 41 to 43 of Monday's Hansard? In the answer to the question that I asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment it was revealed that 50 constituencies had a reduction in unemployment of more than 5 per cent. As that is such important news and as so many jobs are now being created, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on that important subject, especially as Leicester, East has had an 8·37 per cent. reduction during the past 15 months? That is good news to tell.
Mr. Biffen: Leicester, East is, fortunately, served by an excellent Government and a sound Member of Parliament. However, given the restraints that we have on these matters, my hon. Friend will have to make those arguments in the Budget debate.

Westland plc
4.37 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order Order No. 10, to discuss a matter of urgent public interest, namely,
"the circumstances surrounding the publication of classified information relating to the future of Westland plc."
The matter is specific and important because it relates to the furtive activities and future activities of Ministers and to the Prime Minister's counterfeit inquiry into the leak of the Solicitor-General's letter of 6 January.
The matter is urgent because it is essential that the House and the country, having heard evasions from the Prime Minister today, should have a speedy opportunity to secure more precise and more candid answers to the many questions about the conduct and methods of the Government than we have had hitherto.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman 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 urgent consideration, namely
"the circumstances surrounding the publication of classified information relating to the future of Westland plc."
I am satisfied that the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman is a proper matter for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. Does the right hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?
The leave of the House having been given, the motion stood over until the commencement of public business on Monday 27 January.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 10 FEBRUARY
Members successful in the ballot were:
Mr. Alan Haselhurst
Sir David Price
Mr. J. F. Pawsey

BILL PRESENTED
  HOUSING AND PLANNING
  Mr. Secretary Baker, supported by Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mr. John Patten and Mr. Richard Tracey, presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to housing, planning and local inquiries; to provide financial assistance for the regeneration of urban areas; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 63.]
Opposition Day
[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Gartcosh Steel Mill
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.39 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
  That this House, recognising the fundamental importance of the steel industry to the economy of Scotland and the record of Gartcosh in the production of top quality strip steel for the British and European markets, calls on the Government to recognise that Ravenscraig and Gartcosh cannot be treated as separate entities, to extend the present guarantee given to Ravenscraig to Gartcosh and to halt the closure of the plant.
  The debate is about the future of the cold rolling mill at Gartcosh, the jobs of 700 men, and the future of the village and a community. All hon. Members will accept that that is sufficient to justify concern, but the debate goes well beyond that. We are talking about the future of steel, both north and south of the border, Government attitudes to our industrial base in Scotland, and the Government's ability to comprehend, reflect and feel for opinion in Scotland. At the beginning we want to emphasise that we in the Labour party have a complete commitment to the continued operation of the five integrated steel plants at present being operated by British Steel. Ravenscraig is one of them, and it must have a secure future. That is essential and non-negotiable.
  I know that the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry will say that the Government support the continuance of the five sites. However, the guarantee that has been offered is limited, qualified and inhibited. It has a three-year time limit running from April 1985. The continuance, stability and worth of that guarantee are essential. I am genuinely sorry that only one Conservative Back-Bench Member is present—the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The hon. Gentleman should appreciate and make clear to the House that few Scottish Members can take part in the debate because his colleagues in Committee on the Housing (Scotland) Bill have opposed a sittings motion which would have allowed the Committee to adjourn and Scottish Members serving on it to be present for the debate.
  Mr. Dewar: There are not exactly 100 per cent. of Scottish Conservatives involved in that Committee. Moreover, I understand that there has been a disagreement between the usual channels. We requested that the Committee adjourn, but conditions were made which could not be agreed. Therefore, if we are to apportion blame in that petty fashion, we must bear in mind the two sides of the matter. What is important is what happens when we vote tonight. Then Conservative Members' interest in the matter will be assessed.
  I am particularly interested in the three-year guarantee, and I hope that the Secretary of State will say something about his personal position on it. There have been changes in the formulation, and the words used have been varied.

  469
  The phrase "at least", for example, has crept in on one or two occasions. The Secretary of State may be able to say a word or two about that, as a subsidiary theme.
  We are worried because it is extremely easy to be cynical about that guarantee with its limitation and to argue that it suits British Steel. It allows some essential restructuring to take place, and at the end of three years the company will be able to strike out the strip mill and say, as it has said on many occasions, that in the circumstances two are better than three.
  There is a suspicion in some quarters that the three-year guarantee suits the Government because it postpones the evil day of decision making until after the general election. The fears that I am reflecting have been reinforced by rumours about the Dalzell plate mill, and the failure in the past to invest in new coke oven capacity at Ravenscraig. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State could say something reassuring about the Dalzell plate mill, which is important for any future for Ravenscraig.
  I wish to make it clear that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I certainly do not want to join the cynics. We want the guarantee to have worth, to hold, and to be extended permanently. We want to guard against the possibility of any future Government being presented with a virtual fait accompli, and a sharp and soulless accountant arguing that Ravenscraig's future cannot be on the agenda for management reasons.
  The best way to lay those fears at rest is for the Government to give an unmistakable, unambiguous signal that they believe in the future of the Scottish steel industry, and in Ravenscraig. The way to do that is to intervene and reverse the decision to close the Gartcosh mill. That is essential, if uncertainty is to end.
  We cannot separate Gartcosh from Ravenscraig, as the Government are suggesting, in support of British Steel. Gartcosh takes 25 per cent. of the total steel output and 31 per cent. of hot rolled coil. The plants are connected by industrial logic and political necessity. I shall refer to other pressing arguments, which the Secretary of State will know.
  One is that Scotland's industrial prospects must depend to some extent on the existence of a steel industry that can flourish and serve our future manufacturing industry. Our anxiety about the loss of more than 160,000 manufacturing jobs since the Government came to power will be common to all hon. Members. Strip steel is basic to any hope of recovery.
  It must be a disincentive to someone wishing to found manufacturing capacity to say "You are welcome, but you will have to bring your strip steel either from Europe or from the south of the United Kingdom. There is no capacity for producing it in Scotland." That will not appeal to an incoming industrialist, and it is not logical for British Steel. Presumably, the hot rolled coil from Ravenscraig will go south for finishing, involving transport costs, and anyone in Scotland who wishes to use strip steel will have to cart it back to Scotland. That is not sensible.
  British Steel and United Kingdom industry as a whole will face problems with capacity if we lose Gartcosh. I recognise that these arguments are subjective, and I do not deny it. I recognise that there will always be two sides to the argument, but there seems to be a pressing and
  470
  persuasive case that there could be a bottleneck in the production of fully-finished steel. We shall not have potential capacity.
  We are constantly hearing talk about loading the remaining finishing mills to 95 per cent. capacity. That is open to grave doubt, given the testimony from Japanese and European experience. If, for example, Nissan coming to Washington in County Durham starts to increase demand for strip steel in the motor car industry, and if General Motors is successful in building up its United Kingdom content, there is a real danger that we shall not be able to meet that demand. In the end, exporters of steel to the United Kingdom will rejoice and gain advantage. That would not be in the national interest.
  The Scottish Affairs Select Committee had an extremely useful session with Sir Robert Haslam and Mr. Scholey of British Steel. That point was put firmly to British Steel by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst), who is unfortunately ill. Mr. Scholey said:
  "Could I just add this: basically 30 per cent. of our production at this moment is export. We will be very happy to substitute some of that percentage for home-based business, whether it is through Nissan or whatever."
  In other words, he seemed cheerfully to assume that some export business could be dropped overboard to make room for any increase in domestic demand. That seems to bear out our worries. By implication he accepted that, without Gartcosh, there is a potential problem in terms of the capacity that will be left at the cold production end.
  The same argument applies to the possible lost orders that will result from the closure. Anyone who has read the documents will know that British Steel has said that lost orders will not amount to more than 2,500 tonnes per annum, and that it hopes to overtake that. Gartcosh has an excellent record with Ford (United Kingdom), Ford (Germany), BMW and Austin Rover, and its customers are satisfied. With the closure of Gartcosh, through no fault of anyone, there will be a two or three-year period when strip steel will come through the ingot route, not through continuous casting, so British Steel must run the risk of a considerable dip in orders for strip steel. That will be a direct result of the mistaken decision to dispense with Gartcosh.
  The signs are there for all to see. That case has been fiercely argued, not just by the stewards but by many other people with considerable experience of the steel industry. We know from leaked documents that there appears—I put it no higher than that, because I accept that documents can sometimes be misleading—to be a substantial downturn in orders from the domestic market for strip steel since the Gartcosh announcement was made. We know that Austin Rover, for example, is now sourcing from Belgium. It will be said that is merely a safety device to make sure Austin Rover is not dependent upon one supplier, but there seems to be a great deal of evidence that the order book will be at risk if we put ourselves in this uncertain position over the next two or three years.
  The substantial downturn is not some sort of routine fluctuation. I am sorry to say that British Steel management makes that argument, but that is merely a determination to shuffle off awkward facts by a group of people hell bent on the closure of Gartcosh. I remind the Minister that the Steel Industry Management Association, in the introduction to its well argued and technical rebuttal of the case for closure, says:

  471
  "BSC may be significantly short of rolling capacity to produce even the modest tonnages which they forecast over the next five years."
  That is a risk we should not run, but it is a genuine risk. I know my view on that has support in all parts of the House, and I am grateful for that.
  In accepting the argument for closure, Ministers are accepting British Steel's contentions, put firmly at meetings with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). It was put bluntly to us that British Steel does not see any recovery in demand in the foreseeable future. If the Government are prepared to accept that decision, they are stripping of all credibility the economic case that they will present at the next election. It is a desperate message of depression and recession if we accept that we are to get rid of Gartcosh because demand is not going to improve for such a basic commodity as strip steel. A great mistake is being made.
  The Government are facing a key decision which will fundamentally influence how Scotland sees not just this Administration, but the system of government operated by the Conservative party. The tragedy and the mark of the Government is that they are full of inflexible obstinacy. I say with no great pleasure that we are left with the rather sick feeling that much of the talk about open-minded consideration of the evidence has been no more than a sham. I was genuinely disappointed when, within hours of his appointment to his present office, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) let it be known that there was unlikely to be any change in the Government's attitude. That gave the impression he would be no more than a spectator as the nails were hammered into Gartcosh's coffin.
  No doubt the Government hope that they will get away with what is a sin of omission, that they will be able to sit tight and do nothing and let British Steel close the plant. In many ways Government policy is the root cause of the problem, and I do not mean that just in terms of the recession, the fall in demand, that they have created. I remember the first meeting that I and my hon. Friends had with Sir Robert Haslam and Mr. Bob Scholey. They went to great lengths to say, "We are trading profitably." They were ultimately persuaded to set a figure of about £11 million as the cost of keeping Gartcosh open, and that has subsequently been confirmed in evidence to the Select Committee.
  They went on to say that that was incompatible with their policy, not because carrying that burden would stop them moving towards profitability—they were talking about a target of £200 million a year—but because that was an indadequate target, given their instructions that they were to prepare and drive towards privatisation of British Steel's mainstream activities. I fear that is one of the conditioning factors and one of the root causes of the present management's attitude. There is nothing in the subsequent record to rebut that presumption, and I am sure many of my hon. Friends hold that view as well.
  The House will have to make its own judgment. It is extraordinary that the proposition to close Ravenscraig is a political one. We make no complaint about that—in fact, we applaud it—but to say the closure of Gartcosh is not a political decision is false. It is worthless, indefensible and inexplicable, because the Gartcosh
  472
  closure is a policital decision. There is no doubt that the circumstances dictate that. Anyone who has lived in Scotland for the last two months will know that. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not know it, his unfortunate Back Benchers certainly do.
  There is every reason for the Government to think again. There is evidence in plenty. The stewards have presented an unusually well informed case, but it may be that they are thought to be too parti pris—they have a vested interest in a certain decision.
  I have referred to the Steel Industry Management Association document. The Scottish Trades Union Congress and a host of other organisations have all pointed to the dangers that I have tried to sketch.
  We also have a report from a Select Committee that looked carefully and honestly at the evidence. I would never accuse the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) of dishonesty, whatever else I might accuse him of. The Select Committee report recommends exactly the terms of the motion in the name of the Opposition. It is supported not only by Labour Members. but by the hon. Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie), for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson), for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), and I think I am right in saying that the hon. Member or Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) wants to be associated with it. I understand that to be the position.
  Mr. Barry Henderson: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's last comments.
  Mr. Dewar: I am staggered. I am sometimes accused of taking a somewhat oversimplistic view of life. I took the view that, because the hon. Gentleman had signed the report, I was able to claim that he supported its contents. I find that quite extraordinary. When we see the hon. Gentleman's name on a report, we shall have to ask him whether he meant to sign it or whether it was some sort of accident.
  I press upon the Minister that there is convincing evidence. The Select Committee report was carried by hon. Members from both sides of the House, and I should not forget that a Liberal party member also signed the report. There is also Scottish public opinion, and that is not unimportant.
  I am sure hon. Members will have seen the Systems 3 poll in the Glasgow Herald. It was taken at the beginning of January. Some 80 per cent. of the people polled said they thought Gartcosh should remain open and 3 per cent. backed the Government in thinking it should be closed. I recognise that the Government are probably depressed to know that their standings in the rating is 15 per cent—fourth place. The 3 per cent. figure in the poll should remind them that if they get things wrong, they will go even lower. No doubt they will try to discount it all with professional flair. I invite Ministers and their Back-Bench supporters to look at some of the small print in that poll. One of the questions was:
  "If Gartcosh goes will Ravenscraig close in five years?"
  Some 59 per cent. of the people polled thought that was very or quite likely and only 13 per cent. thought it was unlikely. Of the Tories polled, 53 per cent. were with the majority. People were asked:
  "Under this Government does the steel industry have a future?"
  The replies were yes, 9 per cent., no, 77 per cent. Even among committed Tories, 50 per cent. thought that under

  473
  this Government the steel industry in Scotland had no future. They sadly accepted that this Administration will not or cannot do what needs to be done.
  These serious matters will have to be weighed. It may sound a little cynical to talk to politicians about politics, but it seems sensible to draw these matters to the attention of hon. Members. In this debate the Government have a last chance to draw back and take the right decision. The Gartcosh issue has united the whole of Scottish opinion. The Scottish Office is in danger of becoming an isolated, unrepresentative presence that will command no significant support even among the Government's own previous supporters.
  The Government must reconsider. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues to do so this evening. I ask Conservative Members to vote for the moderate, sensible and united motion that stands in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I know that on the Conservative Benches there is a deal of private sympathy for the motion and for the steel workers. It is vital that that private sympathy should be translated in the Lobby into public commitment. If the Government do not respond, it will be a contemptible dereliction of duty. It will be a tragedy for the men and their families, of course, but it will be a threat to the future of the steel industry, born out of obstinacy and an insensitive disregard for the needs of Scotland.
  5 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, 'to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof,
  recognises the fundamental importance to Scotland and to the United Kingdom as a whole of the Government's and British Steel Corporation's aim of restoring the Corporation to financial self-sufficiency and sustained profitability; and endorses the Government's decision not to intervene in the Corporation's commercial decision to close the Gartcosh plant.'.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and his hon. Friends would have us believe that they speak in the debate as champions of Gartcosh and of the steel industry in Scotland. I would have been prepared to pay more attention to that claim if their hon. Friends on the First Scottish Standing Committee considering the Housing (Scotland) Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]. If this is the crucial debate that the hon. Gentleman would have the House believe it is, it is less than credible that his hon. Friends should have precluded the adjournment of the Standing Committee. The fact is that no fewer than 19 Scottish Members out of 72 serve on that Committee, and they are precluded from attending the debate, or are forced to choose where their responsibilities lie. That is a disgraceful choice for them to be asked to make. It is Opposition Members who must take responsibility for that.
  Mr. Dewar: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a simple question? Did his Whip offer an adjournment simpliciter, or did he put on ridiculous conditions about making progress?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is well aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—that if he wants the House and the people of Scotland to believe that the
  474
  Opposition attach the greatest importance to the debate, Opposition Members should have co-operated in enabling Scottish Members to attend the debate.
  Mr. Dewar: May I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an absolute promise now that if he wants to send a runner upstairs to instruct the Patronage Secretary's representative to move a simple motion to adjourn the Committee, we shall not oppose it?
  Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friends have made it clear throughout today that they are anxious that all Scottish Members should be enabled to attend the debate. It has been the actions of the Opposition alone that have prevented that.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I am a member of the Standing Committee. At about 6 minutes to 1 o'clock a sittings motion was moved that the Committee should sit again at half-past 7 o'clock. Being a Scottish Member, the Secretary of State will know that when one is committed to travelling, that sort of warning is ridiculous. That is why the motion was talked out. I think that it would have been possible to have had a normal adjournment of the Committee.
  Mr. Rifkind: The adjournment of the Committee would have been very much in the interests of this debate, and it could have happened if the Opposition had permitted it.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden has said why he believes not only that Gartcosh should remain open, but that the Government should intervene. Let me make my position clear. In the short time that I have been Secretary of State for Scotland, I have received a number of requests from those interested in the matter to meet me and to discuss it. I have today seen the Scottish Trades Union Congress and other representatives. I have seen the Scottish Steel Industry Management Association. I have received representatives of the work force at Gartcosh, and I have met the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), who asked to see me last week. I listened with great care and enormous sympathy to what those people had to say, because all hon. Members on both sides of the House obviously share in the deep sympathy that is aroused when any plant is required to close, involving a loss of jobs.
  No doubt the hon. Member for Garscadden would be the first to admit that the question to which the House has to address itself is not a simple and straightforward one as to whether the decision to close Gartcosh is a matter for management. Everyone would accept that in normal circumstances the future of a plant with 600 to 700 employees must be determined by management and that there is very little precedent for Government to intervene.
  I remind Opposition Members that when the Glengarnock steel works closed under the Labour Government, that Government did not accept responsibility to intervene to prevent closure. They accepted that however regrettable, and however unfortunate, the closure might be, it could not be proper and right for the Government to intervene—
  Mr. Dewar: That was a different case.
  Mr. Rifkind: Of course that was a different case, because it was a different Government, therefore the hon. Gentleman comes to that conclusion. Of course he claims that the circumstances were different, because he is embarrassed to be reminded of that event. I am entitled to

  475
  point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Labour Government were not in the habit of intervening when plants employing 600 to 700 people were proposed for closure by management. [Interruption.] I am prepared to reply to the debate, but only if I am given the opportunity to be heard. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I am trying very hard to listen to the Secretary of State. I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will enable the House to listen to him.
  Mr. Rifkind: I think the House will accept—certainly a Labour Government accepted—that the only proper basis on which the Government could have intervened to prevent the closure of the plant was if it could be established that the decision to close Gartcosh would pre-empt the future of Ravenscraig. That connection has to be established if it is to be suggested that it would have been proper for Government to intervene. Therefore, the remarks that I intend to make, and the points to which I intend to respond, will be concerned with the central question whether it has been established that the decision to sustain Ravenscraig has been pre-empted by the proposals for Gartcosh.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: The Secretary of State will notice that there is a mention in the Opposition motion of both Gartcosh and Ravenscraig, but that there is no mention at all of Ravenscraig in the Prime Minister's amendment. It is a negative amendment, simply endorsing the closure of Gartcosh. Did the Secretary of State not fight within the Cabinet for the inclusion of a reference to Ravenscraig and the toughening up of the Government's commitment to Ravenscraig, or are we again lumbered with just another of Maggie's men of straw, like the Secretary of State's predecessor? Is it not time that Scotland had somebody to stand up and fight within the Cabinet for the rights of Scottish workers?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government amendment refers to the need and the desirability to achieve a viable steel industry for the country as a whole. The Government have already indicated the importance that they attach to Ravenscraig. I shall make some remarks on that during my speech if the hon. Gentleman will be so patient as to wait.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: The Secretary of State is making the case that the Government have no locus to interfere and that the decision must be one for management. How does he explain the Prime Minister's excuse for selling off the gas industry, which is that it would allow the industry to get away from Government interference? Does that not simply that the Government are able to interfere with a nationalised industry?
  Mr. Rifkind: Of course the Government can interfere. That is one reason why Ravenscraig is open today: A Conservative Government interfered to achieve that result. The question is not whether the Governmet have power to intervene, but what has been the view of successive Governments about the circumstances in which it is appropriate to intervene. Just as the Labour Government did not believe that the closure of Glengarnock should be prevented by them, so we do not believe that it would be appropriate to interfere with the decision of management on Gartcosh.
  476
  The crucial question is whether it can be substantiated that a decision on Gartcosh will pre-empt discussion on the future of Ravenscraig. A number of arguments have been put forward, and some of them have been made by the hon. Member for Garscadden.
  I should like to comment briefly on some of the main points that have been made over the months by the hon. Gentleman.
  It has been said, for example, that it would be unique in the Western world to have a hot strip plant that did not have a cold finishing facility adjacent to it. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman did not say this, but he is aware that this argument has been put, and I feel it right to comment on it. It would not be unique. There are plants in Japan, France, Italy, Canada and the United States where the cold finishing facilities are many hundreds of miles away from the original plant, so that is not a significant consideration. Ravenscraig's situation would not be unique in any way.
  It has been suggested on many occasions—indeed, it has been put to me at the meetings that I have had—that there are certain grades of steel that can be manufactured only at Gartcosh, and that if Gartcosh closes it will have profound implications for Ravenscraig. I have looked into this because it seems an important consideration, but I have been assured that that is simply not the case. There are no grades of steel produced at Gartcosh that cannot be produced at other cold finishing facilities elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  It is suggested that the profitability or competitiveness of Ravenscraig will be materially affected if its product has to be sent to Shotton for cold finishing purposes. On the face of it that may appear a persuasive argument, if the cold finishing facilities are some hundreds of miles away, but when we look slightly further into the steel industry in Scotland we find that this argument cannot be sustained. About 97 per cent. of the demand for cold finished steel in the United Kingdom does not arise in Scotland. Only 3 per cent. of the demand arises in Scotland itself. With regard to the ultimate destination of the product leaving Gartcosh, no less than 75 per cent. of it goes to customers south of Manchester. At the moment, only 25 per cent. of the product of Ravenscraig goes to Gartcosh. The rest does not, and has not done so in the past. That is an important consideration.
  Mr. Gavin Strang: The reason for that is that the Government have shut down so much of our manufacturing industry. It is important to retain the Gartcosh-Ravenscraig complex so that we will have that base for future investment in the manufacturing industry.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that at the moment only 65 per cent. of existing capacity in cold finished steel is utilised. He knows also that there is enormous over-capacity in this sector. If a vast proportion of the product of Gartcosh is being sold to customers in the United Kingdom south of Manchester, we must ask ourselves whether there will be any significant effect on the competitiveness of Ravenscraig if the cold finishing facilities at Shotton are used, as proposed by the British Steel Corporation.
  Another argument that has been put, and may indeed have been put by the hon. Gentleman today, is that the customers of the British Steel Corporation will go elsewhere as a consequence of the Gartcosh closure.

  477
  Neither the hon. Gentleman nor anyone else has produced evidence to support that assertion. On the contrary, Austin Rover, which is quoted as one of those companies which might, or would, go elsewhere, has, as I understand it, expressly denied any intention of doing so.
  It is suggested that even in the period since the announcement was made the British Steel Corporation's market share has declined. There have been various reports in the press during the past week or so suggesting that this is happening. This is, indeed, correct. There has, regrettably, been a decline in the corporation's market share. If we look beyond the headlines and examine what has been taking place, we find that the recent decline has been not simply in those areas which concern Gartcosh but over a whole range of steel products. The decline has more to do with the exchange rate than with any other single factor. The British Steel Corporation has indicated that it believes that the decline is over and that there is likely to be an upturn in the next couple of weeks. We would all welcome that.
  The arguments about customer disapproval or of a declining market share because of proposals involving Gartcosh, although undoubtedly put forward with great sincerity, have not been accompanied by hard evidence linking any trends or developments with any specific decision on Gartcosh.
  Mr. Richard Hickmet: On the question of the market share, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that for every Japanese car imported into this country, 1 tonne of British steel is correspondingly unused; steel which could and very probably would be produced at these strip mills, of which Ravenscraig is one? Would the argument about market share not be reinforced if those who are concerned about the Scottish steel industry demanded that those who work in it should themselves buy British cars rather than Japanese ones?
  Mr. Rifkind: Sadly, my hon. Friend is correct. It is indeed the case that if the people of Scotland and of the United Kingdom as a whole had been interested in and willing to purchase motor vehicles manufactured in the United Kingdom, not only would the British steel industry and the Scottish steel industry be very much stronger, but Linwood might still be open today. That is a factor that we all should bear in mind, now and in the future.
  One additional argument is used, most notably by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South. He has argued that the closure of Gartcosh could lead to a bottleneck, and that if the demand for steel products greatly exceeded what is currently predicted by the British Steel Corporation, Ravenscraig might not be able to be used to full capacity because there would be inadequate cold finishing facilities elsewhere to make use of that product. As a hypothesis or theory, there is logic in what the hon. Gentleman says. Where his argument falls down is that the hypothesis would be valid only if there was an expansion of demand far greater than anyone predicts or remotely contemplates at present. If there was a significant increase in demand, beyond that which the British Steel Corporation expects, it could be accommodated by Ravenscraig—and it would be very good for Ravenscraig if that were the case. If the predictions of level suggested by the hon. Gentleman
  478
  are the basis on which the bottleneck theory is put forward, he must substantiate it by some credible evidence about where the demand will come from.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: Does the Secretary of State realise that the implication of what he has just said is that Ravenscraig should be closed?
  Mr. Rifkind: No, it is not, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly why. It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Garscadden and others that the argument that Ravenscraig's future will be unaffected by the fate of Gartcosh is one in which no one apart from the British Steel Corporation and the Government believe. That is not correct. I put this to the House, and I believe it to be of considerable importance.
  The House will be aware that the closure of Gartcosh is part of a wider strategy announced last August, the aim of which is to bring the British Steel Corporation to a level of profitability that will make it financially self-sufficient within the current planning period and with no more state aid after 1985. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the European Commission, not known for its softness in these matters, not known for its sympathy on these issues—[Interruption.] If the House, and in particular the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian), would care to listen, this is good news that I am able to give Opposition Members. They may wish to hear it. They may not like to hear good news about the Scottish steel industry, but they might at least be silent for a moment.
  Mr. Bruce Millan: I am sorry that I put my name down to speak, because it means having to sit and listen to all this rubbish.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) must not keep interrupting from a sedentary position. The House wants to listen to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Rifkind: If the right hon. Gentleman, who was once the possessor of the office that I presently hold—
  Mr. John Maxton: He was a lot better than the right hon. and learned Gentleman is.
  Mr. Rifkind—had had to listen to seated interjections from someone who had been his predecessor as Secretary of State, I think that he would have taken a pretty dim view of the integrity and calibre of the person concerned. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to cast reflections upon the integrity of another right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Secretary of State may have been discourteous, but he did not stray out of order.
  Mr. Rifkind: I return to the point that I was trying to make, despite the interruptions from the Opposition. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the Commission, on advice from independent experts, accepted the viability plan based upon the agreed strategy, and that all the outstanding aid due to the British Steel Corporation was paid in December.
  The Commission's advisers said, when endorsing the viability plan, that the assumptions used by the British Steel Corporation were reasonable and consistent with the Commission's criteria. It went on to say that the

  479
  corporation would reach viability in 1987–88 by meeting the Commission's target profit. As to the forecast of sales, the Commission's independent consultants thought that any conservatism that there might be in domestic sales forecasts was more than offset by optimism over the projected level of export sales. The consultants significantly discounted the British Steel Corporation's overall sales forecasts to make allowances for this.
  I hope that that disposes of the argument that the BSC has been unduly pessimistic. The point that I want to emphasise is that the viability plan which the Commission's independent experts has endorsed is based upon the continuation of all five British Steel Corporation integrated works and all the other features of the strategy that was announced last August.
  Mr. Dewar: Of course I welcome good news, but I want to be sure what it is. It is not clear to me. Is the Secretary of State saying that Europe accepts the continuation of the five integrated steel plants until April 1988, but not beyond that, or is he saying something that would be very much more welcome—that the British Steel Corporation now accepts that it should retreat from its declaration that it wants to lose at least one of its strip mills.
  Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his acceptance of the fact that this represents good news. —[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have every intention of answering the hon. Gentleman's specific point. The Commission has said that the British Steel Corporation's strategy plan, announced last August, which involves the closure of Gartcosh, also involves the continuation of all five integrated plants. The Commission's view is that under this plan the British Steel Corporation will achieve viability. The Commission has concluded that it is a realistic strategy. It is well aware that the strategy involves the continuation of all five plants, including Ravenscraig. The Commission believes that that plan is realistic and that the corporation ought to be able to achieve viability by 1987–88. I welcome that. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends welcome it. I should have thought that the Opposition would also welcome it.
  Mr. James Hamilton: Am I not right in thinking that as soon as the steel industry makes a £200 million profit it will be ripe for privatisation? In addition, in my constituency and in that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) 460 men are being paid off on the steel tube producing side. That is also being prepared for privatisation. Is that not the Government's policy?
  Mr. Rifkind: The Government's policy is that the British Steel Corporation should become viable. That was also the policy of the last Labour Government. It is an eminently sensible proposal. This policy is being pursued, not only by the British Government, but by the whole of the European Community. All member states are seeking to achieve viability for ther steel industries in a world in which, sadly, there has been very great over capacity.
  Mr. Hickmet: Can my right hon. and learned Friend please explain to me why 140,000 people who worked for the British Steel Corporation should have been made redundant since 1980 or 1981 if those who are now working at Gartcosh continue to be employed? The viability of the British steel industry, which is now the
  480
  most successful and efficient steel industry in Europe. is being threatened by inefficient and overmanned steel processes. Does not the survival of jobs in my constituency depend upon a viable British Steel Corporation as a national entity?
  Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct when he says that it is essential that the British Steel Corporation should identify those markets where expansion is possible and where demand is likely to grow, and that it should concentrate upon responding effectively to those demands one is conscious of the fact that when a plant closes there are important social consequences for those concerned and for the areas in which they live. During the last two or three years the Government, both directly and indirectly, through the Scottish Development Agency, have made a significant contribution towards providing help for those areas that have been most affected by the decline in employment n the Scottish steel industry.
  The Scottish Development Agency initiated the Motherwell and Coatbridge projects. During the last two or three years some £24 million has been invested by the Scottish Development Agency in these projects. In addition, and partly through the work of the Scottish Development Agency, a large amount of private capital investment has been attracted to these areas. There has been about £64 million of private investment in the Motherwell area and about £24 million of private investment in the Coatbridge area.
  The British Steel Corporation proposes to invest £750,000 in assisting those areas that have been affected by the closure of steel plants. Over £5 million of European Community regional development fund assistance has been provided on the non-quota side to help Strathclyde. At the moment we are pressing the Commission for further help, which we hope will be concentrated more specifically in the areas primarily affected by the closure of Gartcosh.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that when the former Secretary of State for Scotland referred to the Coatbridge project—which was three weeks before the summer recess and four weeks before this announcement—I pointed out that the number of jobs that it was hoped would be achieved—800—was almost exactly the same as the number of jobs that might be lost at Gartcosh? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that the former Secretary of State said on that occasion that we should not assume that those jobs had already been lost?
  Mr. Rifkind: Yes, of course that is the case. However, the hon. Gentleman knows very well that the work done on these projects can be of enormous value. For example, I referred earlier to the closure of Glengarnock.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: It has already gone.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will alsp know that the work that has been done in that locality has created more jobs than were lost by the closure of the Glengarnock steel works under the last Labour Government.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the priority is to create new jobs, so that employment is available in that area? Is it not hypocritical and unfortunate that certain elements in the Labour party and the trade unions have chosen instead to concentrate upon media gimmicks and have refused to

  481
  negotiate with the British Steel Corporation and others who are in a position to help them to create jobs in the community?
  Mr. Rifkind: It must make sense for the Scottish Development Agency, the local authorities and others involved to co-ordinate their efforts to ensure the best prospect for new jobs. If there can be the same sort of success from efforts in Coatbridge, Motherwell and other areas affected by the closure as there was in Glengarnock from similar activities, that must be welcome to Opposition Members as well as to the Government.
  I appreciate that those who have taken part in the campaign to save Gartcosh in the last few months will be sadly and bitterly disappointed, but I believe that a number of valuable developments have arisen out of the campaign in that period. I attach importance in particular to the clear and explicit statements which the British Steel Corporation has made on several occasions and to various people that it does not believe that the closure of Gartcosh will in any way affect the viability of Ravenscraig or determine the future of Ravenscraig. It is of great importance that these statements have been made in such explicit and unambiguous terms, because in any discussions that may take place in future it will be important for it to have been clearly established that in the view of the corporation nothing that has happened, or will happen, in regard to Gartcosh will have any effect on the future of Ravenscraig.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden remarked at one stage that the reprieve, as I think he called it, for Ravenscraig announced last year was simply some device to tide the Government over until after the next general election.
  Mr. Dewar: I did not say that.
  Mr. Rifkind: That was certainly the impression that I obtained from the hon. Gentleman. If he would like to tell us what he said, I should be happy to listen.
  Mr. Dewar: I said that there was a cynical view that that was the case. I specifically went on to say, with some emphasis, that I did not want to believe that. I still do not want to believe it. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say something apart from the fact that the European Community agrees with BSC about Gartcosh, and produce some good news about a guarantee to Ravenscraig workers, I should be delighted.
  Mr. Rifkind: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now acknowledge that the conclusions of the European Community are good news. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The reluctance of Opposition Members is extraordinary. The answer is that the European Community, unlike Opposition Members, is not taking part in a political campaign. It has no interest in endorsing a BSC strategy that involves the continuation of all five integrated plants unless it honestly believes that that is a viable strategy and one that can lead to profitability for the British Steel Corporation.
  I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comment that he was referring only to cynics and that he was not seeking to suggest that the decision on Ravenscraig that was announced last year was simply some electoral device. I recollect that when the decision was announced in 1982 that Ravenscraig would not be permitted to close, the
  482
  Labour party argued that that was a short-term reprieve, and that once the election was over Ravenscraig would be doomed. After the election was over and this Government were returned, the matter was considered again by BSC last year, and it made an announcement that Ravenscraig was to be saved for at least three years. Many Opposition Members repeated the same old hoary statement that this was simply an electoral device to tide the Government over until the next general election.
  I say to Opposition Members and to the House that they should beware of the danger of creating a fundamental lack of confidence in the Scottish steel industry. Without any qualification, I say that I attach great importance to Ravenscraig and to the viability of the Scottish steel industry, which I want to see as a healthy and viable industry. I believe that the corporation can achieve viability with the continuation of all its five plants, including Ravenscraig, and I am delighted that the European Community has endorsed its judgment to that effect.
  I invite the House to oppose the motion and to support the amendment.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I say in all candour to the Secretary of State that his attempts to be convincing have failed entirely. I can give his words today no more credence than I gave to the words of his predecessor when he gave that assurance to me in the Scottish Grand Committee. The blandishments that he is offering to Lanarkshire, an area already suffering from high unemployment and which has totally unacceptable social conditions are, in the context of this debate, quite offensive. To tell us, in view of the devastation we have seen and are about to see if Gartcosh is closed, that the Government will help by way of the Scottish development agency and in other ways reminds me of the man who went along to Sweeney Todd and was assured by him that he was going to do him a favour by cutting his throat. I am afraid that such logic will not find much acceptance among the people of Lanarkshire.
  We are seeing not just the collapse of the steel industry but a Government pledged, and in many cases elected, to help small businesses now presiding over the collapse of more small businesses than ever before. The Secretary of State must have known as he spoke that Plan-It Precision Engineering in my constituency has written to him only this week indicating that it will be losing a number of jobs if the plant goes. That firm is typical of the small businesses in Lanarkshire which are so dependent upon Gartcosh. The House will therefore not be surprised that in Scotland—and this is reflected in all political parties and expressed by people who are politically committed and those who are not—BSC's argument about Gartcosh and the clear-cut Government support for that decision are found to be entirely unacceptable.
  The Secretary of State need not pretend that there is no responsibility on Government. On the day of the announcement the chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), endorsed it, and was supported by the then Secretary of State who had the effrontery to say that this was good news for Scotland. What has been the response? Papers such as the Sunday Post, which is not exactly the Morning Star of

  483
  Scottish journalism, told the Government on Sunday exactly what it thought. It published countless names of individuals in Gartcosh suffering from the decision.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth rose—
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I shall not give way because I wish to be brief, and hon. Members are fully aware of the hon. Gentleman's eccentricities in these matters.
  The fact is that the Secretary of State refused to address himself to the views of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which of course has a Conservative majority. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry likewise expressed a view last year, having taken evidence from the British Steel Corporation, and the Secretary of State must surely be aware—if he is not, everybody else is—that BSC made it very clear then that it wanted to close one plant, and that that one plant is Ravenscraig. For the Secretary of State to say that, apart from British Steel, nobody takes that view, is a nonsense that nobody accepts.
  I address myself to the very serious implications of the closure of Gartcosh even if there were not the overwhelming argument, which has clearly been sustained, about its relationship with Ravenscraig. Lord Young, one of the Secretary of State's colleagues in Cabinet, spoke in the other place a few weeks ago. He said:
  "For many years Governments have told unions that the way to jobs is through the high quality of work and responsible pay claims … We know that we have to compete and innovate so that people choose to buy the goods which British labour has created. That means competition on quality, reliability, design and consumer appeal. And we have to compete on price, too."—[Official Report, House of Lords—13 November 1985; Vol. 468, c. 27677.]
  On every single one of those tests, Gartcosh should be surviving. The record of the men and women in the plant has been absolutely outstanding and the Secretary of State should have acknowledged that record instead of selling the Scottish steel industry and its workers short, in the way that he did.
  I am not surprised, for, after all, the Secretary of State was in the Foreign Office as the Minister responsible for European affairs when decisions were taken about quotas that were absolutely tragic for the whole of the British steel industry, and especially, as we are now seeing, for Gartcosh and Ravenscraig.
  The Secretary of State referred to orders in the debate. I have tried in my letters with Sir Robert Haslam and in my letter to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to obtain the facts. So far, I have not succeeded, so I ask the question again. Will the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, who is to wind up, give us precise facts about orders lost to this country since the Gartcosh decision was announced? Will he confirm what everybody in British Steel knows, that imports have mounted since that decision? Will the Government stop trying to pretend to the House and the country that these things are not taking place? The situation will be exposed as easily as was that which led to the exposition that the House witnessed this afternoon. The Prime Minister was forced to make a statement in the light of events as they were uncovered. Events are being uncovered in this respect as well.
  The Government know that Austin Rover is placing orders with a Belgian company but pretend that they do not; they know that the order books suggest that not only orders but jobs are being lost to Britain. Therefore, I am
  484
  entitled, on behalf of the men and women of Gartcosh, to say that the workers' commitment to British ideals, industry and patriotism far exceeds those already established by British Steel and by a Tory Front Bench that appears to be determined to join in the cover up—a cover up that many people refuse to excuse.
  What will all this mean to Lanarkshire, to my constituency and to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the west central belt of Scotland. Closure would add to the appalling unemployment figures. In Lanarkshire, there is over 20 per cent. unemployment. In the districts and villages around Gartcosh, Moodiesburn and Stepps, male unemployment is at 16·8 per cent.; in Easterhouse and Garthamlock, it is 36·1 per cent.; in Coatbridge it is 20·4 per cent.; and Motherwell 20·9 per cent. If the closure goes ahead, the village of Gartcosh will have 32 per cent. male unemployment. To add to that another 1,000 unemployed people, as has been suggested by the Government, when we already have some of the biggest social and industrial problems in Europe is utterly repugnant. We shall continue to expose it.
  Why are the Government doing this? Why does this decision have the support of British Steel's propaganda machine? They tell us that it is because Gartcosh is costing £11·5 million a year, but it costs a great deal more than that to keep people unemployed. The reality is that the Government and the BSC are aiming at a £200 million profit next year and £300 million profit for the year after for one simple reason—to achieve privatisation. The price of that objective and obsession is far too high because it has to be paid in human terms.
  In "The Deserted Village" one Oliver Goldsmith wrote:
  "Ill fares the land, to hast'ning ills a prey,
  Where wealth accumulates, and men decay".
  If the Government continue to pursue their course on Gartcosh, may God forgive them because history will find it difficult so to do.
  5.46 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) because he has taken a prominent part in supporing the case of his constituency in the past year. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made an impressive speech and I am sorry that in his first major debate on the Floor of the House I have, for the first and, I hope, last time., to disagree with him.
  I have never been a great enthusiast of Select Committees and I think that everybody from the Whips Office downwards knows that. However much Select Committees inquire into Government activities, the reaction is the same. Little happens and nothing that is relative to the hard work put into the inquiries by the Select Committees. Nevertheless, in our detailed inquiry, we had one advantage over the Government because we were able to interview people in British Steel and the unions face to face, and that is valuable in evaluating the strength of the evidence.
  Last month, a substantial majority of the Select Committee favoured the report that came to the conclusion that there was a link between Gartcosh and Ravenscraig and that it should be retained. Some time ago, the Macmillan Government invested massively in cars, trucks and tractors. The steel requirements were to be met from Ravenscraig, which became the symbol of a new dawn for

  485
  heavy manufacturing in Scotland, to supersede the old heavy industries of shipbuilding, locomotive construction and heavy engineering.
  The new industry had its ups and downs, but the Ravenscraig complex remains that great symbol—the manifestation of the Scottish steel industry. British Steel wanted to close Ravenscraig and of course Gartcosh in 1982. The plants were saved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and the advice of the Select Committee. The complex worked through the miners' strike, with the workers showing great loyalty to their industry. Nevertheless, there was not a shred of evidence to show that BSC had changed its mind about the 1982 decision and would close Ravenscraig if the Government had not ordered otherwise.
  In the summer of 1985, rumours were rife and widespread that Ravenscraig was threatened again. Many of us visited Ravenscraig and met shop stewards and the management. We saw the plant and its obvious need for investment, particularly in new coke ovens. I decided then, as did some of my hon. Friends, that the Ravenscraig complex must be retained and given new investment. It was very welcome news when, in August 1985, the Government announced that they had ordered BSC to retain Ravenscraig for at least three years, but I was horrified that the BSC could use its commercial judgment to close Gartcosh. I still find it difficult, despite what my right hon. Friend says about differentiating between political decisions at Ravenscraig and the commercial decision on Gartcosh.
  How far can we go towards pruning Scottish steel? Do we stop at Gartcosh? What about Dalzell and the important plates for submarines? What about the whole complex of Ravenscraig? We have lost Glengarnock and now we have lost Clydesdale and Imperial, with a loss of 450 jobs on top of 700 at Gartcosh.
  What about the repercussions? What about the suppliers? We hear of the thousands who will be affected by the closure of Gartcosh. For instance, the South of Scotland Electricity Board sells 61 million units of electricity worth £1·7 million to Gartcosh. We know that the SSEB is already overcapacity in power, so great difficulty lies ahead for the board if Gartcosh goes.
  Will motor car manufacturers continue to take supplies from British Steel? We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about Austin Rover. The Select Committee did not have information on Austin Rover, BMW or Ford, and is still vague about what exactly Nissan will want, which may be crucial to the future of steel in Scotland.
  The steel industry, in a way, is an indication of a nation's industrial virility, and Ravenscraig without Gartcosh must be much more vulnerable than it would be if the two were together.
  I am very pleased that the Government, with British Steel, announced further investment for Ravenscraig—£10 million for a coal injection plant and £5 million for modifications to the No. 3 concast machine, plus silica welding of ovens. There seems to be some doubt, particularly on the shop floor, about whether in the long term this will be satisfactory.
  I would be greatly encouraged to hear the Minister say that there is to be more investment in Ravenscraig. I certainly welcome the fact that British Steel Industries is
  486
  bringing jobs to Scotland. I particularly welcome what it did in Glengarnock, but it has a great deal to do now in the Ravenscraig area. I feel that if Gartcosh closes and its fine workforce is disbanded, it will never reopen.
  Tommy Brennan and his team have fought a good fight, and deserve a better result. I know that Ravenscraig steel will, instead of going to Gartcosh, travel the long road or rail journey to Shotton in North Wales. I am unimpressed with British Steel evidence about transport costing and assurances that Shotton will never be fully loaded by coated steel from other plants to the exclusion of Ravenscraig.
  The Alphasteel concast machines will go to Llanwern to increase production there. Jolly good luck to the Welsh, except perhaps on the rugby field, but that is of no avail to the Scots, nor does it do them much good to know that the Alphasteel quota will be of more benefit to Lakenby than Ravenscraig.
  I was most impressed by the evidence given by the Steel Industry Management Association. Who is right—the Government, British Steel, SIMA, the unions or the Select Committee? The crux is really in British Steel's forecast for future demand. It seems pessimistic in view of the expansion for which we hope. If the forecasts are wrong, it will be too late to save Gartcosh.
  SIMA foresaw a grave risk, which I share. The Select Committee felt that the evidence of BSC was inconclusive. If the closure goes ahead it will be final. The saving of £11 million is seen to be crucial to British Steel, but the political and industrial implications are enormous. It may be the most expensive £11 million the Government will ever save. Many major decisions are based on judgment, and not strictly on an accountant's appraisal of a balance sheet. I doubt that we would be going ahead with the Channel tunnel if we looked only at facts and figures.
  We need a high degree of vision. That is extremely important. The same is true of British Steel. We need a value judgment to be made on Ravenscraig's importance to Scotland and the United Kingdom. Ravenscraig and Gartcosh are, in my view, one and should be retained with its skilled force.
  It is 21 years since I made my maiden speech on unemployment, particularly relative to Upper Nithsdale where it was, and is, very high. I have had a prime interest in unemployment ever since. I have always supported the Government and the Conservative party, but tonight I must protest that the Government have misjudged not only the industrial consequences but the political and social repercussions.
  I support the Select Committee's recommendation but must. however reluctantly, vote against the Government.
  5.56 pm
  Sir Russell Johnston: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on a cogent and brave speech. This is the most significant and specific debate we have had on Scottish economic matters for many years. If we are honest, we will admit that on many occasions the Chamber witnesses pyrotechnic displays of bogus indignation and spends its precious time indulging those who are more interested in scoring party points rather than in examining, because of its responsibilities, real problems in a thorough and fair way.
  As a Scot and a democratic politician, I regret that the Government, having the responsibility for the Gartcosh

  487
  closure, were unwilling to make time available to debate it, or the Select Committee's report on the closure, either on the Floor of the House or in the Scottish Grand Committee.
  The Labour party motion is not partisan. It bases itself on the recommendation of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. This was a conclusion it found difficult to reach, as we all know, and I see no point in berating Conservative Members about this. It was hard for some of them, like the hon. Member for Dumfries, to make that recommendation. I do, however, seriously criticise and condemn the Government for their unwillingness to debate it. Not only the Select Committee but a huge majority, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has said, will show the widest conceivable cross-section of Scottish opinion. Today, I heard that the Highland region meeting in Dingwall passed a motion in support of Gartcosh and wanted the matter to be debated. If Parliament is to be a place where issues of difference are genuinely argued through, that should have been done a long time ago, and not at the eleventh hour.
  Whatever the colour of the ideological aims of a Government, if they call themselves democratic and fail to respond to the reasoned, logical and carefully documented unexaggerated approach that Tommy Brennan has made on behalf of the work force, they incite blind, angry, bitter and unyielding opposition and weaken the capacity of any future Government to solve difficult and stressful problems in a sensible way.
  The Prime Minister, who gave much publicised tea to young unemployed people, is of course, an incredibly busy person—I am not saying this at all sarcastically—and is subject to a variety of unremitting stresses, but she was wrong, deeply wrong, to refuse to see Tommy Brennan and those who walked from Scotland to London to publicise their plight. As no one would debate the matter, it seemed the only way they could bring it to her attention.
  This is not a light matter or another example of the special pleading to which all hon. Members are regularly subjected. It is a central question about the future shape of the Scottish economy.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden has already made the basic case and, if I may say so without causing embarrassment to him, has made it very well. He has been supported most lucidly by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke).
  One of the problems with being some way down the list of speakers is that what one wants to say has been said. I do not believe in wasting time on repetition and I know that many hon. Members want to speak. I shall therefore briefly repeat three arguments, all of which were repeatedly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who was the Liberal Member on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I pay tribute to his dilegence.
  First, this decision is wrong for the Government in their own terms—their own terms being the primacy of the free market—to make decisions about the future of a crucial part of a key industry on the basis not of profitability but of wholly unreal profit targets, artificially sought with a view to sale. Incidentally, the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board happily breach the Government's terms on the primacy of the free market, and long may that happen. The Scottish Council (Development and Industry)
  488
  hardly comprises a group of militants. It is certainly interested in industrial efficiency. It says that the desired surplus target—this has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton) of £200 million is 50 per cent. better than the best in the world and 100 per cent. better than the average. Gartcosh is the clear victim of ideological prejudice.
  A couple of years ago, Members of the Liberal party met members of the BSC board. Plans were set out ard it was made clear that they were in response to the Government's wishes. We were told that BSC was on target. I said, "If that is possible for BSC as a state concern, why is it necessary to privatise? Has the steel industry not been an ideological football long enough?" I never received an adequate reply.
  It is interesting that, at a time when one's door is continually battered down by people from Guinness, Argyll and Distillers, no one from BSC ever appears. Perhaps that is because increasingly people do not believe BSC, especially its denial of the inevitable, inextricable link between Gartcosh and Ravenscraig.
  Secondly, the decision ignores future increased demand in the automobile industry. It proceeds on the assumption of no general economic recovery. It conceals the loss of markets at home and abroad. Those points have already been well made.
  Mr. Alex Fletcher: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that last year was yet another record year for car sales in the United Kingdom. The tragedy is that not enough of those cars were manufactured in the United Kingdom. Will the hon. Gentleman take that point into account?
  Sir Russell Johnston: We know that soon more cars will be manufactured in the United Kingdom, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher) wishes.
  hirdly, the decision will have a domino effect—that American phrase which means that, if one thing falls down, many others fall as well. At a certain stage, a stand must be taken in the general débâcle. The domino effect, when applied to Gartcosh and Ravenscraig, is appalling. The decision will affect the profitability of British Rail in Scotland. It will have a direct effect on the capacity to survive of the two ports on the Clyde and the Forth. The decision is already having an effect. Polkemmet will not be reopened I believe that that it should be reopened. The decision will undermine a basic part of Scotland's manufacturing capacity.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewer) said that this is a key decision, and how right he was. It demonstrates the Government's serious disinterest in the Scottish economy. As the hon. Member for Dumfries has said, there is a lack of vision. Not only the social consequences but the general consequences on the Scottish economy will be miserable, disruptive and expensive. No Scottish Government with economic powers would allow it.
  We all know that ecomonic forecasting is chancey yet the Government, as the Secretary of State has stressed, have committed themselves to a three-year guarantee for Ravenscraig. As the motion says. the guarantee given to Ravenscraig must be extended to Gartcosh. When the former Secretary of State for Scotland made the pledge, everyone thought that it included Gartcosh. The present

  489
  Secretary of State has accepted that the Government can intervene. Whether that has or has not been the practice of successive Governments has nothing to do with it.
  The Secretary of State spoke with the aggression of the guilty. The Government can act if they wish. I ask them to do so. If they do not, their lack of foresight and commitment to Scotland will justly reap massive retribution at the next general election.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Warren: The Select Committee on Trade and Industry, of which I am Chairman, has had opportunities to look at the BSC's work. It has been a pleasure to note the way in which the corporation improved its profits over the past six months. I congratulate the management and the workers.
  One of the most revealing features of the BSC—I speak personally on this point, not on behalf of the Select Committee—is the way in which the workers' devotion to their task has been increasing, especially in the three integrated steel plants at Port Talbot, Llanwern and Ravenscraig. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) referred to the link between Ravenscraig and Gartcosh. When I looked at what was happening at Ravenscraig, I assumed that we were talking about Gartcosh as well. I had no doubt about that. Gartcosh is part of Ravenscraig's future. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong, but no such error was ever made apparent to me as a member of the Select Committee.
  As a Conservative, I believe that we should look forward to the BSC moving towards privatisation. However, we are not debating that—we are debating whether organisations, such as those at Ravenscraig, including Gartcosh, could ever achieve what I understand are the requirements imposed on the BSC by the Government. What are those requirements? My understanding to about a first order of accuracy, is that the Government are looking for a profit of £300 million on £4 billion worth of sales. That sounds pretty good. I hope that BSC can achieve it. If it can, it will achieve something that its prime competitors in other parts of the world, like Nippon-Kolkan, Nippon-Steel and Thyssen are simply not able to achieve. Those competitors are turning over profits that are about a half or a third of those that the Government expect BSC to make if it is to be a saleable commodity. Surely, the BSC's strategy must be to produce those items that can be sold to make such a profit.
  Ravenscraig and Gartcosh simply do not have that ability. Ravenscraig will remain open, as the Government have said. I trust that that is because it is the only plant at which the BSC produces steel for the Trident submarines. Gartcosh would be kept alive by producing high-volume, relatively low-profit steel for car manufacture. It is not in the BSC's interests to sell that plant because it does not provide the profits that the Government want BSC to make.
  The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) asked about Nissan. Why is there silence about BSC's attempts to sell to Nissan? I am afraid that there is silence because of the nature of the product that must be made to produce the profit margins that the Government requires of BSC.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Warren: I am reluctant to allow interventions in what I regard as a Scottish debate, although I think that this is a United Kingdom question.
  Mr. Forsyth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Warren: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way. I want to be as brief as possible and I am afraid that I am already taking a lot of time. Other hon. Members want to speak.
  I hope that the Government will answer these questions. There is no doubt that output at Gartcosh is of high quality. One would not transport Gartcosh steel 340 miles to the gates of Port Talbot just to sell it to British Steel's plant if that were not the case. There is no question about the quality there. Llanwern and Port Talbot have their own cold mill. As I said, I have always regarded Gartcosh as part of the Ravenscraig complex. I am told by those who work at Gartcosh, although I would not expect them to say otherwise, that Shotton cannot match the quality of Gartcosh, so why transport the steel down there? The danger is that if the quality is not there, whatever Austin Rover says, it can go away tomorrow and will not come back. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) about a mill going away and no people being there to resurrect it is perfectly true. Once lost, skilled workers never return.
  Over the past year the workers at Ravenscraig and Gartcosh have achieved 14 records unequalled in any other part of the United Kingdom and I praise them for that. The argument that we can do away with Gartcosh and load Shotton and the other mills implies a loading of those mills to 94 per cent. of their installed capacity. It is not possible to operate such mills at that level of capacity without them breaking down and the customers going away. One will never be first source. One might climb aboard a second or even third source. Loading to such a capacity simply is not realistic. There is no doubt about it. If one looks at the other European companies which are in direct competition with the BSC, the best they can usually achieve is 80 to 85 per cent. I am told that the Japanese who went to Ravenscraig and Gartcosh and looked around, no doubt with their canny eyes slanted on opportunity first and advice second, let on to the workers at Ravenscraig that if one loads over about 85 per cent., it costs an extra £1 million in maintenance costs for every 1 per cent. over 85. Bang goes all the savings. There has to be more logic.
  If I am right in my information about the returns that British Steel is expected to provide, which I do not dispute as being fair and reasonable, there is no way that many parts of the BSC, including Gartcosh and Ravenscraig, can ever achieve those objectives. We must have a second look.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. David Lambie: The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) reinforced my belief that if the people who will be voting at the end of the debate have listened to the arguments, not only during the debate but during the investigations of the two Select Committees, the result would be not different. So far, only the Secretary of State for Scotland has spoken against the motion. The Secretary of State made great play about the fact that Governments close steelworks. He mentioned the fact that the Labour Government had closed Glengarnock steelworks. I know that he is new to the job, but he should

  491
  know that the Labour Government did not close Glengarnock. It was still there at the end of the Labour Government's turn of office. At that time we were hoping that by further investment and with the opening of the direct reduction plant at Hunterston we would have a new complex—the Glengarnock-Hunterston complex—again to make Ayrshire an important steel area in Scotland. Glengarnock steelworks was closed under this Government. The new Secretary of State must recognise that.
  The Secretary of State made great play about the fact that the steelworks at Glengarnock was closed and that we are no longer a steel producing area. He also said that we have had help from the BSC and from the Scottish development agency and that all the problems have now been solved. It is correct to say that we have had help. Many of the buildings have been refurbished and repainted. The environment has been improved. We now have a loch and a recreation area where trees and grass are growing, but the unemployment rate today is double what it was when the steelworks was there.
  Last week the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie) took a deputation from Cunninghame district council to meet the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). He was complaining about the economic situation in Glengarnock and was appealing for more Government aid. That aid has been refused by not only the Scottish Development Agency but the Industry Department for Scotland as well. I say to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) that if he believes the arguments about closing the steelworks and allowing BSC Industries to come in, he should go to Glengarnock and see the unemployment in that area, which is still over 25 per cent. and growing every day. I know that the Secretary of State is new to the job, but I put it to him that the same arguments used for closing Gartcosh will be put in two years to close Ravenscraig.
  In discussions about Scotland I often hear people say that Manchester and Birmingham are a long way off. They feel they cannot compete because of the distance between the Scottish production units and the markets. The British market is flooded with steel from 1,000 or 2,000 miles away and even from Japan, which is 7,000 miles away. There is no talk about distance there. It is a sorry day when we hear the new Secretary of State for Scotland using the old English argument that Scotland is on the periphery of the United Kingdom, is too far away from the golden triangle and can expect only the crumbs, green fields and trees and all the sporting and recreational activities that go with them. I do not mind that from an English Minister, but I object to that argument from the new Scottish Secretary of State.
  Mr. Rifkind: I think that if the hon. Gentleman reflects on what he has just said he will realise that he is being unfair. I was making exactly the same point. The fact that Ravenscraig already sells much of its product to purchasers south of Manchester means that its competitiveness will not be affected by the fact that the cold finishing will take place at Shotton. I was agreeing with the hon. Gentleman and making the same observation.
  Mr. Lambie: I thought that all the right hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments were in the opposite direction. He was not speaking about Ravenscraig, he was
  492
  listing the reasons for closing Gartcosh. I put that to the right hon. and hon. Members who were present during his speech.
  As Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs I have a duty to put our recommendation on the record. Although it has been mentioned, no one has stated exactly what was finally recommended by an overwhelming majority:
  "we are not convinced that Gartcosh and Ravenscraig can be treated as separate entities, as BSC asserts. We therefore recommend that any guarantee given to Ravenscraig be extended to include Gartcosh".
  That recommendation had all-party support. Only two hon. Members voted against the final report—the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). Those two hon. Members are completely discredited in Scotland and are completely out of touch not only with Labour party opinion in Scotland, but with Conservative opinion, as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Munro) has just shown.
  To show deep feeling is in Scotland about the closure of Gartcosh, the officials of the Conservative and Unionist Association in Cunninghame, South have stated that they will resign on 31 March if Gartcosh is closed and that they will not put up a candidate against me in the next general election. I am happy about that, as long as they vote for me as well as not put up a candidate.
  On 7 August 1985 the closure of the Gartcosh mill was announced. It was unfortunate that the previous Secretary of State for Scotland hailed that decision as a victory for Scotland because he said that it guaranteed the future for Ravenscraig. I could have accepted that if I had not known the people in the BSC with whom I have been dealing during my period as a Member of Parliament.
  Chairmen of the BSC come and go. Even Ministers come and go, and now they are coming and going with greater regularity than ever. As a Member of Parliament, I have seen many chairmen in my time, but unfortunately Bob Scholey, now the chairman-elect of BSC, is still there. He is the man with the power, and he now has greater power than ever before.
  Mr. Bill Michie: Black Bob.
  Mr. Lambie: No one wonders he is called Black Bob. He is a very strong and opinionated man, but, to be fair to him, he believes in what he is trying to do.
  At the instigation of Mr. Scholey in 1982, the BSC tried to close Ravenscraig. At that time, the Select Committee investigated the decision with—I say this openly—the full co-operation of the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). At that time we were afraid that the BSC would get the Government's permission to close not only Ravenscraig but other integrated steel works in the United Kingdom. When the Select Committee made recommendations against BSC's intention to close Ravenscraig, we got full support from the Secretary of State. In fact, he used the recommendations of the Select Committee to fight in the Cabinet Sub-Committee and the Cabinet itself; in fact, to fight our corner for the future of Ravenscraig. That is why I am disappointed to hear the present Secretary of State say tonight that when he had the opportunity to fight his corner in the Cabinet for the nearly unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee to retain Gartcosh, he did not take it. In fact, he did the opposite.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a serious error in his first statement as Secretary of State, when,

  493
  instead of saying that he would wait to receive the report and read the evidence of the Select Committee before making up his mind on how he should react to BSC's proposal, he stated clearly that he accepted it hook, line and sinker and that the Government would not interfere with the corporation's decision. I am afraid that, unlike the previous Secretary of State, the new Secretary of State has shown himself to be a yes man, at the beginning, not the end, of his career. Because of the circumstances facing the Government upon his appointment, he was afraid to rock the boat. He thought that they were in enough trouble.
  I do not accept the evidence that was given to the Select Committee by the BSC, not because of the details about the number of tonnes, the costs and the mileage, but because I know the people with whom I am dealing in the BSC. Mr. Bob Scholey and Mr. Jake Stewart, the two most important men in the BSC, have told me privately and publicly that it is and has been their intention to close Ravenscraig, and not even to stop at Ravenscraig but to close other integrated steel works in the United Kingdom.
  In spite of the assurances that the Committee received, I still believe that the figures show that since the decision to close Gartcosh was announced there has been a downturn in BSC's steel production and a tremendous increase in imports. As Mr. Scholey told the Select Committee, the BSC is no longer a British company and can no longer be thought of in that context. It is now a European company and must behave like one. It must consider not only Scottish but British interests. It must submerge our interests beneath those of the whole of the European steel industry. Capacity must be reduced, and even Ravenscraig must go, according to Mr. Scholey. I believe that the BSC will demand that the Government close Ravenscraig well before the three-year guarantee is up.
  Whoever controls the order book of BSC controls the future of individual plants. Even now orders are being diverted from both Gartcosh and Ravenscraig. Once one takes orders away from a plant, the overheads remain the same and the plant's viability is in question. Most Scottish Members will have received a statement from the joint co-ordinating committee of Dalzell steelworks, which states:
  "We are convinced that the BSC have made their plans years ahead with the ultimate aim to close Ravenscraig and Dalzell works.
  The Corporation could not afford to close Ravenscraig or Dalzell at the moment because of purely business reasons but if the plans for the Scunthorpe complex go through they could close both Ravenscraig and Dalzell without any loss of business".
  The joint co-ordinating committee is correct. The shop stewards committee of Ravenscraig and Gartcosh is correct. I believe that the Government and the BSC intend to close not only Gartcosh but Dalzell and, finally, Ravenscraig. That is why I hope that enough Conservative Members will vote with us, even if we do not win, to give the Government a fright and make even this Secretary of State, this failure who now holds that office, stand up and fight his corner in the Cabinet for Scottish interests, as he is supposed to do.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Alex Fletcher: This is the first opportunity that I have had to take part in the long-running debate on Gartcosh. I know that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie), as Chairman of
  494
  the Scottish Select Committee, has spent much time considering the connection between Gartcosh and Ravenscraig, and trying to save jobs at Gartcosh.
  It is no comfort that we have been here before, at Linwood, Invergordon, and various shipyards and other steelworks in Scotland, when we have faced such problems. I have seen at first hand the worry and desperation of managers and workers as they search for yet another lifeline to try to save their factory and prevent its closure. Contrary to what is said by Opposition Members, Ministers and officials also search hard for ways of averting closures. A great deal of time is spent seeking new owners, new markets or new finance to prevent such closures, but at the end of the day factories that cannot be made viable cannot be saved, no matter how generous Governments may be with taxpayers' money.
  Linwood, Bathgate and Invergordon closed not because Governments of both parties refused money, but because they could not compete in their markets. Steelworks have not closed because Governments have refused finance. Literally thousands of millions of pounds have been poured into the BSC, yet under Labour and Conservative Governments many thousands of jobs have been lost—more than half the work force. That is the context in which we should be viewing the problem of Gartcosh.
  Labour Members choose to ignore the facts and in particular they ignore what is happening in the international steel markets. World demand is flat, not expanding. World capacity, however, has considerably increased in recent years, not least as less developed countries become self-sufficient in steel. Steel is also being substituted by other products, not just in motor car manufacture, which is important, but in other industries. It is absurd for Opposition Members to try to suggest that if, perchance, they were in Government there would be a return to building as many ships, motor cars at Linwood or other vehicles at Bathgate, as would justify the expansion or continuation of steelworks which are not viable today.
  British Steel's task is to maximise its share of a rather static market and to do that against strong competition in Europe. The corporation's survival depends on its ability to compete. It is our job to take a realistic view of how best the BSC can compete in world markets.
  I know that the Labour party may seek some short term advantage in ignoring such matters. Its protests are loud and it loves protest rallies. Frankly, Labour has nothing to offer the steel industry in Scotland but marches, parades and speeches at rallies. To that extent the Labour party is not just misleading itself but is misleading workers in Scotland.
  Mr. Hugh McCartney: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to suggest that the only protests against the closure of Gartcosh and the potential closure of Ravenscraig are coming from the Opposition Benches? The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend who is sitting beside him, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), and others including the Church of Scotland, every local authority in Scotland and the mass of the Scottish people, are objecting to the Government's proposals. Why does the hon. Gentleman claim that it is just the Opposition who are protesting?
  Mr. Fletcher: My point is that the Opposition do nothing but protest, march and make speeches. My hon.

  495
  Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) considers the matter in a much more intellectual manner than any Opposition Member.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has provided welcome and independent information supporting the Government's policy of maintaining five major steel plants in the United Kingdom. He has also confirmed the Government's commitment to Ravenscraig. That is welcomed on this side of the House, but not by the Opposition. These two pronouncements provide cautious hope for the future, but the only long-term guarantee is the continued ability of the BSC in Scotland to win orders and be viable, just like any other industry.
  I well understand the feelings of the workers at Gartcosh and their families. I am aware that none of the facts about world markets can bring satisfaction to them today. There is much to be done by the BSC and BSC Industries to assist the Gartcosh work force and to help in the area generally. Other hon. Members referred to that today.
  The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) referred to the need for the BSC to explain itself and speak up for Scotland—at least I believe that that was the gist of his speech. I agree with him on that point. I told the chairman of the BSC that the corporation is too silent and leaves too much of its case to be presented by others.
  For example, I was asked to do a radio programme at the week-end with Mr. Brennan and the hon. member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie), I asked who was to represent the BSC on the programme and was told that nobody would. The BSC had, however, made a statement. I said that if BSC was not going to speak on the radio and defend a decision that is essentially its own, I could see no reason to do that for the corporation.
  I conclude by once again asking the BSC to make its case, to contribute to the debate in Scotland and, above all, to make clear what the future of the workers and their families at Gartcosh will be.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: This debate is probably as important for the future of Scotland and the Scottish economy as it is for Gartcosh and the workers at Gartcosh. I have rarely encountered an issue that has so united the Scottish people. The Scots feel very strongly on this issue, and many believe that they have been abandoned within the British state.
  The results of an opinion poll in the Glasgow Herald are significant and bear out what was generally believed. The STUC sent a letter to the Prime Minister stating that as a result of that poll 80 per cent. of the Scottish people wish Gartcosh to be retained. The poll showed that 64 per cent. of Conservatives, 83 per cent. of Labour supporters, 91 per cent. of the Scottish National party, and 86 per cent. of the alliance, all voted in favour of retaining Gartcosh. That is clear recognition that Gartcosh has a Scottish context and is extremely important.
  There may well be complex arguments about the future of the Scottish steel industry within the British context. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) mentioned that earlier, but that point was properly exploded by the measured, useful and helpful contribution of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) on the basis of his experience in the Select
  496
  Committee on Trade and Industry. He was able to relate the benefits of retaining Gartcosh as part of the Ravenscraig complex.
  Mr. Hickmet: The position of the British Steel Corporation cannot be looked at in isolation in Scotland. The whole of the corporation must be examined as a viable national entity. With great respect to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), constituencies such as mine have suffered a great deal because of the cutback by British Steel. Of course, the Scots are not prepared to bite the bullet in the same way as we are.
  Mr. Wilson: We are fighting for the retention of the Scottish steel industry, and it is of no value to us if there remains a British steel industry, but none in Scotland. It is our duty as Scottish Members of Parliament to stand up for our steel industry. If, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman had been more effective in his duties, he might still have one in his constituency. We do not accept the hon. Gentleman's defeatism about the future of the steel industry, either in Scotland or in the United Kingdom.
  We also do not accept the British Steel Corporation's word on these matters. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher) put his finger on the matter when he said that the BSC was not prepared to come out and defend its decision. All the evidence that we have received shows that Gartcosh is an essential part of the complex at Ravenscraig, and if that complex is closed the death knell of Ravenscraig is assured.
  I believe that it is the long-term policy of BSC to extinguish the Ravenscraig strip mill and all its ancillary mills. I have no doubt at all about that. That message can be seen in the attacks being made on the other mills, on Clydesdale and Dalzell, and particularly in the threatened cutbacks in capacity at Ravenscraig.
  Steelworkers have told me that the management of the BSC is anti-Scottish. They say that the management does not want a steel industry in Scotland and prefers to concentrate and consolidate in South Wales arid Lackenby.
  There is no future for the Scottish steel industry if we allow Gartcosh to close. The former Secretary of State for Scotland caved in in the Cabinet. I am afraid to say that the new Secretary of State has not directed his mind towards the importance of the issue. He does not appear to have seriously gone to the Cabinet to ask for a rethink.
  Mr. Michie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wilson: No, I shall not give way. Time is short and I wish to make my points briefly. The new Secretary of State should have gone to the Cabinet and had the matter reviewed.
  I do not intend to go over the ground that has been covered about the importance of Gartcosh and its efficiency. I was prepared to believe the Scottish steel industry managers when they came to us with their thick volume of evidence about the slumping export orders and the rise in imports. They gave us their views on what was happening from the information that they had from within the corporation.
  The Government are not prepared to listen, even when the arguments are overwhelming and the evidence is clear that BSC will lose its market share of cold rolled steel to the continent. They prefer to do nothing. It is an insult to our intelligence to maintain that Ravenscraig has a future

  497
  beyond three years. The EEC might be prepared to give some assurances, but it does not run the steel industry. The BSC runs it. From the information that we have had from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) it would seem that the BSC has no faith in the survival of the Ravenscraig complex.
  If Gartcosh closes, it will be much more difficult to regenerate the Scottish economy. I do not believe that the political map of Scotland can remain the same after that betrayal. The attack on Gartcosh and the Prime Minister's contemptuous refusal to meet the marchers shows that Scotland has no future within the Union, and the Union is rapidly turning sour within Scotland.
  The House, likewise, has not covered itself with glory. If the vote tonight goes against Gartcosh because of hon. Members who have not listened to the arguments, in future no one in Scotland will be able to look to the House for protection. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs failed to give a lead and to use its proper political skills to get out its report initially. The debate is one week too late.
  We should consider the parliamentary Labour party's role. I regard it as disgraceful that, in pursuit of political opportunism, it abandoned the debate on Gartcosh as the campaign was reaching a peak. It did not just let down the marchers and the STUC lobby. It clearly signalled to the Government that, in United Kingdom terms, the Scottish steel industry was a minor matter.
  It is hardly surprising that the Industry Department for Scotland and Scottish Office Ministers who had been let off the hook rushed to issue a statement announcing Gartcosh's sentence of death. If the Labour party is not prepared to accept responsibility for that, the onus remains on it, with all its parliamentary strength in Scotland, to show how it intends to use that strength. I had a dusty refusal from the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland to a proposal that I made about the leaders of the Scottish political parties. It is up to the Labour party to come forward with initiatives to try and save Gartcosh.
  I do not regard the fight as over. It is not final. If the work force decides to occupy the mill and fight the closure, it will have my party's support. Tonight's decision is, in many ways, more important than Gartcosh, because the House is on trial. If it betrays Scotland and lets Scotland down, Ministers will find that they have started a crossing of the Rubicon that will take Scotland to independence.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: If anyone were to seek to betray Scotland, it would be someone who criticised the conduct of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs whilst refusing to serve on it. The Committee looks after Scotland's interests. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has a cheek when he metes out such criticism, although I agree with his criticism of the Labour party which, when it had the opportunity to find a bigger stick in Westland with which to beat the Government, cancelled the debate last week and this week prolonged the statement with its endless questions so that we had less time to discuss this subject.
  With the Gartcosh mill, we are dealing with a tragic closure of a plant which is out of date, which makes a product which is in surplus, which needs £20 million
  498
  investing in it and which has a product which is still subject to European quotas. Thanks to the efforts of my right hon. Friends, Shotton products are no longer subject to European quotas. Opposition Members ask us to accept the Gartcosh mill as Ravenscraig's lifeline. Ravenscraig's lifeline will turn into a noose.
  Ravenscraig serves the most efficient mill in Europe, and 70 per cent of its poducts go to Shotton. Shotton makes a product which is in high demand—coated sheet. Hon. Members keep mentioning Japanese motor cars. The first lesson to be learnt about Japanese motor car manufacturers is that their cars last longer because they use coated steel. Gartcosh cannot produce coated steel; Shotton can. Ravenscraig, supplying Shotton, will be moving its product into a growth market instead of into an out-of-date mill.
  The case which has been put is that there will be greatluy increased demand and work for Gartcosh, which is not operating to capacity. At the same time, we are told that demand is reducing. People must make up their minds. The International Iron and Steel Institute agrees that the world economy would have to grow by 3 per cent. every year to maintain the present level of demand, never mind increase it.
  I understand the feeling in Scotland, but Opposition Members would serve their constituencies a great deal better if they were more honest and told their constituents that, whichever party was in power, Gartcosh would close. If there were a Labour Government now, Gartcosh would close.
  Mr. Lambie: No.
  Mr. Forsyth: Yes, it would, because all EEC Governments agreed to end subsidies to their steel industries from the end of last year. Every member of the Community must submit its steel industry corporate plan for scrutiny by the Commission. If the Commission is not satisfied that it is viable, it will not accept it. I am no interventionalist, but the Government's genius is shown by the fact that they managed to put together a viable scheme which maintained Ravenscraig as an operating plant. That is remarkable.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has told us what the EEC has to say about Ravenscraig's future. That is good news. The Commission also said that, on any assessment, BSC's assessment of likely sales stretched the limit of credibility. Far from having a pessimistic BSC, the Government and BSC are working hand in hand to save the maximum number of jobs and maintain a viable steel industry that can generate resources for investment to secure long-term employment. What is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with it. Opposition Members are using the closure of Gartcosh as a stick with which to beat the Government and they deserve the Scottish people's complete contempt for doing so.
  There is one other argument which has not been put forward. It relates to the customers. The customers also employ. people. Metal Box, Tube Investments and all the so-called domino industries employ people. What will happen to them? What did those industries say to the Select Committee? With one voice, they said that if BSC were not allowed to get down its costs and bring its overcapacity into line with demand they would pay more for their basic products, which were on average, 40 per

  499
  cent. of their final product costs. That meant that they would lose market share in the struggle to sell their product overseas, which would mean that jobs would be lost.
  Those people who say that they stand against Gartcosh's closure because they are worried about unemployment are hypocrites. They seek to tie Scotland to an industry without a future and to a position where it cannot produce high quality steel at the lowest possible cost, and thereby will put more people out of work.
  The most offensive charge made during this hysterical debate was that made by irresponsible newspapers such as the Glasgow Herald which did not put both sides of the argument. The most damning charge made was that those of us who are struggling to see a viable and competitive steel industry in Scotland are anti-Scottish. There is nothing anti-Scottish about the closure of Gartcosh. Six major closures are going on south of the border now in the steel industry to meet the same EEC plan from which Scotland is benefiting. Two of those plants are twice the size of Gartcosh and I challenge the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to tell us their names.
  The Scottish economy is booming. We are now the second most prosperous region of the United Kingdom. We are growing in manufacturing output at twice the rate of the national average. All that Opposition Members can do is to offer Scotland a future which has more to do with our industrial past. Instead of embracing change and facing the challenge of the future, they go for the soft option. We can all say to our constituents that we are in favour of keeping open Gartcosh, but if we want to serve Scotland and our constituents we must face up to the truth and offer some genuine solutions.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: It is not worth answering the misinformed bigotry of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). I find it difficult to speak of the social consequences of the closure of Gartcosh and the threat of closure to Ravenscraig in my constituency, which would destroy the community. It would cause misery to many good friends.
  The financial objective of the British Steel Corporation, which is required by the Government and by the European Commission, has been accepted by the corporation. The financial objective is that the BSC should be viable—that profits should be at a level which give a reasonable rate of return on the capital employed after depreciation and interest. The BSC has adopted a milestone on the "road to viability", so called by the corporation. The corporation calls it "financial self-sufficiency", that is, sufficient profits to cover interest costs, capital expenditure roughly equivalent to depreciation, and increases in working capital, but giving no return on equity.
  This milestone of financial self-sufficiency is not sufficient to achieve the viability that the Government are demanding. It is, as BSC has said in its additional memorandum—which the Secretary of State has still not digested—
  "only a step on the road to viability".
  As the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) said, further milestones and higher profits will be needed.
  In the BSC's memorandum, under a paragraph headed,
  "Why a cold mill closure is sufficient to meet current objectives and should not be deferred"
  it says:
  "the required profit for self-sufficiency".—
  that is the first milestone—
  500
  "can just be reached provided all actions identified".—
  that is including the closure of Gartcosh—
  "are vigorously pursued."
  There will be further milestones, and to reach them further action will be required. This points to the inevitability, in the BSC's view, of the closure of Ravenscraig. The Government have not had the courage to spell that out.
  I put forward three propositions of increasing seriousness for Ravenscraig. On the BSC's forecasts, the profits of the BSC will be higher without Ravenscraig. The arguments which the BSC has put forward for the closure of Gartcosh would also justify the closure of Ravenscraig. On the BSC's forecasts, not only could Gartcosh be closed without physically reducing finished steel deliveries, but Ravenscraig could also be closed when current investments at Llanwern and Port Talbot are complete.
  The first two propositions depend upon the BSC's forecasts, but the third does not. Without Gartcosh there is no level of demand at which Ravenscraig could be viable, since the finishing mill capacity of the BSC could be almost fully loaded without Ravenscraig. What the Secretary of State said, put at its kindest, is that the BSC will be able to afford the charity of keeping Ravenscraig open. Steel workers know better than to rely on BSC charity.
  If Ravenscraig has a future—as I firmly believe it has—it must be by the BSC winning a bigger share of a bigger United Kingdom market, and a bigger share of the European market for finished steel. With Gartcosh, Port Talbot and Llanwern fully loaded, 60 per cent. of Ravenscraig's output could go to the BSC finishing mills. Without Gartcosh, only 20 per cent. can go to the BSC finishing mills. On the BSC's criteria there is no way in which that can be sufficient to make Ravenscraig viable, whatever the level of demand. If the BSC were honest it would say that that is true, but it is irrelevant. It says that Ravenscraig has no future, with or without Gartcosh, because there will not be sufficient demand.
  The BSC's abject surrender in the European Community—accepting an increase from only 65·4 per cent. to only 68·4 per cent. of the United Kingdom cold strip market, when the United Kingdom motor industry is only supplying 30 per cent. of the value added in United Kingdom car registrations—is pathetic. It amounts to an acceptance of no recovery in British manufacturing despite the prospect of falling north sea oil revenues.
  The sheer incompetence of the Department of Trade and Industry's Ministers and officials, and of the BSC, in representing British steel interests in the European Community is unbelievable. At the suggestion of Mr. Scholey, who expected their commendation, I saw Mr.. Cadieux, the chairman of the EC steel task force at the Commission, and his officials. I made sure that Mr. Denham, the BSC head of corporate planning and market forecasting, accompanied me.
  The critical question is British cost competitiveness. EC officials talked of the sterling-deutschmark exchange rate as an irrelevance. The EC officials were talking like second-rate Chicago undergraduates who would never make the graduate school. They were like the Chancellor at his most porcine in 1980–81, when he was pursuing monetary targets regardless of the exchange rate, which he said had no relevance to Britain's underlying competitiveness.

  501
  MM. Cadieux, the gentlemen who the Secretary of State has been quoting this afternoon, and who had the responsibility for testing the BSC's future viability, had not asked the Directorate-Generals II, he did not ask Dr. André Louis Dramais, who prepared the economic forecast on which the EC strategic document was based, for an assessment of the effect of a shift in the deutschmark-sterling exchange rate in favour of the United Kingdom. Dr. Dramais confirmed the obvious to me—that it would increase United Kingdom exports and industrial production, and so United Kingdom steel production.
  Neither the BSC nor the DTI Ministers and their officials have sought any exploration in the EC of the effects of a restored industrial competitiveness in the United Kingdom. The Minister of State, when I saw him with his officials, was not able to produce a shred of evidence in that direction, whether as a result of falling North sea oil revenue, changed monetary objectives, or improved industrial efficiency.
  Hon. Members who saw the magnificent presentation by Austin Rover today of new technology cannot doubt that things are happening in the British steel-consuming industries. The Government, however, have accepted the failure of their own economic and industrial policy. An industrial recovery with proper co-ordination between economic and industrial policy, never mind the further benefits of a degree of international co-operation if it can be achieved, would produce substantial increases in demand for steel which this Government do not bother to investigate.
  I believe that the possibility of recovery justifies the rentention of Ravenscraig. If it does it justifies still more the retention of Gartcosh, because without Gartcosh it is difficult to see how Ravenscraig can be retained whatever the level of demand. The incompetence and the scabrous evasions of the BSC, of Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry and the Scottish office, have been highlighted by contrast with the remarkable campaign fought for the retention of Gartcosh by Gartcosh and Ravenscraig shop stewards. For the BSC and Ministers to throw away such quality of leadership, wantonly and carelessly by their managerial and political evasions and incompetence, is outrageous.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Allan Williams: With a view to keeping within the time limit, I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I show some discourtesy and do not give way.
  I should like to examine two propositions. The first is that the impending closure of Gartcosh is not, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher) suggested, the inevitable consequence of a world recession but a direct consequence of the Government's policies combined with an extrapolation of those failures into BSC's projections. The second is that, consequent upon the closure of Gartcosh, when taken in conjunction with the Government's obsession with privatisation, the closure of Revenscraig becomes virtually inevitable if another Conservative Government come to office.
  It is important to remember certain background factors about Gartcosh. According to evidence from BSC, 70 per cent. of its sales are made in the United Kingdom and 30
  502
  per cent. are made abroad and are mainly unprofitable but just help with overheads. During the past 25 years, the sale of steel in the United Kingdom has had a nearly perfect correlation with the level of manufacturing output. During the past 10 years, the sale of cold-rolled plate and sheet—and therefore the products of Gartcosh—has had an even more perfect correlation with the level of manufacturing output.
  The future of the steel industry as a whole, and of Gartcosh in particular, is inextricably linked with the activity of manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom. Ian MacGregor emphasised that at a meeting of the all-party minerals group on 19 January 1983 when he said:
  "Two thirds of steel goes into capital goods. It directly reflects manufacturing investment."
  I argue that it is the collapse of manufacturing investment and manufacturing production that has imposed the death sentence which the Government are now trying to execute on Gartcosh.
  If we consider what has happened in manufacturing investment and manufacturing production since 1979, we begin to understand the Gartcosh predicament. Manufacturing investment has fallen year by year. In 1983 it was 33 per cent. below the level that the Government inherited. Even this year it is 20 per cent. below what the Government inherited and it is only as high as the manufacturing investment which the country enjoyed a quarter of a century ago. Britain has lost more than £10 billion of manufacturing investment through failing to sustain the level of investment which the Government inherited. The House should remember what Ian MacGregor said—two thirds of steel sales are directly related to manufacturing investment.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central mentioned the level of world trade and tried to perpetuate the idea that all this is the result of a world recession, but that also does not bear analysis. From 1979 to the end of last year, world trade in manufactures increased by 27 per cent. We do not have even static manufacturing output. Output has fallen back below the 1979 level and below the level of the three-day week in the last days of the Heath Administration, so much so that the chairman of ICI says that 30 per cent. of his customers have disappeared. It is much the same for BSC: about 30 per cent. of its customers have disappeared because of Government policy.
  Concurrently with cutting investment and output of manufactures, the Government have increased manufactured imports—steel on wheels—by 45 per cent. The failure of Gartcosh, as they see it, is the consequence not of a world recession but of policy failures, imposed on the country by a series of deflationary budgets, six years of high interest rates leading to six years of high sterling, which has meant that our goods have been too dear and foreign goods have been too cheap. BSC has based its projections on the assumption that the failures of the past six years are to be the pattern of the next 10. That is why we believe that if only we return to the levels attained when Labour left office the future of the steel industry will be substantially different. As it is, we are discussing the possible closure of Gartcosh as a direct result of the Government's commitment to monetarism. When the Gartcosh site is levelled, a headstone should be put there reading, "1986: Gartcosh—victim of an experiment that failed."
  The Secretary of State tried to pretend that there were no consequences for Ravenscraig. We should bear it in

  503
  mind that Ravenscraig will be judged not just in the context of what happens with Gartcosh but in conjunction with that other arm of Government policy—privatisation of the steel industry. The House should remember that Gartcosh takes 25 per cent. of Ravenscraig's production.
  Robert Haslam told the all-party minerals group on 12 December 1984 that his remit was to prepare steel for privatisation, including, if possible, the central core—the strip mill—of the steel industry. He said that, to achieve that, he had to make a surplus of £300 million which could be obtained only if one of the great integrated steelworks was closed. That was contained in options advice that he put to the Government. The Government say that they guarantee Ravenscraig until 1988 and that after that it will be judged on its merits. I am a cynic and I note that that happens to be just the other side of a general election. I cannot help asking what the assurances are worth.
  The chairman who gave the assurances how now gone. The Secretary of State for Scotland who gave assurances has now gone. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who gave assurances has now gone. I noticed that the new Secretary of State for Scotland did not lay his dead body on the line assuring Ravenscraig's future. There was no suggestion from him that he will take the chance of resigning if Ravenscraig is closed, as we all know that it will if these policies are implemented.
  As for the assurances of the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, well, what are they worth after the events of the past week? A new phrase has been coined—once Brittan, twice shy—for promises from that source. The Opposition are not willing to risk the jobs of Scottish steel workers for an IOU written in invisible ink by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  BSC says that Ravenscraig will not suffer from the closure of Gartcosh because it will rearrange its overheads and it will be part of a profit centre in a division rather than an individual profit centre. Such arguments are valid only until privatisation, but what then? It is not enough to make a profit of £300 million. There must be enough headroom to make a profit that can be distributed to the shareholders as well. If it is sold as a single entity, BSC will, before sale, close one of the great integrated plants to maximise the sale price or, at sale, private owners will close one of the plants to maximise profits. If the strip division is sold as separate plants, each plant will become a profit centre. BSC might try to maximise sale return by closing one in advance to remove surplus capacity, but, once they become independent profit centres, each and every plant—and all of them are nearer to the markets than Ravenscraig—will be competing and exploiting their market advantage.
  Mr. Henderson rose—
  Mr. Williams: I have already said that I cannot give way because I have so little time.
  In the context of profit maximisation, which would inevitably follow privatisation, Ravenscraig would operate major disadvantages. It would have lost its 25 per cent. Gartcosh sale, it would have had no serious investment in the years immediately before privatisation, it would incur higher transport costs, other plants nearer the markets would have surplus capacity and be fighting to win them, it would have lost the largesse of BSC accountants
  504
  spreading its overheads in the BSC structure and it would have to face hard-headed accountants from the private sector. On 23 October 1985, Robert Haslam said:
  "I think if you looked at it with private sector eyes, as I do, then you would see that nobody would maintain the kind of product portfolio we have at the present time."
  Listen to this:
  "We do that deliberately to assist these mills … Nobody in private industry could maintain the present product portfolio we have."
  That is the future that is being offered in conjunction with the closure of the main mark3et for Ravenscraig. That is why it is time that the Government stopped trying to deceive the Scottish people.
  The problem is not only Gartcosh or even Ravenscraig. If the Government's policy is implemented and Gartcosh and Ravenscraig go, what else goes with them? What chance will Scotland have of attracting substantial new industry, when it has no steel making capacity?
  Ravenscraig is saved only until a general election, and then it will be saved only if the Tories fail at that general election. I say to Scottish Tory Members that tomorrow the whole of Scotland will be watching to see which way they vote tonight. If they are not seen to have voted to save Scottish jobs, when the time comes, they will lose theirs.
  7.10 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade. and Industry (Mr. Peter Morrison): My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said in his opening speech that the debate was bound to be contentious. As some hon. Members know, I was in Scotland when the announcement was made about the proposed closure of Gartcosh. In my original incarnation as Minister of State, Department of Employment I saw the matter unfold. I was moved to my current responsibilities and it was the first issue to which I was asked to address myself. Of course, I am aware that the loss of 550 jobs at Gartcosh and one or two more, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed out, is a matter that should be taken extremely seriously. It would be easier to avoid the decision, but if I did so that would be cynical, because it would be a decision taken for purely political purposes. Sometimes, however unpleasant or unpopular, or whatever the political consequences we must take those decisions. If there is over-capacity, as there is in the steel industry not only in Scotland and England, but in Europe, some action must be taken.
  The debate has centred on two distinct, but closely intertwined themes. The first is how the British Steel Corporation is managed and how it relates to the Government. The second is how the proposed closure of Gartcosh fits into the agreed strategy. I hope that on the first point-setting aside privatisation of which I am in favour—the aim of a profitable competitive steel industry would be common ground. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) made that point perfectly. In distinct terms, he said that a profitable and competitive steel industry ensures more jobs.
  In 1979–80 the BSC had a loss of about £1·25 billion as a result of written down over capacity, the steel strike, and overmanning. We have come a long way since then. In the first half of the current financial year the corporation made an operating profit, which reflects extremely well on the management and on the work force. During that time there were continuous and serious difficulties in Europe. However, there is still some way to go before the

  505
  corporation can stand on its own two feet, service its borrowings, provide the necessary capital expenditure and provide a return on the millions of pounds that the taxpayer has put into it.
  Dr. Bray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Morrison: I have a time constraint and, like the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, I wish to finish my remarks as quickly as possible.
  Dr. Bray rose—
  Mr. Morrison: There is nothing ideological about wanting to get the corporation onto a sound financial basis. Other countries with Socialist Governments are doing the same. To achieve that aim one agrees a strategy, appoints the board and lets it manage. Last August's strategy was agreed and announced against that background. The retention of Ravenscraig was agreed by the board for the foreseeable future—three years.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said, that strategy has been examined in great detail by the Commission with advice from independent experts. They have confirmed that, with five integrated plants, including Ravenscraig, and taking account of the other features of the strategy, including the closure of the Alphasteel hot strip mill and Gartcosh and assuming reasonable stability in the steel market, the BSC can achieve full viability within that period. The strategy has, therefore, allowed not only the remaining Government finance required by the BSC to be paid under Community law, which is important, but has laid down the path towards full viability, which the Government regard as necessary.
  At the same time we must recognise that the corporation has little room for manoeuvre. Profits are hard to come by in the steel industry. Within the agreed strategy, therefore, what might be quite minor savings, as the Chairman of the Select Committee pointed out, such as those arising from the Gartcosh closure, assume a considerable importance.
  If the Government were to prevent the BSC from implementing the closure, without some strategic reason for intervening, how could the BSC confidently implement the other measures, which, together with Gartcosh, will make the difference between success and failure? I assure Opposition Members, who have made the reasonable point that this is a Scottish matter, that the same is happening in other parts of the United Kingdom. Monks Hall and Jarrow have been closed. There have been cuts at Rotherham and, in Scotland, at Clydesdale, and the significant closure of Tinsley park. The decision is in no sense an anti-Scottish manoeuvre.
  I hope that we shall not continue to hear the argument that Ravenscraig cannot succeed. As a hon. Member who does not represent a Scottish seat but who has Scottish connections, it depressed me to hear on several occasions the way in which the Opposition talk down Scotland. Scotland's opportunities in industrial terms are there for all to see.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
  The House divided:Ayes 197, Noes 258

  Division No. 46]

  [7.18 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Freud, Clement

  Alton, David

  Garrett, W. E.

  Anderson, Donald

  George, Bruce

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Ashton, Joe

  Gould, Bryan

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Barnett, Guy

  Hancock, Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Beith, A. J.

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Haynes, Frank

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

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Home Robertson, John

  Blair, Anthony

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Boyes, Roland

  Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

  Janner, Hon Greville

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

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  John, Brynmor

  Buchan, Norman

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Campbell, Ian

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Canavan, Dennis

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Lambie, David

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Lamond, James

  Clarke, Thomas

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Clay, Robert

  Leighton, Ronald

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Litherland, Robert

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cohen, Harry

  Loyden, Edward

  Coleman, Donald

  McCartney, Hugh

  Conlan, Bernard

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  McKelvey, William

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Corbett, Robin

  Maclennan, Robert

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Craigen, J. M.

  McTaggart, Robert

  Crowther, Stan

  McWilliam, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Madden, Max

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Marek, Dr John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Martin, Michael

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

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

  Maxton, John

  Deakins, Eric

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Dewar, Donald

  Meacher, Michael

  Dixon, Donald

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Dobson, Frank

  Michie, William

  Dormand, Jack

  Mikardo, Ian

  Douglas, Dick

  Millen, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dubs, Alfred

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Eadie, Alex

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Eastham, Ken

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Nellist, David

  Ewing, Harry

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Fatchett, Derek

  O'Brien, William

  Faulds, Andrew

  O'Neill, Martin

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Parry, Robert

  Fisher, Mark

  Patchett, Terry

  Flannery, Martin

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Pendry, Tom

  Forrester, John

  Penhaligon, David

  Foster, Derek

  Pike, Peter

  Foulkes, George

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Radice, Giles

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Randall, Stuart

  507

  Redmond, Martin.

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Stott, Roger

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Strang, Gavin

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Straw, Jack

  Robertson, George

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Rogers, Allan

  Tinn, James

  Rooker, J. W.

  Torney, Tom

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Wallace, James

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wareing, Robert

  Ryman, John

  Weetch, Ken

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Welsh, Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  White, James

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wilson, Gordon

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

  Winnick, David

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Woodall, Alec

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

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

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

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. Norman Hogg and

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. Allen McKay

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Gale, Roger

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Galley, Roy

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Ancram, Michael

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

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

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Gow, Ian

  Batiste, Spencer

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Benyon, William

  Greenway, Harry

  Best, Keith

  Gregory, Conal

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Grist, Ian

  Bottomley, Peter

  Ground, Patrick

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Grylls, Michael

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gummer, Rt Hon John S

  Brinton, Tim

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Burt, Alistair

  Hannam, John

  Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Harvey, Robert

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cash, William

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coombs, Simon

  Hayes, J.

  Cope, John

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hayward, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Heddle, John

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Henderson, Barry

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hickmet, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Hicks, Robert

  Dunn, Robert

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Durant, Tony

  Hill, James

  Dykes, Hugh

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Holt, Richard

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Howard, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

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

  Favell, Anthony

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Hunt, David (Wirral, W)

  Forman, Nigel

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Forth, Eric

  Irving, Charles

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Jackson, Robert

  Fox, Marcus

  Jessel, Toby

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Freeman, Roger

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Fry, Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  508

  Key, Robert

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rathbone, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Knowles, Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Knox, David

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lamont, Norman

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Lang, Ian

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Latham, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Ryder, Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Lester, Jim

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lightbown, David

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Lilley, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Silvester, Fred

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sims, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Maclean, David John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

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

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Madel, David

  Speed, Keith

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spencer, Derek

  Malone, Gerald

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Marland, Paul

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marlow, Antony

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Mates, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stern, Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Mellor, David

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sumberg, David

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Trippier, David

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Trotter, Neville

  Murphy, Christopher

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Neale, Gerrard

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Nelson, Anthony

  Waddington, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Newton, Tony

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Norris, Steven

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Waller, Gary

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Ward, John

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Watts, John

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Parris, Matthew

  Wheeler, John

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Whitfield, John

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Pawsey, James

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wolfson, Mark

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Wood, Timothy

  Pollock, Alexander

  Woodcock, Michael

  Porter, Barry

  Yeo, Tim

  Portillo, Michael

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Powley, John

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Price, Sir David

  Mr. Archie Hamilton and

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Mr. Timothy Sainsbury.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises the fundamental importance to Scotland and to the United Kingdom as a whole of the Government's and British Steel Corporation's aim of restoring the Corporation to financial self-sufficiency and sustained profitability; and endorses the Government's decision not to intervene in the Corporation's commercial decision to close the Gartcosh plant.

  Schools (Government Policies)
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this debate is starting rather late. I have no authority to limit the length of speeches, but I hope that they will be brief, because a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: I beg to move,
  That this House, deeply concerned about the inadequate supply of books and equipment, the overcrowded classrooms, the poor maintenance and repair in too many of our schools, and the alienation and demoralisation of the teaching profession, calls on the Government to provide extra resources in order to improve educational standards in the United Kingdom and secure a long term settlement of the teachers' claim for proper, professional levels of pay.
  The Labour party has chosen this subject for debate in Opposition time because there is now a major crisis in our schools, a crisis for which the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Government are largely responsible. As we know from recent events, including a lobby of Parliament today, parents all over the country are deeply disturbed and worried about what is happening, about the shortage of books and equipment, about the shabbiness and disrepair of many schools, and above all about the impact that the prolonged pay dispute is having on their children's education.
  Understandably, parents want to know what the Government are doing to resolve the crisis and when the Secretary of State will take his responsibilities seriously. It is a question that parents are constitutionally and legally entitled to ask. The right hon. Gentleman is drawing a salary as Secretary of State for Education and Science, so it must be he and the Government of which he is a member who in the final analysis are responsible for the state of education in Britain.
  I remind the House of the Secretary of State's position, because the right hon. Gentleman now seems to be so remote from the reality of what is happening that he gives the impression that the crisis in our schools has nothing to do with him. Most observers would agree that the high point of the right hon. Gentleman's term of office was in January 1984 when he made his Sheffield speech about raising the level of achievement in our schools. On behalf of the Labour party I welcomed the main thrust of that speech. I said that we shared the objecive of raising standards, but I made it quite clear that a strategy to improve standards would not succeed without extra resources. I emphasised that standards could be improved only with the co-operation and support of teachers, and I concluded by saying that we would judge him not only by his words but by his actions.
  Two years after that speech, the Secretary of State's fine words and promises have a hollow ring. Far from having laid the foundations for major advances, our schools are in desperate straits. By any standards, the record of the right hon. Gentleman is a disastrous one. Reports from his own advisers, Her Majesty's inspectorate, repeatedly warned the Secretary of State of the damage that inadequate levels of resources were doing to standards and to standards of provision.
  The inspectorate's last report presents a depressing picture. More or better books are judged to be necessary

  511
  in just over one quarter of schools visited. More or better equipment is needed in about a quarter of both primary and secondary schools. In a quarter of the schools the inspectorate assesses that more or more appropriately qualified teachers are required. The latest information is that 1,250,000 pupils are in classes of over 30.
  The inspectorate is particularly worried about the state of the repair, maintenance and decoration of school buildings. It says:
  "The continued neglect of the school building stock is not only storing up potentially enormous bills for the future but is also seriously affecting the quality of work and achievement of many pupils and providing a grim evironment for them and their teachers."
  Matters would be even worse were it not for parental contributions. The inspectorate emphasises that these tend to
  "widen the differences in the level of resources available to individual schools and, by their nature, cannot be relied upon when planning future developments."
  Summing up, Her Majesty's inspectorate says that, contrary to what the Secretary of State has complacently told us,
  "there is a statistically significant association between satisfactory or better levels of resource provision and work of sound quality, and between unsatisfactory levels of provision and poor quality of work."
  The inspectorate concludes by warning the Secretary of State that
  "it seems unlikely that present levels (of provision) will be sufficient to enable schools to respond successfully to the national and local calls for improvements in pupils' achievements and in the curriculum."
  The simple truth, understood by parents, pupils and teachers, is that when resources are in short supply it is difficult to maintain existing standards, let alone improve them.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: In attacking the Government, is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Labour party has no responsibility in the matter? If he is saying that, does he remember that it is only a few months since Liverpool education authority, which is Labour and Militant controlled, locked the teachers out of their schools and the children were kept out on the streets and addressed by two Labour Militant MPs? The hon. Gentleman sat in a London town hall with the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers militant teachers, and Labour Left-wing councillors, and allowed him to say, "I am delighted that teachers in the schools are on strike in this area, including two special schools."
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind the House that this is a short debate. Interventions make speeches longer, particularly interventions from hon. Members who are waiting to catch my eye.
  Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman would do better to make his own speech when the time comes. The Labour party nationally has made its position quite clear about Liverpool, and Liverpool is not running the country—it is the Secretary of State and the Government who are doing that, and that is what we are debating.
  It is depressing that the Secretary of State is planning to continue the cuts in school spending. According to the White Paper, over the next three years the Secretary of State plans to cut spending on primary schools by 7 per cent. in real terms, and on secondary schools by 10 per cent. Overall, spending on education is estimated to be a tenth less in 1988–89 than it is in 1985–86. The
  512
  Government's order of priorities is demonstrated by the fact that we are spending on education only four fifths of what we spend on defence. The education share of total spending continues to decline. If the Secretary of State was putting up a better fight in the Cabinet for education, we might have sympathy for him. What we, and I think parents, too, find so hard to take is the enthusiasm with which the Secretary of State offers up the education budget for Treasury surgery.
  Mr. William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that since 1979 there has been a reduction of 1 million pupils in schools, and that within the next few years there will be a further reduction of 750,000, yet in real terms there is a reduction of only 0·2 per cent. in resources? Against that background, it is up to the authorities, including Labour-controlled education authorities, of which my constituency, Stafford, happens to be one, to allocate priorities. In the constituency of Stafford the district auditor has just stated—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be very brief.
  Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman has made the case for me not to give way. By two long interventions, he and the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) will have prevented other Conservative Members from getting in tonight.
  It is true that at a time when the numbers of pupils are falling spending per pupil has risen, because the fall in spending has not been so rapid. However, if we consider the difference between 1983–84 and 1984–85, we find that spending per pupil is falling. In any case, the Government should have been taking the opportunity of falling rolls to use the extra resources to try to tackle some of the problems to which the inspectorate has been drawing attention.
  As for the teachers' dispute, from the Government's complacent inaction I can only presume that they do not fully understand the damage that the dispute is doing to the education of the nation's children. Already millions of pupils have had their schooling disrupted for 50 weeks, and in Scotland, which will be covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), the dispute has lasted for 14 months. For many secondary school pupils, one fifth of their education has been affected. If there is not a settlement soon, attitudes are likely to harden even further. As we saw at the conferences of the two biggest teachers' unions last week, proposals to disrupt examinations were defeated only narrowly. It would be a tragedy if later this year examinations were disturbed.
  Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman should not encourage them.
  Mr. Radice: I am not encouraging them. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear my last sentence. I accept that he does not listen carefully.
  Many parents are also anxious about the impact which the dispute is having on the new general certificate of secondary education examination, which informed obervers believed in any case is working to an unrealistic timetable. The longer the dispute goes on, the more lasting will be the damage. The Secretary of State's handling of the teachers has been disastrously inept. Indeed, he is one of the main reasons why the dispute has lasted so long. It is time that he had the honesty to acknowledge that.

  513
  There have been appalling blunders. It was typical of the Government's sense of timing and fairness that at a critical moment in the negotiations last July they announced massive increases for top people while telling teachers to hold back. As I know from personal experience, that announcement effectively scuppered the talks. It was also typical of the Secretary of State that he should have been such an enthusiastic supporter of the Government's decision on top salaries.
  It was characteristic of the Government that they refused to fund the local authority employers' structure package and only revealed how much they were prepared to offer at the beginning of August, six months into the dispute. Also, of course, the sum of money was significantly less than the amount behind the local authority package. Since his initiative five months ago the Secretary of State has been content to go on repeating his offer—an offer which the unions, of whatever sort, have rejected.
  We have had the appointment of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) as a kind of public relations consultant in residence to the Secretary of State, but slick presentation cannot make up for a failure of policy.
  There have also been leaked reports, authorised or otherwise, of Cabinet Committee meetings to discuss the teachers' dispute, but nothing but leaks have come out of the meetings. The only intervention from the Government in recent weeks was the extraordinary briefing by the celebrated Bernard Ingham to Sunday newspaper correspondents outlining a Prime Ministerial "get tough" plan. The local authorities were told to take teachers to court. Not surprisingly, that met with an almost uniformly hostile reception, even from some Conservative councillors. I must give the Department of Education and Science credit, even it was embarrassed. A DES official was reported as saying that that was not the Department's view.
  Throughout the dispute it has been the Labour party which has worked to bring peace. With my active support, Labour took the chair of Burnham and made improved offers in July and in October. As we speak, the Labour local authorities, using the good offices of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, are trying desperately to reach a settlement, but with a conspicuous lack of assistance from the Government.
  The problem of the local authorities throughout the dispute has been that the Government refused to provide enough extra resources to meet the legitimate aspirations of the teachers. Indeed, the Government's unfair public sector pay policy and their policies on local government expenditure are at the heart of the dispute. It is no good Conservative Members expressing sympathy for the teachers, as I understand many of them have, and badgering the Secretary of State for action—apparently at a meeting last night they did that—if at the same time they back levels of rate support grant which make a settlement almost impossible to achieve.
  The position of the Labour party is clear. We know that the teaching force is one of the main determinants of the quality of education. We know that good teaching involves great commitment, energy and skill. We fully understand that many of the reforms that are needed will not only
  514
  make fresh demands on the teachers, but cannot be effectively implemented unless they have the support of teachers.
  There is a strong case for assessment to improve teacher performance. A Labour Government would strongly support such a development. We are right to expect much from our teachers, but we should know by now that we will not get the best from the teaching profession unless teachers are paid a proper professional salary. It is no good asking teachers to behave as professionals unless they are paid as professionals. It is a widely accepted fact, even inside the DES, that teachers have fallen behind significantly.
  The Secretary of State told the House in 1984 that good candidates were still coming forward at the existing salary levels. I remember that famous remark. If that is the case, how is it that applications for teacher training courses are down by nearly 30 per cent.? It is a tragedy for the nation when, as I know—I am sure other hon. Members know also—potential candidates are being advised by teachers not to go into teaching. A Labour Government would make a new long-term deal for the profession a priority. If we were in power we would provide the extra resources—and it would not be a great deal extra—to enable the negotiators to reach an honourable settlement of the 1985 claim. We would then immediately set up a quick-acting, independent inquiry, whose findings the Government would be committed to fund.
  Mr. Greenway: Inquiry into what?
  Mr. Radice: Such an inquiry—if the hon. Member will be patient—would look at how teachers' pay had fallen behind that of comparable professions. It would take account of the changing demands on the profession since the Houghton report, and it would propose mechanisms—and I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) has said sensible things about that—for ensuring that the real value of the new salary levels were maintained because we cannot have this kind of disruption every two years. It just is not good enough for our children. We have said that, because the salary increases are likely to be substantial, they would need to be phased in over the first few years of the next Labour Government.
  We are proposing a new deal for teachers and a new deal for education. Parents and teachers know that the school system is in crisis. They know that the Government are responsible, and have the main responsibility for resolving the crisis. They will no longer accept—nor should the House—the worn excuses and tired alibis of the Government and of the Secretary of State. The Government must now provide the extra investment in schools which is so desperately needed if educational standards are to be raised and if there is to be a long-term settlement of the teaching dispute. Investing in the future of our children makes good sense. If the Secretary of State does not understand that simple fact, he should make way for one who does.
  7.52 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'welcomes Her Majesty's Government's policies to improve the standards and quality of school education for children of all

  515
  abilities; notes that expenditure per pupil is at record levels; support the Government's efforts to secure better value for money from that expenditure in future; and urges Her Majesty's Government to continue to work for a lasting reform covering teachers' pay, pay structure and duties, facilitating the recruitment, retention and motivation of teachers of the quality needed to underpin these policies.'
  The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) supported his party's motion by listing a series of shortcomings that are also referred to in the motion. I want to remind the House that the facts are that spending per child in real terms in schools is at a record high level, that the pupil-teacher ratio is at a record low level, and that the proportion of over-sized classes—still regrettably too large—is at its lowest level ever and had been coming down.
  I should like the hon. Gentleman to be more honest even in quoting shortcomings, as he did, from HMI's annual report. I do not contradict his references to HMI's cataloguing of some shortcomings. It is not the practice of Members of the Government Benches to deny what is true. The hon. Gentleman would, however, have been more honest if he had also mentioned the references by HMI, in precisely the same report, to the reason for many of the shortcomings—that many local education authorities choose to deploy the large sums of money available to them for schools in relatively wasteful ways.
  I refer the hon. Member to the HMI report. What HMI says is that better management of resources by a number of local education authorities would enable the shortage of equipment and of books and the backlog of maintenance to be subtantially reduced. I am not saying that it could be totally removed, nor am I saying that that is true of all local education authorities, but I certainly accept some shortcomings and I hope that Opposition Members—
  Mr. Andrew Hunter rose—
  Sir Keith Joseph: No, I am sorry; I must make progress to leave time for hon. Members to make their speeches.
  I should be grateful if Opposition Members would recognise from the same HMI report that there is scope for redeployment in many local education authorities through better management of resources.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North teased me with not fulfilling any of the tangible implications of my speech on behalf of the Government at Sheffield two years ago. I remind the House that the Government have maintained real spending per child at record levels, that we have improved the pupil-teacher ratio, and that we have reduced the number of over-sized classes. As further evidence of the acceptance of the implications of that Sheffield speech, I will quote the substantial increases in money for in-service training—an indispensable part of the improvement of career prospects and of professional development that we offer to teachers—and will call in witness the very large sum that we have conditionally made available for the increase of teachers' pay.
  The hon. Gentleman has once again taken only part of the evidence when he refers to the declining trend which he identifies in future spending plans for schools. The fact is that after this coming year the Government have, in their public spending plans, made no decision yet on the allocation of money between the different services, including education. So the hon. Gentleman cannot draw any conclusions from that.
  516
  The immediate issue behind our present debate is the tragic dispute affecting so many of our schools. It centres not only on pay but on what pay is for. The whole House will surely accept that it is tragic that so much damage is being done to pupils, to parents and to head teachers who have the extra burden placed upon them, and in terms of the strain in many classrooms, as some teachers seem militant and without a care for the pupils while many others must be in agony of mind about the disruption that they are helping to cause.
  I want to pay tribute to those many teachers who, whether grouped in one union or members of other unions, are refusing to disrupt. I want to pay tribute to the heads and their deputies who are bearing such an intense burden of responsibility.
  One of the main ingredients of the dispute is pay. Up to two years ago—I understand that this is common ground—there was an abundance of candidates of the right quality for teacher training. Even at that time, there had been for many yars a shortage of candidates with certain skills—mathematics, physics, craft, design and technology, and, in some cases, religious education and business studies. Moreover, two years ago there were very few, if any, anecdotes of good teachers quitting the classroom.
  Sadly, I have to say that during the past two years those three factors have deteriorated sharply. There is an adequacy of candidates of the right quality for teacher training vacancies, but and adequacy in numbers only rather than the abundance of two or more years ago. The shortage of certain teaching skills is even more serious. There are ample anecdotes about good teachers quitting the classroom.
  The Government, however, recognised early on in the past two years that it would be necessary for the total pay of teachers to be increased in real terms, to enable local education authorities to recruit, to retain and to motivate people of the right quality as teachers.
  In 1984, on behalf of the Government, I offered local education authorities and the teachers an opportunity to put together a bargain that I should find good for children's education and that could be afforded by the nation. I promised that if such a bargain were offered to me I should take it to my Cabinet colleagues and ask for the money. The local education authorities honourably tried to put together such a bargain, not every detail of which pleased me, but it was possible that during negotiations it could have been improved. Alas, in December 1984 the National Union of Teachers walked out of the negotiations.
  In 1985 I filled the gap in the quantity and offered a specific sum of additional money for teachers' pay on condition that the teachers' unions accepted terms on duties and a new career structure, coupled with much more promotion. When the local education authorities embodied that extra conditional money in their offer, the National Union of Teachers led the teachers' unions in rejecting the offer after a mere 20 minutes.
  Let it be understood, therefore—I say this in response to the challenge by the hon. Member for Durham, North that the Government should act—that the Government have acted. They have shaped that request into a bargain that would benefit the children. The Government were ready to recommend that the additional money involved should be paid two years ago. For more than half a year the Government have offered further

  517
  additional money, but the teachers' unions led by the National Union of Teachers, have refused even to discuss it.
  The Government have acted. Extra conditional money is available. The Government recognise, by this conditional offer, that more money is needed in real terms. We made an offer that would be in addition to the annual negotiated pay award. However, we have deliberately made the additional money available only on condition, because we believe that it is essential that if education is to be effective teachers should accept a defined range of duties in return for decent pay.
  When the hon. Member for Durham, North said that his party's policy would include the setting up of an inquiry, I was interested to note that the catalogue of items to be dealt with by the inquiry did not include teachers' duties. Does the hon. Gentleman accept on behalf of his party that in return for a reasonable pay structure, a promotion structure and in-service training, teachers should accept a range of duties associated with their contracts, or is he at one with Mr. Jarvis, who was recently reported by the Press Association as saying that the employers were seeking to persuade the teachers to "surrender their weapons"? Does the hon. Gentleman believe that acceptance by the teaching profession of duties in return for reasonable pay is not correct? Does he challenge the Government's request for a range of duties to be accepted by the teaching profession in return for reasonable pay, or is he at one with Mr. Jarvis in viewing the duties of the teaching profession as merely weapons of disruption?
  Mr. Radice: The Opposition are not in government, although some people believe that we are because the Secretary of State has been doing too little. The inquiry ought to concentrate upon teachers' pay. That is the main reason for teachers being so alienated. That is why they feel so demoralised. The Secretary of State would be well advised to follow that advice. I am not the mouthpiece of the NUT or of any other teaching union. The Opposition speak up on behalf of education.
  Sir Keith Joseph: We must all hope that the discussions that are being held under the auspices of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service are able to help the local education authorities and the teachers' unions to reach a satisfactory conclusion. ACAS, the employers and the teachers' unions know what is the Government's position.
  Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I hope the House will reject the motion and support the amendment.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Clement Freud: I am not going to trade figures tonight. We are going to have, I fear, the usual debate, with this side repeating what are by now well-known facts about Her Majesty's Inspectorate, the NCPTA reports, and so on. From the other side there will be well-worn excuses to the effect that spending per pupil is higher than ever. We accept that, but we also realise—and the Secretary of State must realise it, too—that the expectations of parents are higher now than they were. There seems to be a genuine gap between perceptions and statistics. This may partly be because falling school rolls cannot be translated as quickly as the
  518
  Secretary of State for Education and Science would like into savings. The economies of scale in the classrooms just do not work like that.
  It is ironic that in this situation the Government should be happy to boast about high per capita expenditure and lower pupil-teacher ratios when these facts not only go against the whole of their previously declared economic policy but when many of the facts that make up their statistics are created by local education authorities whose policies are officially disapproved of—
  Mr. Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Freud: No, I shall not give way, so that the hon. Gentleman will have time to make his own speech. But a more significant reason for the disparity between the two sorts of information coming out of the education service is that expectations have been rising. Sometimes it seems as if we expect our schools to solve all our other problems virtually single handed. Certainly many Conservative Members would be prepared to blame our schools for what they perceive to be the problems and the evils of modern society. It is more than the fact that many people now regard schools as a complete child minding service, or that the demands on teachers, for instance, to be able to teach computing have grown. The pressures that are thus loaded on to the education service are therefore immense. The scale of the crisis to which the motion refers is well known to the hundreds of parents who came today to central Hall, Westminster. Their pressing concern, and ours, is for a resolution to the teachers' dispute.
  Let me say first of all that this problem has been almost wholly self inflicted by the Government. The dispute is a product of the assault on local government which has restricted the freedom of the employers to negotiate and of the erratically enforced and unfair public sector pay policy. there will be counties that will be unable to afford the 30 per cent. contribution on education support grant. They will be unable to afford to bid for their own money to supervise school meals or they go into penalty. I should like to know what the Secretary of State has to say about this.
  Cash limits are not some immutable law. They reflect the political priorities of the Government. They say clearly to me, as they said to those London parents and to all of us this afternoon, that this Government do not value the education service. I do not want to say a great deal about the dispute—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I bet the hon. Gentleman does not.
  Mr. Freud: —because it is currently at a very delicate stage.
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is backing both sides. That is typical Liberalism—backing every horse in the race.
  Mr. Freud: I believe that it would be wrong to say too much about the dispute other than to wish all parties in it well. I hope that what ACAS is doing will give us a short period of stability in which we can arrive at a long term settlement.
  I wish to tell the Secretary of State that, on free market criteria alone, teachers' pay is too low. He knows it and he accepts it, and something will have to be done. There

  519
  is increasing evidence that the problems of recruitment, retention and motivation, which were said to explain the top people's award, are true of teachers.
  The Secretary of State talked of the adequacy of supply. I ask him to read the advertisements in The Times Educational Supplement any week if he does not believe that teachers are being tempted out of the profession. In the last few weeks the paper has reported that, for the first time, ILEA primary headships are going to be advertised outside the area. In the Midlands a respected tertiary college—a place where people think it is good and interesting to teach—is having enormous trouble recruiting its teaching staff.
  I wish to quote from a few letters which I have received from people in the last week. The first is from a teacher in Cambridge whose children are receiving free school meals and who writes:
  "It is bad enough having to struggle week in and week out, not being able to afford ordinary things for the family. But when people, with no conception of the demoralising and deliberating struggle to make ends meet in private and put on a brave face in public, take advantage of their privileged position and easy access to the media to tell the country that I am better off than I actually am, it hurts."
  Mrs. Anna McCurley: Who wrote the hon. Gentleman's speech?
  Mr. Freud: The hon. Lady asks who wrote my speech. A constituent wrote the letter to me about what her Government are doing to education.
  A teacher in Hertford writes:
  "The children are being down graded…I respect children. Their future needs everything we can put into it."
  The head of a primary school in Oldham writes:
  "To express my sense of frustration through the written word is extremely difficult…It is going to take us months if not one or two years to catch up on lost work."
  The head of a special school in Southampton writes:
  "When teachers who normally give freely and unstintingly of their time (and I can vouch that mine always have) begin to take action which is so detrimental to a school, something is drastically wrong … When a leader fails to appreciate the value of those in the team, the team collapses. This is happening in education…The Government has lost the trust and respect of teachers."
  The chairman of a Northampton parents association writes:
  "The sufferers in all this, of course, are our children, and ultimately the rest of us who depend upon an educated population to drive this country forward over the next few years."
  It is not Opposition hyperbole to say that the crrisis has never been worse, yet the Secretary of State did have one good, essential idea, to try to make comprehensives genuinely that, by merging the examination at 16-plus and making it a certificate of what a child can do rather that what he or she cannot do. But I say to him now that that good idea is also threatened. Even without the strike, the timetable was too short and the resources too measly. With the strike, the whole scheme is threatened, and a generation of our children is at risk.
  We urge the Secretary of State to think again about this.
  Mrs. McCurley rose—
  Mr. Freud: I will not give way, as I told the hon. Lady. All the vision and grand design will never get off the ground unless the basic commitment, the bottom line, is there first.
  The right hon. Gentleman's tenure of office will leave a legacy of lost opportunities—of the Government and
  520
  of the children whom, as the 1944 Act makes clear, it is his duty to educate. Just as he will not solve the teachers' dispute by bludgeoning them back to work, so he will not solve the other problems of our educational system by abrogating power and dictating terms.
  I believe that to have any chance of functioning effectively and fairly, the education service must be collegial and co-operative, and this applies above al1 in this Government's handling of the teachers dispute. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again before the crisis grows out of all human proportion.
  I said to the parents of ILEA pupils in Westminster Central Hall today "Only the Government can provide the conditions necessary for a long term solution. Only they have the cash." I say now to the Secretary of State that there has to be a lasting deal, via an inquiry—and our amendment, as the Secretary of State will see, links pay and conditions under the terms of that inquiry—via a commitment of central Government money and via a recognition of the worth of teachers.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: I shall be brief, as many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
  The motion is very wide. With regard to the first part, I do not think that the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) advances his case if he attempts to exaggerate it or to suggest that it is all due to what has happened since 1969. The fact is that more money is being spent per pupil today than when I became Secretary of State in 1979, and there is a lower pupil-teacher ratio. I think a lot of what the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) said stems from the fact that parental expectations have risen. There is other equipment in schools—audio visual equipment computers—which was not there hitherto. Of course, there are problems in schools. I repeat that I do not think that the hon. Member for Durham, North advances his case if he suggests that the problem ought to be laid at the door of the present Government.
  I want to come immediately to the second half of the motion concerning the teachers' dispute. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that this strike is doing much damage to children's education. It is doing damage directly by affecting their opportunities for education. Time lost and opportunities missed at school can never be recovered. It is doing damage perhaps even more seriously indirectly by the example that it is giving. I believe that the blame for that must very fairly and firmly be put mainly on the leadership of the National Union of Teachers. I believe—I have said this before, and I repeat—that the teachers are totally wrong in the way that they have chosen to go about this matter. Teachers ask to be treated as professionals.
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Mr. Carlisle: I will not give way. I shall be very brief.
  Mr. Skinner: They found plenty of money for the top people, did they not?
  Mr. Carlisle: I shall come to that in a moment. As I said, the blame must be put very largely on the leadership of the NUT. The union asks that teachers be treated as professionals. I believe that teachers should be so treated. I do not believe that the language of industrial action and strife is the language of the classroom or the language of

  521
  the professional. I believe that the teachers' claim, limited to the re-indexing of Houghton is, as it stands, unrealistic. I believe that the teachers are wrong to have pulled out of talks on the re-forming of the structure. I believe that they must accept that pay and conditions must go together. I believe that they are totally wrong to refuse to go to arbitration.
  It is ironic that when in 1981, as Secretary of State, I changed the conditions of arbitration by requiring both parties to take part—until then one party had been allowed to go individually—I was attacked and opposed by the NUT for so doing. However, the NUT is now taking advantage of that change in the rules to prevent its own claim going to arbitration. I think that it has much to answer for. The NUT leadership is not only damaging but harming those whom it represents.
  Having said that, our real concern must be that we cannot allow actions such as this to drag on. Some definitive proposal must be put forward. We must get away from ann anual dispute over teachers' pay, and the damage that that has done. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agrees that it is vital that teachers should feel secure and that they are fairly and properly remunerated for what they do. I know that the Government accept that teachers need an increase in salary, because they have proposed a package of £1·25 billion.
  Clearly, teachers feel that they have a grievance, which I believe is that they feel that they are receiving less remuneration than their qualifications and work deserve and would receive elsewhere. While I fully support the need to restrain public expenditure, it is not possible to achieve savings in public expenditure at the cost of the individual employed in the public service. I have always believed, and still do, that it is reasonable that those in the public service should have a system to examine their remuneration that takes account of comparable salaries paid to people of comparable qualifications and work elsewhere.
  Therefore, no doubt to the surprise of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I go on to say that one way in which that may be achieved would be by having a review body for teachers. We have one each for doctors, nurses, police and top salaries, and those review bodies can take account of all considerations. I accept my right hon. Friend's point that either that review body must be able to look at conditions of service as well as pay, or that at least there must be agreement on the conditions of service on which the review body is asked to adjudicate the salary. In the end, the review body does not have the final word—the Government have the right to decide the implementation of the review body awards.
  We must have a permanent body that teachers can genuinely feel will take account, in its decision, of what they believe are the legitimate interests in the salaries that they fear are slipping. I urge my right hon. Friend to think carefully of the possibility of such an approach being made.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: The right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) said that the teachers' dispute cannot go on as it has in the past 12 months, and I am sure that there will be broad
  522
  agreement on that. However, he avoided the consequencies of his argument. If the industrial action had not taken place, would we have had such broad agreement on some of the parameters of the dispute? For instance, would we have had broad agreement about the decline in take home pay for teachers or about the collapse in morale not just for teachers but for college lecturers and university teachers? Would the Government have been prepared to listen to some of the arguments from Tory benches? We would not, and it is sad that only through industrial action have the teachers been able to move the Government or the Tory Benches towards a settlement.
  We have driven a group of workers who regard themselves as professionals—
  Mr. Skinner: The Government have.
  Mr. Fatchett: My right hon. Friend is right. The Government have driven a group of professionals, people who aim to make a contribution to our society, into taking action that is out of character. The Government must bear the consequences of this. They have the ability to settle this dispute, but sadly they do not have the will. I fear, and I suspect that many patients fear, that the reason why the Government have allowed the dispute to continue is that they feel that they will gain some short-term politial popularity from doing so. They may be desperate for that, but, while they play political games, children are suffering from the Government's lack of activity. It is about time that the Government showed that they have the will as well as the ability to settle the dispute, and made sure that our children enjoy the education that they deserve. There is a way to settle the dispute, and I ask the Secretary of Stte to look for it.
  It may also be worthwhile to broaden the debate away from the immediate crisis in our schools and in teachers' pay to the issue of the collapse of morale in education. All those who work in education or who have children in education sense that the collapse is taking place. It manifests itself in various concrete forms such as buildings in need of repair, books in short supply—all the problems that we see in inner city schools as well as others. That has been evidenced by the report of the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations and by the Government's inspectors' reports. That much is clear.
  Whatever the Government say, there is damage to the education of our children. I cannot understand an argument to the effect that, if somehow we control the supply of money going into education, children will benefit. It never happens in private education where money seems to be readily available. The state system suffers and therefore the majority of children suffer.
  The consequences of that are at last becoming clear to some Tory Members, not just the right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South who asked for a settlement of the dispute and made some suggestions about how it could be done. Other hon. Members are beginning to realise that the Government's education philosophy is causing irreparable damage. This week, the leader of the Tory group on ILEA resigned, complaining about the Government's policies. Perhaps even more interestingly, the director of education for the London borough of Hillingdon, which is Tory-controlled, also resigned. He said that he was giving up his job because he was expected to become a damage control contractor and that his job in education was no longer about advancing the service or

  523
  furthering children's requirements but simply about preventing and forestalling further damage. That is an indictment not from the Labour party but from people who have been members of the Conservative party and have supported the Government's policies. That is damaging for the Government.
  Mrs. McCurley: The hon. Gentleman should not place too much emphasis on the fabric of schools. My school, which I left in 1961, was condemned in 1929. At the end of the sixth form, 95 per cent. of the pupils went on to higher education. It is the quality of teaching that matters and not where one teaches.
  Mr. Fatchett: That is a strange philosophy. The logic of the hon. Lady's argument is that we allow schools to fall down around us, which is not one of the most sensible arguments. The image of education is worrying to parents and the prospects are that it will get worse. I hope that those Tories who rebelled against the rate support grant did not do so simply because they were worried about their electoral prospects. They must realise that the RSG will make further inroads into the education system. I believe that some, although not all, voted out of altruistic motives and a belief in the educational system.
  Public spending plans will make our education system worse in the future. We have to fight for education. The Government are putting to us the economic doctrine that by making cut after cut in education provision, we are performing a service that will put the country back on its feet economically. That is nonsensical because the best form of expenditure is to invest in our future generations and make sure that they have the right to a good education. Given their philosophy, the Government do not seem able to offer that. I would say that what divides us in this debate is our view of society and the role of our children in it. I believe in the importance of education. Education is fundamental to a civilised society, and has to be provided by a properly funded and supported public sector, not by any other means.
  I fear that many people see the Government as having no time, respect or affinity for public education. The Government are in the business of undermining public education to allow the growth of private education and the private sector. We must in the country as a whole get the argument for education and state education back on the political agenda. We believe in education, and it must be given a high priority. That is what divides Labour Members from Conservative Members, who see in education a means of saving money and supporting a particular political doctrine.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said that what we would expect is a Secretary of State to fight for the education system. That is what parents expect. They are not getting it at the moment, and that is why, if we believe in education, we need a change of Government.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. J. F. Pawsey: The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) is mistaken if he believes that there is any political capital in the teachers' dispute. It is bad news for parents, bad news for children and bad news for teachers.
  I shall refer to two issues: first, the teachers' dispute; and, secondly, to a matter of more continuing importance
  524
  which was highlighted by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) when he was Prime Minister.
  In 1976 the right hon. Member called for a great debate on education. At that time—the period of the last Labour Government—it was recognised that education was facing a crisis.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has detailed the Government's response to the teachers' demands. I believe that there are few Secretaries of State who could have extracted from the Treasury £;1·25 billion to be made available over four years for teachers' pay. That gives the lie to those who say that the Secretary of State does not stand up in Cabinet for education. That amount is in addition to all the normal increments that teachers might have expected during those four years.
  I am anxious for this dispute to end. I believe that the offer represents a fair deal for teachers. It would enable the introduction of a salary system that would reward better teachers. A fair offer is on the table, and I am convinced that it should be taken up.
  My experience of education is confined to the state sector. I therefore understand the importance of providing what my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) described as a ladder of opportunity. It is important that such a ladder is provided for parents who have limited means. In the past, that ladder of opportunity was provided by technical schools and grammar schools. Technical schools have gone, and such grammar schools as remain are under threat. That ladder has now been kicked away. Five of my sons attended Lawrence Sheriff grammar school in Rugby. I therefore have firsthand experience of the positive force for good that comes from a first-rate school.
  We should seek to raise the level of schools to that of the best. I do not believe that that can be achieved simply by voting more and more millions of pounds. If it were that easy, the problem would have been solved, because over the past 20 years spending on education has doubled. It is not so much the money that matters, but what is done with it, and despite doubling the money, standards have not improved. As my hon. Friend the Member Dartford (Mr. Dunn), the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, said in a recent speech, despite the fact that funding has increased, the number of young people from blue collar families attending university has fallen. Increased funding does not of itself mean improved standards. It does not guarantee better education.
  I am convinced that more parental involvement will help, because nothing so concentrates a parental mind on schools as having a child at school. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has introduced a number of measures to improve standards in schools. For example, he has introduced improvements in teacher training and measures to restructure examinations. Teacher appraisal, with appropriate rewards and parental involvement, will help, but do they go far enough?
  There is an interesting benchmark available to us to judge performance. In the past, results in Northern Ireland were less good than in other home counties, but that situation has been reversed, and in Ireland, despite the bombings and the terrorists, examination results are steadily improving and have become some of the best within the United Kingdom. Therefore, I think that the House should ask itself what is going right in the Province. Why do they alone swim against the tide? Can it be—

  525
  shock horror—that it is due to the retention of selective education? Can that be the difference? Judged by the quality of examination results, it certainly could well be.
  I wonder whether the House has the courage to accept that perhaps selective schools—and remember they exist in France, Germany and the Soviet Union—hold the key to excellence in education? Perhaps my right hon. Friend should consider positive discrimination to enable the emergence of centres of excellence throughout the United Kingdom. Mainland standards might then stand more favourable comparison with those in Northern Ireland.
  Is this, then, the real crisis? Is the problem facing us one of money, or one of method? My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has referred to this point, saying that there appears to be more interest in what resources go into education than in what actually comes out. It would therefore seem that, despite the best ever pupil-teacher ratio, the best per capitation ever, the added year's education and the doubling of spending, education still causes us great concern, and rightly so.
  If the Northern Ireland example is any guide, perhaps a child is most likely to progress in a selective system where there is a variety of schools. More choice is needed. I read only yesterday in The Guardian that the Department of Education and Science might be seeking to obtain greater control of educational funding. If that is the case, and if it is able to direct 10 to 15 per cent. of educational funding into new areas, I suggest that centres of excellence represent new areas to which that funding could be directed. That would assist the more academic pupils, and it would help those who have a technical bias. In 1976 performance failed to match the rhetoric, and I trust that that will not be the case on 1986.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: About 10 days ago, a new Secretary of State for Scotland was appointed. The right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) came to the Scottish Office with the reputation of a man who thrives on crises. During his political career he has benefited from various Government crises. The Falklands crisis in 1982 catapulted him out of the Scottish Office into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Westland crisis has helicoptered him back to the Scottish Office. The right hon. Gentleman has come back to a Department that seems to stagger from one crisis to another.
  I said publicly at the time of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's appointment that a new Secretary of State would present an opportunity for someone to take a fresh look at these crises and to solve some. Earlier today, he shirked his responsibilities with regard to the crisis facing the Scottish steel industry. He is now attempting to wash his hands completely of the gravest crisis that Scottish education has ever faced.
  The teachers' dispute in Scotland has been dragging on for about 18 months—even longer than the miners' strike. Although it is not all-out strike action, selective strike action has reduced the learning week of some children from five days to two or three days. Work-to-contract action has had an adverse effect also, resulting in a lack, or even the non-existence, of curriculum
  526
  development, threatening examinations and limiting sports, recreational and the extra-curricula activities that enrich a school.
  Mrs. McCurley: The hon. Gentleman talked about curriculum development. Is not the union that is prolonging the strike the same union that encouraged the Government to accelerate the introduction of the new system in Scotland and is now grumbling about it?
  Mr. Canavan: The blame must lie with the Government. A partnership between local education authorities, teachers' unions and the Government is needed in curriculum development, as well as in other aspects of education. The major fault must rest at the Government's door.
  Many parents are worried about the damage done to their children's education by the dispute. I blame not the teachers but the Government. The Secretary of State for Scotland has responsibility for education in Scotland. The intransigence of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram)—are largely to blame for the crisis in Scottish education.
  It is more than 11 years since the last major independent review of teachers' salaries. A Labour Government implemented the Houghton report, giving teachers the largest salary increases that they have ever been awarded. For most teachers, the increase was about 30 per cent. Since then, teachers have fallen massively behind in the earnings league table. It must be frustrating for young people who, after leaving school, spend four or five years at a college or university studying to be teachers to find that if they had gone straight from school into the police force they would have been earning more. It must have been even more frustrating for young teachers to note, a few months ago, that the Government were handing out increases of 17 per cent. or more to the so-called "top" people, none of whom do a day's work as valuable as a teacher's.
  I have always claimed that one of a Government's prime duties is to ensure not just the maintenance but the improvement of educational standards. It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that adequate resources are channelled into education. The most valuable education resource—I may be in at least partial agreement with the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley)—is not the bricks and mortar that make up a school, or chalk, blackboards, books, audio-visual aids and computers. The most valuable educational resource is a good teacher.
  An adequate supply of good teachers will not enter the profession unless there is a reasonable degree of job satisfaction and remuneration. Teachers rightly feel that that is not the case at present, so there is great dissatisfaction and low morale in the profession. That is why there is an overwhelming demand in Scotland for an independent review of teachers' salaries. The majority of Scottish teachers, Scottish people, representatives of Scottish local education authorities and Scottish Members of Parliament want such a review.
  The Secretary of State is firmly against such an independent review. Scotland is lumbered with a Secretary of State who does not represent the views of the people of Scotland. He is just a puppet, with no mandate from the Scottish people to implement his policies on education or

  527
  anything else, as he was rejected by more than 70 per cent. of the Scottish people at the last general election. Since then, his support has dwindled to an irrelevent rump. If this puppet of a Secretary of State and his colleague the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South—are too afraid to stand up and fight for Scottish jobs, industry and education, the honourable course is to do what the former Secretary of State for Defence did. The future of Scottish education and Scottish children is much more important and precious than the future of all the helicopter companies in the world.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Alan Howarth: The Labour party invites us to accept the proposition that there is a crisis in our schools, and I think that all of us can readily do that. We are witnessing a disruption in schools that has been continuing for 11 months in England and Wales and for longer north of the border. We are witnessing a sharp decline in the respect in which the teaching profession is held. We are witnessing acute anxiety by parents and pupils. The leaders of the National Union of Teachers are engaged in a kind of self-caricature, sulking in their tents, refusing even to sit in the same room with their fellow teaching unions in the negotiations.
  It is curious that the Warwickshire representatives of the NUT declined to allow me to see the ballot papers the union had used in balloting its members on the 12 September offer and this January. It is difficult to believe that all the NUT's members have been made objectively and fairly aware of what has been put on offer.
  Mr. Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the propaganda issued by the NUT about £1·25 billion being a non-sum has been the height of dishonesty?
  Mr. Howarth: It is extraordinarily unrealistic.
  We are witnessing an appalling example to pupils by those charged with the responsibility for educating them. We are seeing militancy, aggressive self-interest at the expense of others and hypocrisy. The British people are rather good at hypocrisy, but this is the worst case yet. Teachers' representatives are arguing that it is in the interests of the education service that they should disrupt pupils' education.
  It is not only a crisis in education but in politics, because the Labour Party refuse to condemn the disruption in unambiguous terms. It is extraordinary that the official education spokesmen for the Labour Party have tabled an early-day motion explicitly supporting disruption in universities.
  It is a crisis of passivity on the part of the British people that they are prepared so meekly to put up with the disruption. It is extraordinary and disappointing. It is unimaginable that such a crisis would have been allowed to persist in France or Germany.
  All these events are a manifestation of a more profound crisis in education in the country. I believe that the crisis dates from a time when the Labour Party and the Left decided to subordinate educational values to political purposes.
  At the north of England education conference in 1966 Tony Crosland urged in favour of comprehensive schools that the central and irresistible argument against the 11-plus lies in the field of social justice and equality of opportunity. I think that both sides of the House would
  528
  strongly believe in social justice and equality of opportunity but we would not accept that an ideology or theory should be allowed to ride roughshod over the immediate interests of the children in our schools.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Howarth: I would like to continue, because we are short of time. The strategy of the Left has been to exploit that bridgehead and it continues to unfold. Mr. Peter Hain told a fringe meeting at the Labour Party conference in 1982 that the Left must go into the community, into the estates. We have seen how they have done that in Tottenham and Handsworth. He said the Le ft must go into the schools—we saw how they did that at William Tyndale and recently at Daneford—and they must go into the work place. We have seen that in the coalmines and News International.
  Mr. George Nicholson, Labour member of the Inner London education authority, and designated as authorised member for political education, has written:
  "I regard my job as mainly an organisational one. It's like a subversive campaign…we are not just talking about History or Geography, we are talking about subjects right the way across, from Music to Maths to English. I don't believe there is any subject untouched by politics…
  I don't believe in neutrality…people who think that they can be devil's advocates and think that they can present all sides of the argument and be objective are just hiding behind their own political values…as a socialist education authority…the starting point is that we live in an unequal society and political education is about organising and thinking critically for change … I think everyone has a big hang up about bias and indoctrination."
  The journal Education, a trade journal of local education authority officers and administrators, describes the 1985 elections to the Inner London Teachers' Association, the largest branch of the National Union of Teachers—the largest teachers' union in the country:
  "For the first time in the turbulent history of the union in London a member of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party is unopposed as treasurer and the choice for the other offices lies between two groups, Rank and File '83 and the so-called Socialist Teachers Alliance, whose members are composed of either Trotskyists, Maoists, ultra left, hard left or near anarchist…(some of them in the Labour party) and between these groups alone. No candidate of more moderate complexion, even Communist party, let alone ordinary left or right wing Labour or Alliance or Tory is standing."
  The Times Educational Supplement had a remarkable and disturbing feature in its edition on 10 January. In an article entitled "Ultra Left tightens grips on ILEA schools" Hilary Wilce wrote:
  "Heads agree that there are up to a dozen schools in the city which are virtually in the hands of extremists…A number of moderate teachers who work in highly militant schools have spoken to The TES about the situation they work in. All refuse to be named … They say there is an atmosphere of daily intimidation, verbal abuse and professional harassment for anyone who does not fall in with the prevailing political line…In one school a militant NUT representative told the staff room he wanted to see the head 'gassed in his bog'; in another a staff room notice was pinned up after strike action saying 'We feel a great sense of power and excitement at being able to disrupt the school'."
  I do not want to get this out of proportion. We are talking about a minority, but they have captured the Inner London Teachers Association and they have a significant voice in the National Union of Teachers.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to pay tribute to the professionalism, dedication and skill of the great majority of teachers. However, I think all of us, I hope the Opposition agree, will be disturbed by what

  529
  I have recounted. Over the past 20 years we have seen centuries of slowly nurtured educational tradition uprooted. We have seen the abolition of the grammar schools. Since the recent county council elections when I am afraid some of the citizens of south Warwickshire were soft-headed enough to vote Liberal and let Labour into control in shire hall, even the grammar school that Shakespeare attended is under threat because they propose to abolish it.
  There are only 150 grammar schools left in the country and how enormously important it is to preserve them and their sixth forms. The old sixth form tradition is being eroded. For example, we have seen the development of the teaching of peace studies. We have seen organisations such as Teachers for Peace and Schools against the Bomb increasing their influence in schools. They argue some extraordinary things. There is a theory about structural violence. It is not just about banning the bomb. The scope of peace studies is extended to suggest to children that the structures of our society are violent because they are oppressive. All that is intended to inculcate an attitude of, to use the term of the Labour party motion, "alienation" from our society. It is not a matter of responsible open debate based on facts. It is a matter of subversively seeking to influence the perceptions of children and it is the antithesis of genuine education.
  The proponents of peace studies ignore history. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to emphasise the importance of the study of history in our schools, because it is only by studying history that we can gain a profound sense of why certain groups within a society or even countries themselves reach the point of antagonism at which peace breaks down. Do the teachers of peace studies tell the children about the history of the peace movement in the 1930s? Do they teach them about the contemporary history of eastern Europe and the Gulag Archipelago? If Opposition Members can cite any instances where they do, I will be relieved and I will certainly be surprised. Do they ever put the case for having an army or a police force? I think not.
  In the document "Teaching London Kids" there are a series of articles by lesbian and male homosexual teachers who have, using the jargon, come out. They argue that it is their duty to encourage children to challenge society's norms of sexuality. I do not think the parents of those children see that as the duty of teachers.
  We have multi-cultural education. We have seen the disgraceful hounding of Mr. Honeyford in Bradford. Educational values and honest analysis were subordinated to aggressive political ideology. He was the victim of abuse, vilification and intimidation. It was his persecutors who intruded politics into the education of the children at Drummond middle school, not Mr. Honeyford, who had the intolerable courage actually to challenge some of the orthodoxies and nostrums of the Left.
  What has happened to educational standards over the past 20 years, against this background? One of the disturbing developments is that people do not read any more. A Euro Monitor survey found that even in the so-called A-B category, 64 per cent. acknowledged that they did not read books. That is portentous for the future.
  We are appalling linguists in this country. As for mathematics, it is interesting to contrast the experience of Germany with that of this country. By now, only some 3
  530
  per cent. of German school children are in the equivalent of comprehensive schools. Some 50 per cent. are in technical schools. In Britain, there has been a movement in the reverse direction. Technical schools were developing promisingly and successfully in the late 1960s. They were then destroyed in the name of a social theory, and the consequence is that the average German school leaver is now two years ahead of the British school leaver in mathematical attainment. That does not stop us from continuing to award ourselves pay increases very much larger than the Germans in relation to our productivity. I welcome the initiative by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), in proposing that some technology schools should be established in the urban centres. However, much has been destroyed that we could ill afford to lose.
  Complaints about the paintwork are superficial. Complaints about money, even if they were justified, miss the point. The amount of cash input is an extraordinarily crude measure of an education system. By that measure, the Government have done well. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State justifiably explained, expenditure per pupil is at speak, and an extra £1·25 billion, which rightly has been made conditional, has been offered for teachers' salaries. By other crude criteria—by Mr. Crosland's criteria—the system has failed. In 1968, 31 per cent. of working class children went on to university. In 1981, only 19·4 per cent. did, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary recently told us.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has led a true debate about the real questions to which we should be addressing ourselves. Other hon. Members have referred to his Sheffield speech two years ago. However, how has the profession responded to the propositions and challenges that my right hon. Friend has put to its members? In the past year, it has responded by abdicating responsibility and undermining the principle of authority, which is profoundly damaging to our children's education. It tempts one to the conclusion that education is too fragile and precious to be left to educationalists.
  I hope that we shall have a reasonable, honourably negotiated solution to the dispute in the near future. However, if the teachers representatives are not willing to come to a reasonable and honourable settlement, we might have to consider much more radical reforms. I hope very much that those reforms will move in the direction of making schools more directly accountable to parents. That will be the mark of a mature society in which parents can exercise proper choice and influence on schools.
  It is interesting that Professor Halsey, Tony Crosland's political adviser, who was closely associated with him when circular 10/65 was issued, by 1981 was recanting and arguing at the north of England education conference and later in an article in New Society that the way forward had to be to strip away a great deal of the bureaucratic superstructure of the education system and go for a direct grant system, whereby schools would receive a direct grant related to the numbers of pupils that the school attracted. That way, parents would be allowed to bring to bear the pressure, which they long to bring to bear, of their aspirations for better standards of learning for their children.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Martin Flannery: It would not need much skill to link the prejudices of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), which he has just aired at length, with the amendment on the Order Paper. I could not tell what he was talking about, except that he seemed to expect the Russians to attack at 2 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
  Let me get back to the reality of why we are here and try to forgot the nonsense to which we have just been listening. In yesterday's edition of The Guardian there was a leading article entitled "Tighter rein on cash for schools". When one reads the article, one realises how much centralisation there is under the Government and how dangerous they are becoming, especially in what they are doing with the rates. In today's edition of The Guardian, John Carvel says:
  "Sir Keith Joseph, the Education Secretary, yesterday faced a barrage of protest from Tory MPs that he should act quickly to settle the teachers' dispute.
  Sir Keith attended a private meeting of the Tory backbench education committee at which about 100 MPs made it clear that opinion is mounting in their constituencies against the Government's refusal to make further concessions to the teaching unions."
  A question has been asked about tying teachers' conditions of service to the Government's offers. The answer has been given to the Secretary of State by me at least 20 times. This is a routine wage demand by teachers and the teachers are not willing to delay it by having it tied to new conditions of service. They are willing to discuss conditions and service after the present wage demand is fulfilled.
  Mr. Robert Key: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Flannery: I shall not give way as I want to make certain points and time is getting on.
  The teachers are a moderate, middle-class section of the community. They have had a union for about 115 years and the Prime Minister, as well as my lowly self, attended the teachers' union centenary when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science in the Heath Government. It was almost 100 years before the teachers who are being attacked took any action.
  Teachers have been provoked beyond measure by the wretched Government. The extent of that provocation is shown by the fact that such a group of middle-class, white-collar people have stuck out for such a long time and have, whether the Conservative party likes it or not, absolutely massive support from parents throughout the country.
  Mr. Key rose—
  Mr. Flannery: I am sorry, but I will not give way. I want to finish my remarks.
  What has happened? It is pointless to ask Conservative Members or the Minister as they have no correct answers. The Opposition have been asking questions for some time. The Government fear that if they open the floodgates with money for the teachers, no matter how impecunious the teachers are, it will cause a lot of trouble.
  The Government continue to say like an incantation that there is no money and that the wicked teachers are doing dreadful things to the children and education. There is the biggest ever crisis in education and it has been caused by the Government's parsimony and their refusal to give enough money to allow the schools to be run properly.
  532
  Meanwhile, the teachers have watched the major Houghton increase of 10 years ago being steadily eroded and their standard of living deteriorating. Teachers are well-qualified, professional people who have been grossly undervalued, and they have raised and improved academic standards enormously, despite the endless draconian cuts in education.—
  Mr. Patrick Thompson rose—
  Mr. Flannery: —that are becoming more and more deadly all the time.
  Let us be clear. The reason why there are not more children entering universities—I have asked the Secretary of State to explain that over and over again is that the Secretary of State has cut on a grand scale the numbers of young people entering universities. Higher qualified young people who have the right to enter university have been prevented from doing so by the Secretary of State. However, many have gone into the polytechnics to be educated no matter what. That will worsen as time goes on, although education is expanding and examination results are splendid compared with what they were.
  Nevertheless, it is our children, the children in state schools, who are suffering. The children of Conservative Members are not suffering; their children are in private schools. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) has told me at least 20 times in the Chamber, not only about his virility but about all the children he has in different schools.
  At the same time as the Government are holding our children down, they have their assisted places scheme where by they siphon off taxpayers' money, as they call it—the public's money—and give it to their private schools while cutting down on our schools. They have cut down on building improvements, on books of which there are now insufficient, and on equipment which we cannot buy because of the low capitation allowances. We therefore do not need lectures from the Conservative party which knows everything about making money and which will have the best for its children. It is not interested—except for its prejudices—in the education of ordinary children.
  The Secretary of State admits that teachers are leaving schools and not entering the profession because of the pitiful wages. We are short of maths, music, science and many other teachers because of the Tory Government, and that fact is coming home to roost.
  There were 3,000 teachers in Sheffield city hall today. Parents were there on a grand scale complaining bitterly and supporting the teachers. It is not true that the parents do not support the teachers. The local education authority supports the teachers, but it does not have enough money to pay them. The Secretary of State will not give it money in the rate support grant to increase teachers' pay. LEAs want to give the teachers more money.
  Education is in deep crisis, although not as deep a crisis as the one in which the Government are, as they revealed earlier. When the Secretary of State said that the Government are acting, he is right. I wish that the Government would come off the stage, stop acting and face reality.
  Teachers have no overtime. They do voluntary duties. There are clubs and groups of every kind for which they stay behind for hours. There are lunchtime choirs. They

  533
  do voluntary lunchtime duties, although they have withdrawn from them. They cover for sick and absent colleagues by taking more children into their classes. They take part in Saturday sports and events of all kinds. Teachers have withdrawn their good will. They are desperate because their standard of living is so low.
  Teachers, as I do, regard the Secretary of State as a disaster. He is the most unpopular Secretary of State for Education and Science in the country's history. He lacks knowledge of the state education system. He reveals his ignorance in nearly every speech. He is obdurate, intransigent and doctrinaire. He is a worthy representative of a Government and a parliamentary party whose members nearly all went to private schools and the so-called public schools. They even name them incorrectly.
  The teachers want an increase in the 1985 settlement at least equal to the increase in the cost of living. That will leave them in the same pitifully low position.
  Secondly, teachers want an increase which does not further erode their salary levels. Thirdly, they want more new money from central Government. Let us stop the nonsense about the £1·25 billion. That is for four years. It is well below the rate of inflation and will not solve the problem. Teachers also want a commitment to a move towards the Houghton relativity, which has been completely eroded.
  Teachers in England and Wales are completely opposed to an inquiry during the dispute. Those people who put forward that suggestion as a panacea are wrong. Teachers would fight such an inquiry. English and Welsh teachers deeply appreciate the Scottish teachers' struggle. They support the English and Welsh teachers, but have a separate demand. They are in turn supported by their English and Welsh colleagues.
  This debate is too short. We cannot do full justice to the problem. It is the Government and not the teachers who are attacking the children in the state sector. They would never do it to their own children. They are doing it to the 7 million children whom we want back at school. The Secretary of State could get them back tommorow morning if only he would pay the money. The struggle will continue unless the Government give more new money. I call on the Secretary of State—it is a pity that he is not here—and the Government to act responsibly. They have grossly underestimated the determination and misery of the teachers who have the low living standards which were caused by the Government.
  The teachers ask only for a just settlement. The 1985 and 1986 salary claims must be settled honourably with more new money from central Government. That is the only just and fair way to help our children, the teachers and education.
  The teachers' morale is low, but they are determined to fight for an honourable and just solution against this wretched Government and to get the children back into the classrooms where they can teach them. That determination is paramount. The Government should take it into account or the struggle will drag on and on, because the public is moving towards support of the teachers.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) could possibly be forgiven for forgetting that the Houghton award to teachers in 1974 was totally eroded in value by
  534
  the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979. By the time that that wicked, wretched, miserable Government went out of office, teachers were worse paid than when Labour came into government. Although teachers are not paid at a level at which we should like to see, they are better paid now than they were under the last Labour Government.
  May I disclaim the myth about public schools. I gave 27 years devoted service to teaching in comprehensive schools at all levels. Conservative Members have children in state schools. The debate was opened by a Wykehamist and sitting one along from him is an Old Etonian—we do not need lectures about public schools.
  Mr. Hunter: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is either deliberately misleading the House—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. No hon. Member deliberately misleads the House. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that?
  Mr. Hunter: I will re-phrase that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw it."] I will certainly withdraw it, and apologise to the hon. Member for Hillsborough. The hon. Member said that the 12 September offer was less than the rate of inflation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is utterly misleading?
  Mr. Greenway: Yes. Many Labour Members have children at public, independent or private schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] The main ingredient in improving schools which the Labour party motion has chosen to ignore is the tremendous improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio. The official figures show that improvement. In nursery schools the pupil-teacher ratio was 26·6 in 1970 and 21·7 in 1983–84; in primary schools the ratio was 27·1 in 1970 and in 1983–84 it was 22; and in secondary schools it was 17·8 in 1970 and 16 in 1983–84. These are substantial figures of improvement.
  These figures have three substantial and beneficial effects upon the schools and pupils. The more teachers there are in a school, the more contact there is between teachers and pupils. There is less pressure on teachers which must release them to work more effectively. It gives teachers more time for in-service training, lesson preparation and marking. It is enormously to the credit of this Government that the pupil-teacher ratio has improved so substantially.
  The main problem and reason for the current dispute in our schools is that the Labour Government, way back in 1964, chose to take away the discussions on teachers conditions of service. Has one ever heard of anything more lunatic or more calculated? It was a political calculation of the wickedest kind to damage schools. The Labour Government said that they would discuss teachers pay but not the conditions of service or how the schools were run. That has not been beneficial to teachers. I was in a school for 15 years between 1964 and 1979 and during that time schools were progressively damaged. We have now reached this position with a tragic strike and children out on the streets. In London, schools were shut for Christmas for three weeks because the teachers had called for lightning strikes of 20 minutes. The children were sent home, but the teachers went in to mark books or prepare lessons on fully pay. That was tragic for the children and no good for teachers.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: It is the Secretary of State's responsibility.
  Mr. Greenway: The Labour Front Bench is trying to shout me down, so I shall take this opportunity to say that Labour's Wykehamist education spokesman went to a London borough town hall a few months ago where he addressed about 40 people. He shared a platform with Labour Militant, Left-wing Labour councillors and the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers. The hon. Gentleman did not restrain the general secretary of the NUT when he said:
  "I am delighted that 14 schools—including 2 special schools—in this area are closed by striking teachers.
  The hon. Gentleman accepted and liked that. The Labour party has a lot to answer for in the present strike. I condemn it and it condemns itself.
  Improvements in the curriculum in primary and secondary schools is of enormous potential value. I am certain that teachers will co-operate more and more with its implementation and with the improvement of schools. However, there is many a school where there have been no games for two or three years. There is many a school where there has been no prize giving, which is useful for children, for two or three years. There is many a school where there are no team games and no teaching of children out of school hours. That is a great tragedy and the reason for it must go back to the separation of pay and conditions in 1964. Those two issues, which are central to schools, to teachers' organisation and to their motivation, have gradually fallen apart. The Labour party must take responsibility for that.
  Team games are being stamped out in many Labour-controlled authority areas because it is said that they foster a competitive instinct in children. When will the Labour politicians come to some sense of reality? It is enormously serious that the Labour party does not accept its responsibility and tackle extremists in some parts of London. It does nothing because it can do nothing. It has no control over its supporters who are driving schools into extreme problems and seriously damaging children.
  It is time that Labour Members forgot their rhetoric and went into the constituencies of London, Liverpool and the rest and got some realistic thinking into employees in local authorities who are damaging children's education and should be persuaded to do better.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Guy Barnett: I should like to draw attention to the appalling complacency of the Secretary of State's speech. He congratulated the Government on spending more per child than in 1979 and on the fact that the teacher:pupil ratio is better than when they came to power. He knows that school rolls have fallen. He must also recognise that the fact that there are fewer children in schools does not mean that the costs of education have fallen proportionately. Half-empty buildings have stayed open and fixed costs remain. Moreover, parental expectations have risen in the past five or six years, as have the expectations of children. He should respond to that.
  There is an even more serious problem. I am convinced that a comparison of expenditure on education or of pupil-teacher ratios with other industrialised countries would show Britain falling seriously behind. The other day I
  536
  heard some interesting evidence that compared performance in Britain with that in Germany. The research was undertaken under the auspices of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. That evidence is deeply disturbing for the future of our industrial competence and our success in competing with other industrialised countries.
  Much has been said about the teachers' dispute. I wish only to quote from two letters that I have recived in my mail bag from constituents, which are typical of hundreds of letters that I am sure other hon. Members are receiving. The first letter is from a parent. What he writes typifies the mood of the meeting that many of us attended in Central hall. He states:
  "As a constituent of yours with three children in state education, I am increasingly concerned at the failure of the Government to provide adequate resources to resolve the present strike by teachers."
  I am sure that the parents at the meeting, which took place under the auspices of the All London Parents Action Group, would have agreed with that view. A letter from a teacher in my constituency is even more disturbing. This is the second letter that my constituent has written to the Secretary of State and he has not yet received a reply to either letter. He writes:
  "I work in an SPA in what would generally be termed a 'tough school'. But I am beginning to believe that it is useless to have any commitment to children and the profession at present because my commitment is undermined by the actions of you and your colleagues. The temptation to leave the profession is getting stronger every week."
  Many years ago I was a teacher. In the schools where my children have been taught, teachers are giving more in terms of service than I or the average teacher gave when I was an active teacher. The amount of work that is done out of school hours is exceptional. Many teachers, justifiably, regard the trade-off between a pay increase, and terms and conditions of service as an insult to the devotion and commitment that they have to their jobs and the amount of voluntary service that they give on the children's behalf.
  The Secretary of State repeatedly refers to the misleading way in which the National Union of Teachers is led and the way in which the leadership leads teachers to do what they should not do. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) I was present at the Wembley conference centre last Saturday. I witnessed the debate in which the conference overwhelmingly carried a motion to stage a one-day strike at the earliest opportunity in defiance of the National Executive committee of that union. The union is moderately led, but the teachers' anger and frustration has led to that decision. The fact that the NUT and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers had a relatively narrow vote on the possibility of withdrawing co-operation in examinations shows the desperate position that we are facing. My children are about to take their 0 and A-level examinations this year. Many hon. Members could point to similar pieces of evidence. The teachers in the staffroom, in their anger and frustration, believe that that is the only way in which to go forward. Ford workers are refusing a wage increase of 15·5 per cent. If one compares the increasing wages in private industry with the way in which public sector workers are being squeezed out one can understand the anger that is felt by teachers when they see their comparability with other jobs being adversely affected.

  537
  Teachers work in buildings which are deteriorating. Some hon. Members may have read the report in The Standard today about the position in Brent. It stated:
  "Schools in a London Borough (Brent) could close unless millions of pounds are found for repairs, education chiefs have warned."
  Although £6·5 million is needed, Brent seems capable of affording only £1 million. The Inner London Education Authority, which has a considerable bill for repairs, improvements and extensions, again had its budget severely cut.
  Those factors lie behind the dispute. My constituent feels that his work and commitment is being undermined by the Secretary of State, and that is the reason for the desperate position that our schools face.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: With only a few minutes to go, I shall leave unsaid most of what I hoped to say. I shall briefly comment only on the teachers' dispute.
  First, I must confess that 14 years before I became a Member of Parliament I was a school teacher, admittedly in the private sector. That may earn me some derision from Opposition Members, but they will discover the irrelevancy of that derision if they bear with me. During that time my wife taught in a primary school. My experience has led me to accept utterly and unequivocally that the level of teachers' pay is unacceptable. Historically and traditionally we have undervalued and underpaid our teachers. That must be put right.
  I accept and applaud much of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been trying to do since he came to office. The three basic principles of his policy have been: to improve standards and quality in education; to increase parental involvement in schools; and to achieve greater cost-efficiency. These are acceptable to all reasoning people. Sadly, there is one inner flaw, which is that we have suffered from a lack of a perceived acknowledgement that the providers of education are the supremely important entity within the provision of education. The "work force" of teachers started in 1979 and again in 1983 broadly in sympathy with the objectives of the Secretary of State, and it is a tragedy that over the years ill will has replaced good will.
  Opposition Members will be disappointed if they expect me to continue criticising my right hon. Friend. On 12 September—a significant date—the teachers lost my support. There were inadequacies in the 12 September offer, but they do not justify the strike action that is being taken. The National Union of Teachers is primarily responsible for that. During the past month I have come to despise the NUT national leadership. It is a catalyst for disaster within our education system, and much of the responsibility for the present position lies with that union.
  For me, 12 September was the breaking point. My latent sympathy for the teachers was severed. I agree with my right hon. Friend about the fundamental principle that is at stake, and on this point I beg to differ, with respect, from the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett). The Government acknowledge that teachers are underpaid and that there should be an injection of more money into teachers' salaries. The principle of greater contractual obligation and appraisal stands absolutely. That is the
  538
  inner flaw in the case made by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) and his hon. Friends. It is not unreasonable to demand greater contractual obligations from teachers for improved performance.
  Clearly much is wrong and has gone wrong over the years. It would be easy for the Secretary of State to give way, to concede, to buy peace for a short time. If he concedes to a demand for more pay with no terms attached, but an agreement to talk later, he will inflict not on another generation but on parents and children next year exactly the same trauma as is being suffered now.
  I support and admire my right hon. Friend for his stand and for his endeavours.
  9.36 pm
  Mr. Harry Ewing: The weakness in the speech of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and in speeches by other hon. Members on the Government side is that they fail to appreciate that teachers in England, Scotland and Wales have been pushed beyond the limit of endurance by this Government. The Government are not dealing with the legitimate grievances presented to the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is against that background that we face a crisis in schools.
  It is not in my nature to be unkind, but seldom during 15 years in the House of Commons have I heard a more complacent speech from a Secretary of State that the speech made today by the right hon. Gentleman who has responsibility for education in England and Wales. The Secretary of State did not even do the House the courtesy of listening to a major part of the debate. How on earth he can expect to comprehend the anxiety in the constituencies if he does not take the time to listen to the debate is completely beyond me.
  I condemn the Secretary of State for the content, tenor and complacency of his speech, and for the insult he delivered to the House in absenting himself from great parts of the debate, but there is one speech I will not criticse the right hon. Gentleman for missing. His Under-Secretary had the good sense to miss it as well. I am talking about the speech of their hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) who from the beginning to the end of his speech tried to smear the teaching profession. The Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary are to be complimented for missing that speech, because if all of us had been wise we would have gone out and refused to listen to it. The Secretary of State has missed parts of what has been an important debate and he must accept criticism for that.
  Sir Keith Joseph: I missed 40 minutes out of 140 minutes. I shall carefully read the speeches that I missed and I am quite sure that I shall find the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon well worth reading.
  Mr. Ewing: Knowing the Secretary of State's background and track record, I am quite sure he will find his hon. Friend's speech worth reading. There are similarities between what is happening in Scotland and what is happening in England and Wales over this crisis in our schools. We both suffer the same accommodation problems. There are schools throughout Great Britain that were built in the last century and were expected to last throughout the present century and, no doubt, well into the

  539
  next century. There is little capital available for much-needed modernisation of our school accommodation. In Scotland the criterion for accommodation is based on a report that is eight years old. The accommodation discussion document was published in 1978. Yet in 1986 the Government, who have been in power since 1979, have not published their own accommodation discussion document and we are still working on the basis of the 1978 document.
  The other similarity between Scotland and England and Wales has been the constant reference to the fact that more is being spent per pupil. I note that the former Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle), did not say that more per head was being spent on education. I suspect that in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's case it was deliberate although in other cases it was accidental. I issue a challenge to the Secretary of State for Education and Science and also to the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for education in Scotland to publish the details of the increase in the educational content of the spending per pupil in schools. I suggest that if we had a breakdown of the figures it would show that less was being spent on the education element. Everyone knows that it costs just as much to heat, clean and light a schoolroom for 30 children as for 10, 15 or 20 children. I suspect that the Government will not want to publish the figures, because they would show that less is being spent per pupil on the education element than was spent in 1979.
  Mr. Skinner: We will have to get them leaked.
  Mr. Ewing: As my hon. Friend says, we will have to get them leaked.
  That is part, but only part, of the crisis in education. The Government's public expenditure survey forecasts that the pupil-teacher ratio will get worse between now and 1988 or 1989. The ratio has been deteriorating over the last few years, though not to any great extent, but it is significant that the Government public expenditure survey is budgeting in the rate support grant for a reduction—if that is the correct expression—of 5,000 teachers in England and Wales by the end of 1986.
  Sir Keith Joseph: How many fewer children will there be?
  Mr. Ewing: If I may say so, that is not the best educational comment I have heard; it is a good mathematical comment, but it has little to do with education. At a time when we have an opportunity not only to maintain but to increase resources and take advantage of the reduction in the number of children at school, all the Secretary of State can do is sit with his arms folded and mouth, "How many fewer children?", as if somehow that was relevant to education.
  The history of the teachers' dispute in Scotland reveals a disgraceful and appalling story. In June 1984 an application was submitted by the teaching unions in Scotland for the establishment of an independent pay review because in the eyes of all the teaching unions, and not just the main union, the Educational Institute of Scotland, there had been an erosion of 31 per cent. in teacher's salary levels since Clegg in 1979—not since Houghton.
  Between June 1984 and November 1984, a period of six months, the then Secretary of State, now Secretary of State
  540
  for Defence, dillied and dallied and gave hints that the Government would agree to set up this independent inquiry. Suddenly from nowhere, in answer to a written question one Friday afternoon in November 1984, after six months' deliberation, the then Secretary of State for Scotland announced that he was not going to establish an independent inquiry. Then the Secretary of State asks why teachers are angry. Teachers have a right to be angry because of the way in which the Government have treated them.
  If the Under-Secretary would care, when replying, to say something about the position that will prevail as we go into the examination period later on this year, I for one, and parents throughout Scotland, would be very grateful. The Government are, in my view, deliberately misleading parents and pupils—and the new Secretary of State for Scotland was at it again last Friday—by continually giving the impression that, somehow or other, these examinations—and the new Secretary of State says that the 1986 examinations will be on the standard grades—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary seems to think not. Perhaps he had better check what the Secretary of State said, that they are going to go ahead with the new standard grade examinations.
  I do not believe that even the old grade examinations can go ahead uninterrupted. Certainly, the examination papers can be prepared. Certainly, the pupils can be presented. But the Under-Secretary knows that, because of the different qualifications for marking papers in Scottish examinations from those which prevail in England and Wales, the papers simply cannot be marked. That is a disruption of the examinations in anyone's terms. Once the children have taken the examinations, their ability to go on to higher education or to enter employment, if they can find it, depends almost entirely om the outcome of their examinations. As the Under-Secretary must be aware, they will not be in a position to know the outcome of the examinations for a very long time indeed.
  The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary really ought to be a bit more forthcoming on this point. The Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association has only today expressed most serious concern about the examination programme as we go into the examination period.
  The Under-Secretary will rightly chastise me if I say nothing about our position in relation to the teachers and the need for a settlement. Our position is quite clear. The sooner this dispute is settled, the better for all concerned. The Secretary of State says that the Government's position is quite clear. It is that they have made practically no attempt to do anything. They did make an attempt towards the end of last year. The Secretary of State keeps talking about the £125 million which is ten per cent. of this year's salary bill only, but not ten per cent. of the salary bil1 for the next four years. Nevertheless, I repeat that it is for the Government to take the initiative in getting the teachers to the negotiating table. I doubt that the Under-Secretary will concede this tonight, but I understand that overtures are being made. We hope that they succeed, and that the Government, who are wholly responsible for the crisis in education, will respond to these overtures and bring about a settlement. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby to condemn this Government's entire education policy against the background of the crisis in our schools.
  9.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): This is a debate on education in both England and Wales and in Scotland. I was therefore astonished that the Scottish Labour Opposition thought so little of the debate and of the motion that when it was tabled yesterday not one Scottish Labour Member signed it. It was only today, as an afterthought, that the hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) added their names to the motion.
  I listened carefully to the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) and to those of my hon. Friends the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) who made the very important point that the major erosion of teachers' pay took place under the last Labour Government between 1974 and 1979.
  I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will expect me to concentrate upon Scotland. The Opposition have generally blamed the Government's expenditure policies for the inadequacies that they perceive in schools. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has already demonstrated that the facts do not bear this out either in England or in Scotland where expenditure per pupil has increased substantially under this Government, where pupil-teacher ratios have improved, where we have offered extra money for standard grade and where we have offered extra money for Action Plan.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) that pupil numbers are declining. They will decline by 100,000 in Scotland. This means that authorities must face the need for rationalisation.
  In the few minutes left for this debate, I wish to deal with the dispute. We fully recognise teachers' concern and their key, important role. That is why the Government have offered additional resources for a sensible settlement both north and south of the border. A tribute should also be paid to the considerable number of teachers who have continued to work and carry out their professional duties.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East accuses my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland of not making every effort to resolve the dispute. We have tried to do so again and again. The hon. Gentleman's friends in the Labour-led education authorities put forward a package in the summer of 1985 that was rejected out of hand by the Educational Institute of Scotland, despite the fact that the Government were prepared to provide help for that package. We offered to provide an additional £125 million for four years over and above normal pay settlements. The EIS has even rejected the formula offered by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) to help to resolve the dispute. Most recently, a personal formula was put forward by Mr. John Pollock, the general secretary of the EIS, but it was rejected by his executive. The EIS has not even put in a pay claim. Some of the members of the EIS say that they are prepared, if necessary, to carry on until the next general election without putting in a pay claim . In theory, that could be until June 1988. All one can say about that is that it shows commendable faith in the success of the counter-inflation policy of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  542
  The view of the Government, The employers and many teachers, including the other associations apart from the EIS, is that a lasting settlement of the dispute must involve both pay and conditions. They believe that that is crucial.
  May I suggest to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) that the Labour party ought to get its act together on its education policy. The hon. Gentleman was shot down in flames when he was asked a simple question about the inquiry. He was asked what it should inquire into, but he did not know. I offer him the policies of the Labour party in Scotland. There are at least three. First, there is the policy of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) as reported in The Times Educational Supplement for Scotland:
  "If the dispute is still running"
  and the Labour party is in power
  "we will seek to negotiate a settlement and if that is impossible then you can have your independent pay review."
  The policy of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was reported in a separate edition under the heading
  "Labour won't sign blank pay cheques".
  This reports him as refusing
  "to give an unequivocal commitment that a future Labour Government would implement the findings of an independent pay review for teachers, which he supports."
  At least the hon. Member for Garscadden had the honesty to say what the hon. Member for Durham, North did not, that it is the easiest thing in the world in opposition to promise everything to everybody.
  The third policy is the one put forward by some education authorities in Scotland. The Labour-led education authorities in Scotland have been consistent in their view that a settlement must involve pay and conditions. The Government's position is that a settlement must be a basis for the long term. It is wholly unacceptable for the EIS to claim that it is right for teachers on full pay to boycott examination procedures.
  We do not seek to impose more onerous conditions and duties on teachers. We recognise the burdens which teachers bear, their hours and their responsibilities. We have no wish to add unreasonably to them. We simply want to see a proper recognition that teachers have duties other than teaching which they have always necessarily had. I am not talking about their voluntary and extracurricular activities, which indeed are valued, but essential jobs like preparing pupils for examinations and giving progress reports to parents.
  There is nothing unique or extraordinary in the idea of linking pay with conditions, as some teachers' representatives would have us think. Rather, it is extraordinary to suppose that they cannot be linked. It is no more than standard practice in other occupations. If this fact could be recognised, the teachers would have the key to unlock the extra resources which the Government have offered with the real prospect of resolving the long and painful disputes.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East asked me about the position on examinations. The EIS decision to disrupt the 1986 examinations is one of the most damaging aspects of the dispute. Teachers cannot pretend that they have no wish to damage the interests of pupils when the SCE examinations are probably the single most important qualification that a number of them will attain.
  The Scottish Examination Board has intimated its resolve to proceed with the examinations. That is its legal duty. It does not underestimate the potential difficulties at

  543
  every stage at which teacher participation is normally given and expected. The board has met today to discuss its contingency plans, and will be making a statement.
  I think that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East should have made clear that the Labour party does not support the boycott of examinations which is being conducted by the EIS. The debate has been overshadowed by these wholly unnecessary disputes. The Government have however, put forward constructive proposals for resolving them.
  Mr. Allen McKay rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 259.

  Division No. 47]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

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

  Alton, David

  Deakins, Eric

  Anderson, Donald

  Dewar, Donald

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dixon, Donald

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Dobson, Frank

  Ashton, Joe

  Dormand, Jack

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Douglas, Dick

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Dubs, Alfred

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Barnett, Guy

  Eadie, Alex

  Barron, Kevin

  Eastham, Ken

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

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

  Beith, A. J.

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Bell, Stuart

  Ewing, Harry

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fatchett, Derek

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

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Blair, Anthony

  Fisher, Mark

  Boyes, Roland

  Flannery, Martin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Forrester, John

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Foster, Derek

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

  Foulkes, George

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

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Freud, Clement

  Buchan, Norman

  Garrett, W. E.

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  George, Bruce

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Campbell, Ian

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gould, Bryan

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Cartwright, John

  Hancock, Michael

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Thomas

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Clay, Robert

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Haynes, Frank

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cohen, Harry

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Coleman, Donald

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Home Robertson, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Craigen, J. M.

  John, Brynmor

  Crowther, Stan

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Kennedy, Charles

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  544

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Redmond, Martin.

  Lambie, David

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Lamond, James

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Robertson, George

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Litherland, Robert

  Rogers, Allan

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Loyden, Edward

  Rowlands, Ted

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Ryman, John

  McKelvey, William

  Sedgemore, Brian

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Sheerman, Barry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  McTaggart, Robert

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McWilliam, John

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

  Madden, Max

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Marek, Dr John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

  Martin, Michael

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

  Maxton, John

  Soley, Clive

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Meacher, Michael

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Michie, William

  Stott, Roger

  Mikardo, Ian

  Strang, Gavin

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Straw, Jack

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Tinn, James

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Torney, Tom

  Nellist, David

  Wallace, James

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wareing, Robert

  O'Brien, William

  Weetch, Ken

  O'Neill, Martin

  Welsh, Michael

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  White, James

  Parry, Robert

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Patchett, Terry

  Wilson, Gordon

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Winnick, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Woodall, Alec

  Penhaligon, David

  Pike, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Radice, Giles

  Mr. Ron Davies and

  Randall, Stuart

  Mr. Ray Powell.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Favell, Anthony

  Ancram, Michael

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forman, Nigel

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Best, Keith

  Forth, Eric

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Fox, Marcus

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Fry, Peter

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gale, Roger

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Galley, Roy

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Burt, Alistair

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Goodlad, Alastair

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

  Gow, Ian

  Cash, William

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Chapman, Sydney

  Greenway, Harry

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Gregory, Conal

  Coombs, Simon

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Cope, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Grist, Ian

  Couchman, James

  Ground, Patrick

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Grylls, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Durant, Tony

  Hannam, John

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  545

  Harris, David

  Mates, Michael

  Harvey, Robert

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mellor, David

  Hayes, J.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Hayward, Robert

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Moate, Roger

  Heddle, John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Henderson, Barry

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hickmet, Richard

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hicks, Robert

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Holt, Richard

  Murphy, Christopher

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Neale, Gerrard

  Howard, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

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

  Newton, Tony

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Norris, Steven

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hunt, David (Wirral, W)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Jackson, Robert

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Jessel, Toby

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Parris, Matthew

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)

  Key, Robert

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Pawsey, James

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Knowles, Michael

  Pollock, Alexander

  Knox, David

  Porter, Barry

  Lamont, Norman

  Portillo, Michael

  Lang, Ian

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Latham, Michael

  Powley, John

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Price, Sir David

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Lester, Jim

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Lightbown, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lilley, Peter

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  McCrindle, Robert

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Rost, Peter

  Maclean, David John

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

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

  Ryder, Richard

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Madel, David

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Malins, Humfrey

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Malone, Gerald

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Marlow, Antony

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  546

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Trotter, Neville

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Shersby, Michael

  Waddington, David

  Silvester, Fred

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Sims, Roger

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Walden, George

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Speed, Keith

  Waller, Gary

  Spencer, Derek

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Squire, Robin

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Watts, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Steen, Anthony

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Stern, Michael

  Wheeler, John

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Whitfield, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Wilkinson, John

  Stokes, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sumberg, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Wood, Timothy

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Woodcock, Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Mr. Archie Hamilton and

  Tracey, Richard

  Mr. Michael Neubert.

  Trippier, David

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes Her Majesty's Government's policies to improve the standards and quality of school education for children of all abilities; notes that expenditure per pupil is at record levels; supports the Government's efforts to secure better value for money from that expenditure in future; and urges Her Majesty's Government to continue to work for a lasting reform covering teachers' pay, pay structure and duties, facilitating the recruitment, retention and motivation of teachers of the quality needed to underpin these policies.

  Schools (Government Policies)
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

      Overseas Development and Co-operation
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
      That the draft Asian Development Bank (Extension of Limit on Guarantees) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 11th November, be approved.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
      Question agreed to.

  Charities
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
  10.14 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The very essence of Great Britain has been its voluntary sector. Right across England there are vast numbers of charities, large and small, run by men and women of good will. They cannot be professionals in all spheres and are essentially amateurs.
  I want to speak about small charities, because they need some extra protection. In many cases these small charities rely on professional advisers of various kinds. If I relate my own experience of the Hampstead, Wells and Camden Trust, it might help to illustrate some of the difficulties that trustees can encounter. The trust has 15 trustees, including a vicar, lawyers, accountants, and others. Some are appointed by the borough council, and the rest by the trustees themselves. They are a good cross-section of local people.
  The work is divided into committees. I want to deal with the estate committee, which has the power to manage the trust's property holdings. I stress that neither the chairman of the committee nor the full committee has delegated authority to buy or sell property. The committee considers proposals for sales or purchases and listens to the professional advisers who are present. The committee will then recommend the proposition to the full trustees' meeting. The professional adviser will be present at the full meeting of the trustees, and they will then take their decision.
  The trust has enjoyed the services of the same firms of solicitors and estate agents for well over half a century. Although the partners have changed, there was no obvious reason to alter the firms of advisers. From time to time advice was given to the estate committee on various sales, some under the Leasehold Reform Act, some to sitting tenants, and others to third parties. Bearing in mind the condition of some of the properties, the figures given to the trust by its adviser did not seem wildly out of line with current local knowledge. However, the trustees had to rely on their adviser and were secure in the thought that the Charity Commission had to approve such figures, and one assumed that it had the means of checking them.
  At the time that I am referring to the then chairman, who was a former Labour councillor, persuaded my wife to take the chair of the estate committee. For two years she was the chairman of that committee and was persuaded by her fellow trustees to continue as acting chairman until a suitable replacement could be found. After about 18 months she was able to get a surveyor to succeed her as chairman.
  The trustees gradually became suspicious of the new principal of the estate advisers. They communicated that view to the police and the Charity Commission. The adviser was eventually prosecuted for fraud, found guilty, sentenced to prison and made restitution of about £60,000. That figure was approved by the Charity Commission in all the circumstances explained to it. I have seen some reports suggesting that millions of pounds were lost. Nobody has substantiated a figure of that magnitude nor anything approaching it.
  I believe that a way of helping and protecting trustees and their funds would be if the Charity Commission
  548
  insisted that all sales and purchases figures were franked by the district valuer. Nobody is more impartial or has more knowledge about local values of all kinds—local authority, private, and so on—than the district valuer. I hope that the Minister will ask the Charity Commission to accept that suggestion.
  I refer to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland). On 18 December he raised the issue on the Christmas recess motion, and brought into his speech in a snide and less than pleasant way my name and that of my wife. He gave me notice of his intention in a letter to mention the Wells and Campden Trust, but not that he would mention any names.
  The debate should have started at 3.30 pm, and I received his letter at 5.5 pm in an envelope on the Board, not marked "Urgent". That was when I first came into the House on that day. If the debate had started on time, at 3.30 pm, it would have been half over by 5 pm. The hon. Gentleman said that his secretary telephoned mine that morning, but that is not relevant, as I shall seek to show. I had vital meetings at 6 pm and 7 pm outside the House and they could not be postponed at a few moments' notice. I gave the hon. Gentleman notice that I intended to put these facts on the record tonight—four days' notice.
  If the hon. Gentleman was serious and not mischievous in wishing to prevent wrong-doing or errors in charity law, and honourable hon. Member would have come to me and said, "There seems to be a fiddle in a charity in my constituency, and I believe that you have had a similar problem or some sort of fraud in a charity in Hampstead. Is there a common feature? Can we work together? Can we co-operate?" Any normal hon. Member would give the answer that I would have given, unhesitatingly and unreservedly, "Of course." However, the hon. Gentleman did not choose to do so.
  I have never relied upon newspaper gleanings or briefs from disgruntled tenants to make my case. However, we all operate differently, although I like to feel that the convention in which the House strongly believes, that we do not interfere in each other's constituencies, is right.
  Mr. Stuart Holland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: That is how most hon. Members in the House operate, and that is the way in which the House continues to operate, in my judgment.
  Mr. Holland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: By the very detailed—
  Mr. Holland rose—
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall not give way now.
  Mr. Holland rose—
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall not give way on an Adjournment debate. The hon. Gentleman should know better.
  Judging by the detailed comments that the hon. Gentleman made, he must have prepared his speech, one, two or three days earlier, and he could easily have given notice of what he wanted to do and invited my full cooperation—
  Mr. Holland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall give way in a second. The hon. Gentleman did not choose to do so.
  Mr. Holland: With regard to notice of my intentions, my name was down for the Consolidated Fund debate and it became clear only the evening before that I would not be called, in which case, the following day, I said that I should like to speak in the Adjournment debate. I immediately gave notice to the hon. Gentleman through his secretary.
  The hon. Gentleman made a point about not interfering with events in other people's constituencies. Will he reply to these questions? Is he, or is he not, a member of the board of ASDA Properties? Did it, or did it not, make a bid for properties to be sold by St. Olave's Charity in my constituency? Does he, or does he not, agree with the brunt of my claim in that debate that there should be a judicial inquiry into both the charity of which he is a trustee and the charity in my constituency? Is he, or is he not, prepared to co-operate with inquiries concerning that?
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: A six-column detailed speech clearly had been prepared by the hon. Gentleman. If he was going to take part in the Consolidated Fund debate, he would have had time to give me notice. He has shown clearly that he had no intention of giving any notice.
  Let me continue, because it is important that the facts are put on record. If the hon. Gentleman wishes his further snide comment to be answered, let me say that I am a non-executive director of ASDA Properties, and non-executive directors are not consulted about the sort of offer that was made. It was not pursued and not finalised. That is a wholly different matter, but the hon. Gentleman's experience of commerce clearly does not exist.
  As I have said, the hon. Member for Vauxhall knew that he was going to speak, if not on the recess motion, in the Consolidated Fund debate. In neither case did he choose to advise me. He had prepared his speech, so he could have given me notice, and my arrangements could have been altered and I could have been present in the Chamber.
  All the facts about the judicial inquiry to which the hon. Gentleman referred in connection with the trustees, as far as they knew them, were given to the Charity Commission and the fraud squad long ago. If the hon. Gentleman had been more careful in his reading of the facts, he might have gleaned that.
  Any small charity could have found itself in such a position and with that sort of problem. I would have hoped that we could be on common ground on that matter on 18 December, and we might now be on common ground on that issue if the hon. Gentleman were to return to observing the normal conventions of Parliament.
  Small charities require help from the Charity Commission to make certain that their assets are not sold or indeed purchased at the wrong price. I would have hoped that that was a matter on which there would be no division, and that could have been established by a 30-second conversation. For reasons known only to the hon. Member for Vauxhall, that was not done.
  There will, one hopes, at some stage be further consideration of charity law. I hope that it will not be necessary to wait very long. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say this evening that there is merit in my proposal for the district valuer to check and frank the price. That is, after all, the way in which most sales have to operate in local authority cases and in the right-to-buy legislation, for example, the district valuer comes in and gives his own independent judgment if that is required.
  550
  It is not easy for those who have never served on charities or performed unpaid voluntary work to understand some of the problems that may beset trustees doing these jobs at the request of others. With hindsight, of course, it is easy to say what A, B or C should have been done. Hindsight is a commodity given to very few people, but it is not given to what I would call normal human beings.
  In conclusion, I believe that my fellow trustees and I or any other similar body of trustees—and I stress this in order to prevent this sort of problem from happening anywhere else — could have acted in no other way. Nobody could have acted more diligently or differently except, as I say, with hindsight. We believe in the competence—
  Mr. Stuart Holland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I think that I had better leave time for my hon. Friend to reply.
  Mr. Holland rose—
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: We believe in the competence and honesty of our advisers, for the simple reason that —[Interruption]—the hon. Member for Vauxhall has been in the House long enough to understand procedures, and he had four days' notice of my speech. Had he asked, I would have provided time in the debate, but he again chose not to do so.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is obviously clear that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) is referring in some depth to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland). He is correct to do if he so wishes, but is it not an abuse of the procedures of the House, notwithstanding the fact that this debate is on a motion for the Adjournment, for the hon. Gentleman, as he is impugning the honour of another hon. Member, not to give way to my hon. Friend?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I must remind the House, particularly the Front Benches, that the half-hour Adjournment debate is normally Back-Bench Members' time. It is a matter for the Member who has the Adjournment whether he decides to give way, whatever the content of his speech. I have noticed that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) has given way once. It is a matter for that hon. Member, and it is my job in the Chair to protect the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment and to ensure that the Minister has an opportunity to reply to the points that are made.
  Mr. Holland: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall listen to the hon. Gentleman, but I must say to him that he is taking time out of the Adjournment debate.
  Mr. Holland: Following your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you and the House will have observed that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) has not, in fact, spent his time addressing his remarks to the subject of charities. Rather, he has addressed his remarks to the more trivial matter of the length of notice given to him in the debate. Could you not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the Chair, advise him that

  551
  if he wishes to gain the consent of the House for his refusal to take the points that I wish to make, he should address himself to the subject of charities and not to other matters?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) is in order, or I should have pulled him up.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I gave four days' notice to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene, which he could have done if he had bothered to take advantage of the practices of the House. He chose not to do so. He cannot expect to intervene at this last moment. He had four days' notice, which I contrast with the 10 minutes or so that he gave me.
  No charity trustees could have acted differently. One must believe in the competence, honesty and integrity of one's advisers, until they are proved to be false, and in the efficacy of the Charity Commission. It was a long stop. It is now clear that the longstop needs improving. I hope that my hon. Friend will endorse my proposition.
  10.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I am plainly glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) has chosen to mention tonight the issue of charities and, in particular, their administration, which events in the affairs of the Hampstead, Wells and Camden Trust, of which he and his wife are trustees, have highlighted. I know that the matters that he has mentioned are of interest to many people in the charitable world and beyond.
  My hon. Friend referred to a debate on 18 December 1985 and a speech by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) which related largely to the deeply troubling affairs of a charity in his constituency called St. Olave's. There is no doubt that during the course of that debate the hon. Gentleman referred to the Hampstead, Wells and Camden Trust and my hon. Friend's conduct. I am sure that the House will welcome my hon. Friend's remarks tonight and the clear account that he is given of the fact that his conduct in that matter is beyond reproach.
  I wish to make it clear, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall is here, that what he said about the St. Olave's charity is an important matter of public interest. I feel confident that any hon. Member who was told of such an allegation about a charity operating in his constituency would have wanted to raise the matter in the House. I make no complaint about that. I think that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has assured the hon. Gentleman in a letter today that we continue to take that matter seriously.
  Mr. Stuart Holland: The Minister is qualifying it.
  Mr. Mellor: No, I am not qualifying it. The hon. Gentleman does not want to pick a fight with me. I am surely not saying anything beyond commending what he said about the St. Olave's charity. None of us can read the allegations made about it without feeling grave anxiety. I am constrained in taking that matter any further tonight because that matter and, in particular, the sale of some properties by the charity is now a matter for the courts. Criminal charges have been brought. Four people have been charged with offences of dishonesty, I am precluded from saying any more about the case. I wish to assure the hon. Gentleman that the points that he has mentioned
  552
  continue to remain under active consideration in the Home Office. In due course, we shall give him a substantive answer.
  Mr. Holland: I am pleased that the Minister was able to say that the matters that I mentioned about St. Olave's are such that if they were put before any hon. Member that hon. Member would wish to put them before the House. In the case of the other London charity, it is of anxiety to many of us that similar notice was given several months in advance by at least one constituent of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) and that no action was taken. He has wide experience as a former Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, and, while he can claim that charity trustees do not have wide experience, he can hardly claim the same lack of experience himself. I have asked for a judicial inquiry and for the co-operation of those who have experience of these two outstanding and notorious cases in giving evidence to that inquiry. If the Minister cannot tell us now whether he will agree to a judicial inquiry, will he seriously consider having the evidence of his hon. Friend at an inquiry? I should be willing to give evidence at an inquiry.
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention by default. I cannot say anything about that except that I have made it clear that there are matters of grave concern in St. Olave's charity—I hope that I have expressed my views about what the hon. Gentleman said with appropriate candour and commendation. What he said became gratuitous and perhaps open to an imputation of some political bile when he linked the matter with the quite separate issues that arose in the Hampstead case. I understand that an official of that charity has been sentenced by the court as my hon. Friend described. I hope that it might be possible to separate those two strands. the first is grave allegations against the St. Olave's charity, which I hope the Crown court will get to the bottom of, and the second is an attack on my hon. Friend, whose probity is beyond reproach, as those of us who have known him for many years are aware.
  We share my hon. Friend's anxiety about the activities of certain charities. Our worry about small charities led to our support for the Charities Act 1985, which came into effect at the beginning of this year. The Act was intended to be a vehicle to help trustees modernise their outdated trust and a lever to make them more alive to their responsibilities as trustees by giving new powers to local authorities in relation to charities in their area.
  It is important to remember that it is not the Charity Commission or Ministers who are responsible for the administration of charities but trustees. Whatever one might have to say about the powers and activities of the commissioners, the trustees are responsible for ensuring that the objects of their trusts are being achieved, and they, the trustees, must exercise proper control over the administration of their charities.
  I should add that the Home Secretary has very limited powers in respect of the Charity Commissioners. He appoints them and lays a copy of their annual report before Parliament. He has a duty which we carry out to the best of our abilities, to answer questions concerning the general functioning of the Commissioners, but we have no express power to give general guidance to the commissioners or to intervene directly in the affairs of any charity. The Home Secretary's lack of powers in this area is no accident

  553
  but was intended to ensure that the commissioners and trustees can operate free from political guidance or intervention.
  The commissioners have the general function of promoting the effective use of charitable resources by encouraging development of better methods of administration, by giving charity trustees information or advice on any matter affecting a charity and by investigating and checking abuses. In the case of any particular charity they must act to promote and make effective the work of the charity meeting the needs designated by its trust. The commissioners do not have power to act in the administration of the charity. There are, however, matters in which they have a more specific role, and consent to the sale of land is such an area. As the House has heard, land which forms part of a permanent endowment of a charity, unless specifically excepted, may not under section 29 of the Charities Act 1960, be sold or disposed of without an order of a court or the Charity Commission.
  I believe that there may be some misconceptions about the duties of trustees when they dispose of land, particularly when, as in the case of the south London charity, the interests of tenants must be considered. The tenants are not, however, the beneficiaries of those charities, since the property represents income-producing endowment. The Charity Commissioners say in their annual report for 1984 that, when disposing of charitable property, trustees are under a legal duty to act in the best interests of their charity and to get the best price reasonably obtainable for their property. In that way they will meet the needs of their beneficiaries both present and future.
  It is the invariable practice of the commissioners to ask trustees to obtain a professional valuation before considering trustees' proposals for any land transaction, and it is their usual practice to test the trustees' proposed sale by the publication of notices inviting higher offers, or objections. The commissioners may, however, take a different view if the proposed sale is to another charity with similar objects. They may also do so if the circumstances are such as to justify dispensing with further marketing, for example where demand is low, if the sale is to a protected tenant, or on the recommendation of the trustees' surveyors that it is necessary to avoid the risk of further deterioration in dilapidated property.
  My hon. Friend's suggestion that the commissioners should refer the agreed sale price of a property to a franking valuation is an interesting one, and I shall ask the Charity Commissioner to consider it. If I have understood the idea correctly, it is by way of a second opinion to verify the professional opinion made before the property is put on the market. My immediate reaction is that such a procedure may well not have prevented the type of fraud carried out in the Hampstead case. One must ask what the value of the procedure would be which in a case such as this is a duplication of one already in existence, involving expense to the trustees and delay which could result in a sale being jeopardised. The matter deserves to be considered seriously, and it will be.
  554
  The general effect of section 29 is to restrict the powers of charity trustees in dealing with land. My hon. Friend suggests further restrictions. I should point out, however, that there have been suggestions pointing the other way, notably from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. No doubt this will be a matter for continued debate. Whatever the merits of the case for restrictions, it is important to consider the matter in the context of some 150,000 registered charities, and of roughly 3,000 property transactions sanctioned by the commissioners each year.
  Mr. Stuart Holland: Surely that is part of the problem. As so many properties are sold in any one year, the Charity Commissioners cannot adequately supervise what is going on. Will the Minister take account of the further point that I raised in a Christmas Adjournment debate about the powers and rights of local authorities, which have trained valuers and are familiar with local property, to assess properties sold by charities? Given that the fixed costs have been covered by the councils, the actual cost should be negligible.
  Mr. Mellor: I certainly welcome any suggestion designed to ensure that appropriate checks and controls exist. We must acknowledge that the Charity Commission is undoubtedly hard pressed because of the large number of charities. In the three years that I have had responsibility for these matters, many areas of discussion on charities have arisen in the House. They show that some of the thinking that went into the Act may no longer hold good in today's climate. Today's chief Charity Commissioner, Mr. Peach, certainly wishes to take seriously any suggestion that will improve the ability of the authorities, and especially the commission, to oversee the way in which charities are operated. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's point is considered and that he receives a proper answer.
  While it is not for me to pass judgment on the St. Olave matter, we must examine such cases and draw proper conclusions from them. Obviously, we all have a duty to ensure that that sort of affair does not arise in future. I take the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in the spirit that it was intended.
  We are aiming to influence the actions of trustees by education and persuasion rather than by coercion. That has been the philosophy behind the 1985 Act, and I believe that that philosophy is right for the kind of problem that we have been discussing tonight. I hope that the very public airing that the affairs of these two London charities have had over the past few weeks will have had the effect of reminding trustees of other charities of their responsibilities and duties towards their charitable funds, and of the existence of people who wish to do what should not be done and of reminding us all that charities, like other organisations, can be vulnerable to unscrupulous and dishonest dealings. If our awareness has increased, it should make it less likely that similar unfortunate events can occur in other property-owning charities.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o' clock.

SCOTLAND
  Wrongful Conviction (Compensation)
  Wrongful Conviction (Compensation)
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Woodend Hospital, Aberdeen (Incident)
  Woodend Hospital, Aberdeen (Incident)
  9 Seamore Street/209 Maryhill Road, Maryhill
  9 Seamore Street/209 Maryhill Road, Maryhill
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Free School Transport
  Free School Transport
WALES
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Departmental Publicity
  Departmental Publicity
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Judges (Interests)
  Judges (Interests)
  Supergrass Trials
  Supergrass Trials
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
  Northern Ireland (Criminal Trials)
  Northern Ireland (Criminal Trials)
ENERGY
  Nuclear Power Industry
  Nuclear Power Industry
  Departmental Publicity
  Departmental Publicity
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  University Funding
  University Funding
  Universities (Clinical Staff)
  Universities (Clinical Staff)
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Lunchtime Supervision
  Lunchtime Supervision
  Departmental Publicity
  Departmental Publicity
  Communications (Code of Conduct)
  Communications (Code of Conduct)
  Secondary Schools
  Secondary Schools
  Fluoridated Milk
  Fluoridated Milk
  Students (Travel Awards)
  Students (Travel Awards)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Australia (Bicentenary)
  Australia (Bicentenary)
  British Embassy, Washington
  British Embassy, Washington
  Right of Abode
  Right of Abode
  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Departmental Publicity
  Departmental Publicity
  Immigration (DNA Fingerprinting)
  Immigration (DNA Fingerprinting)
  East Timor (Atrocities)
  East Timor (Atrocities)
  Sahel Grant
  Sahel Grant
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Torture
  Torture
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill
  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill
  Community Policing
  Community Policing
  Chief Constables (Statements)
  Chief Constables (Statements)
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Crime Victims
  Crime Victims
  Prisoners on Remand
  Prisoners on Remand
  Official Secrets Act (Alleged Breaches)
  Official Secrets Act (Alleged Breaches)
  British Broadcasting Corporation
  British Broadcasting Corporation
  Crime Prevention
  Crime Prevention
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Police (Resources and Equipment)
  Police (Resources and Equipment)
  Licensing Laws
  Licensing Laws
  Hampshire Constabulary
  Hampshire Constabulary
  Drug Abuse
  Drug Abuse
  Racial Attacks
  Racial Attacks
  Visiting Forces Act
  Visiting Forces Act
  Closed Prisons
  Closed Prisons
  Basildon (Courthouse)
  Basildon (Courthouse)
  Fraud and Forgery
  Fraud and Forgery
  Riot Control Equipment
  Riot Control Equipment
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Television (Violence)
  Television (Violence)
  Thames Valley Police
  Thames Valley Police
  Drug Trafficking Offences Bill
  Drug Trafficking Offences Bill
  Heathrow Airport (Immigration Officers)
  Heathrow Airport (Immigration Officers)
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Animals (Removal)
  Animals (Removal)
  Rape
  Rape
  Shops Bill
  Shops Bill
  West Midlands County Police
  West Midlands County Police
  Nuclear Attack (Casualties)
  Nuclear Attack (Casualties)
  Naturalisation
  Naturalisation
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Police Establishments
  Police Establishments
  Crime Forfeiture of Goods
  Crime Forfeiture of Goods
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Holloway Prison
  Holloway Prison
  Martial Arts
  Martial Arts
  Police Posts (Civilianisation)
  Police Posts (Civilianisation)
  Styal and Rudgate Prisons
  Styal and Rudgate Prisons
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Departmental Publicity
  Departmental Publicity
  Heathrow (Armed Foreign Nationals)
  Heathrow (Armed Foreign Nationals)
  Political Refugees
  Political Refugees
  Community Radio
  Community Radio
  Greenham Common (Soviet Agents)
  Greenham Common (Soviet Agents)
  Road Traffic Offences
  Road Traffic Offences
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Radio Paging (Band 3)
  Radio Paging (Band 3)
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Departmental Publicity
  Departmental Publicity
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Regional Development and Selective Assistance
  Regional Development and Selective Assistance
  GEC (Takeover Bid)
  GEC (Takeover Bid)
  Lloyd's (Inquiry)
  Lloyd's (Inquiry)
PRIME MINISTER
  President Reagan (SDI)
  President Reagan (SDI)
  Turkey
  Turkey
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Gifts (Brunei Visit)
  Gifts (Brunei Visit)
  Airport Security
  Airport Security
  Appointments
  Appointments
  Westland plc
  Westland plc
EMPLOYMENT
  Job Start Project
  Job Start Project
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Departmental Publicity
  Departmental Publicity
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid Programme
  Aid Programme
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Country Review Programmes
  Country Review Programmes
  Project Framework Systems
  Project Framework Systems
  Centre for World Development Education
  Centre for World Development Education
  British Council
  British Council
  International Council of Scientific Unions
  International Council of Scientific Unions
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Departmental Publicity
  Departmental Publicity
  Battery Hens
  Battery Hens
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Departmental Select Committees
  Departmental Select Committees
ENVIRONMENT
  Land Compensation Acts (Claims)
  Land Compensation Acts (Claims)
  Sandwell Council
  Sandwell Council
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  Watercourses (Mercury Contamination)
  Watercourses (Mercury Contamination)
  Departmental Publicity
  Departmental Publicity
  GLC (Grant Consent)
  GLC (Grant Consent)
  Capital Expenditure Allocations
  Capital Expenditure Allocations
  Housing (Langbaurgh)
  Housing (Langbaurgh)
  Neighbourhood Watch Notices (Camden)
  Neighbourhood Watch Notices (Camden)
  Direct Labour Organisations
  Direct Labour Organisations
  Ministry of Defence Houses (Maidenhead)
  Ministry of Defence Houses (Maidenhead)
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
  Kenwood House
  Kenwood House
  Communications Code (Merton)
  Communications Code (Merton)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Photocopying
  Photocopying
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Gaming Machines
  Gaming Machines
  Depatmental Publicity
  Depatmental Publicity
  British Legion (VAT)
  British Legion (VAT)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Council of Finance Ministers
  Council of Finance Ministers
TRANSPORT
  Road Traffic Law
  Road Traffic Law
  Aviation Security
  Aviation Security
  Roads (Investment)
  Roads (Investment)
  Stansted Airport
  Stansted Airport
  Drink-Drive Campaigns
  Drink-Drive Campaigns
  Departmental Publicity
  Departmental Publicity
  Public Service Vehicles
  Public Service Vehicles
  Helicopter Rescue Service (Stornoway)
  Helicopter Rescue Service (Stornoway)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  Skoal Bandits
  Skoal Bandits
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Maternity Grant
  Maternity Grant
  Private Nursing Homes
  Private Nursing Homes
  Artificial Limb and Appliance Service
  Artificial Limb and Appliance Service
  McColl Report
  McColl Report
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Mrs. Gladys Smith
  Mrs. Gladys Smith
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
  Maternity Expenses
  Maternity Expenses
  Furniture Grants
  Furniture Grants
  Free School Meals
  Free School Meals
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Soial Security Regulations
  Soial Security Regulations
  Single Payments and Heating Additions
  Single Payments and Heating Additions
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Family Credit
  Family Credit
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Pharmacists
  Pharmacists
  Departmental Local Offices
  Departmental Local Offices
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Judicial Process arid Prison System
  Judicial Process arid Prison System
  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Subventions
  Subventions
  Security Staff Premium
  Security Staff Premium
  Intergovernmental Conference
  Intergovernmental Conference
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Departmental Manpower
  Departmental Manpower
  Motor Vehicles (Incidents)
  Motor Vehicles (Incidents)
  Armagh Prison (Strip Searches)
  Armagh Prison (Strip Searches)
  Departmental Publicity
  Departmental Publicity

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

European Airlines: Competition
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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, further to their Answer on 21st November (H.L. Deb. col. 654) concerning the European Commission and European airlines, they will make a statement on the decisions reached and recommendations made at the informal meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers held on 9th January.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, informal councils are intended to bring members to a closer understanding of each other's positions and cannot reach formal decisions. The meeting on 9th January, which my honourable friend the Minister for Aviation and I attended, showed that there is a growing consensus behind our efforts to secure greater efficiency and competitiveness in European air services. We again stressed our determination to achieve this and were particularly strongly supported by the European Commission.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while accepting that the Government wish to make more speedy progress on this matter, but remembering that the European Commission said that it would intervene if the Councils of Ministers could not make necessary decisions, may I ask the Minister what action the Commission is now taking? Secondly, as the French and ourselves have recently reached the momentous agreement on the Channel Tunnel, do the Government think that this could be a spur for further and more speedy developments on air transport? Does the Minister think that we could ask the French to join with us in a special effort to reach more concrete decisions at the next meeting of the Ministers, which I believe is on 27th March?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, at the meeting in The Hague on 9th January both the commissioner for competition matters and the commissioner for transport were present in The Hague and made it clear that the Commission has now started detailed preparation of possible court cases against member states. Such cases may become essential if progress remains blocked in the council. I hope that the Commission's latest moves will persuade other member states, including France, of the urgent need for quick discussions which introduce real competition. Nothing less will do, in our view.
328
I can advise the noble Baroness and the House that it now looks as though the next council will be on 17th March rather than the 27th.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Earl has referred to the stress on competition. Does he recall that on both the last occasion, the 21st November, and the previous occasion on which the noble Baroness put this Question—on 24th October I think it was—I stressed the need for co-ordination as well as competition, and the noble Earl agreed that that was the proper point? Does the noble Earl recall that? Was an emphasis laid on co-ordination at this council meeting as well as on competition?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I well remember what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me on both occasions. There was a general discussion; but we must proceed with competition and co-ordination at the same time. We cannot do one without the other, as the noble Lord said. But competition is the most important first step.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the Minister say whether at the meeting on 17th March account will be taken of what he has told us as to what the Commission is now doing, and whether we can expect further action on that point?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think we shall have to wait and see what happens on 17th March. My understanding is that the Commission are taking matters a stage further.

Corporal Punishment and European Court Ruling
3.9 p.m.
Baroness David: 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 they intend to do to comply with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the Campbell and Cosans case.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are still considering this matter. An announcement will be made as soon as a decision has been reached.
Baroness David: My Lords, it is very disappointing to have exactly the same Answer that I had three months ago, and more than six months after the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill was withdrawn. Is the noble Earl aware that only yesterday another corporal punishment case was declared admissible by the European Commission of Human Rights—the L Family v. United Kingdom? If these cases go on being heard it is at very great expense to the United Kingdom, quite apart from anything else. Will the Minister try to hurry up some legislation to get rid of corporal punishment altogether? Can we expect there to be a clause in the school management Bill, which I understand is to be taken in this House early in March?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness is disappointed when the Government give a consistent reply to a persistent Question.
With regard to the case which was reported yesterday, the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the complaint has not yet been formally notified to the Government. When it is, it will be carefully considered. I am afraid that the noble Baroness, like me, will have to wait and see what is in the forthcoming Bill on education.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that the history of this case illustrates the slow and unsatisfactory working of the current machinery for the resolution of human rights issues? Does the noble Earl recall—and I am sure that, delving into the inexhaustible quarry of his knowledge, he does—that it was 1976 when Mrs. Campbell and Mrs. Cosans submitted their complaints, 1980 when the Commission reported, 1982 when the European Court pronounced judgment?—and the matter is still outstanding. Is this not clear and convincing evidence of the need to provide judicial remedies in the courts of the United Kingdom? Will Ministers now review, revise and rationalise their hitherto disappointingly negative approach to the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Bill?
The Earl of Swinton: No, my Lords, I would not agree with my noble friend. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Campbell and Cosans was about respect for philosophical convictions and did not call for the abolition of corporal punishment.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, at a time when there are grave problems of discipline in our schools, it is more to the point to give freedom to teachers to take the measures which they think desirable than to put the decision in the hands of a clutch of Continental jurists remote from the scene and gorging themselves on pâté de foie gras in Strasbourg?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I feel quite weak! As your Lordships know, I am on a very strict diet, and even the thought of pâté de foie gras fills me with such visions that I do not know whether I can answer the question! However, my noble friend has a very serious point. It is the Government's view that the decision on whether or not to use corporal punishment is best left to the professional judgment of teachers and to the wishes of parents.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, as the noble Earl has stressed the consistency of the Government's position, let me point out that he has on more than one occasion given an assurance that it is the Government's intention to comply with the European Court's judgment. As next month will be—as the noble Lord opposite has mentioned—the fourth anniversary of the judgment, would that not be an appropriate occasion upon which to introduce the very necessary small piece of legislation to give effect to it?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords, I can reiterate that it is the Government's intention to comply with the ruling. However, as I said in answer to my noble friend earlier, the particular case was about respect for philosophical convictions and did not call for the abolition of corporal punishment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does not the decision in this and some other cases reveal that the European Court of Human Rights is overruling our own laws from time to time and requiring us to change them? Has not the time come for us to reconsider our commitment in this matter?
The Earl of Swinton: No, my Lords, I would not agree with my noble friend Lord Renton. The European Court of Human Rights was established under the European Convention on Human Rights. The United Kingdom was one of the architects of the convention and was the first to ratify it. We cannot just opt out because we do not always agree with the judgments that we find inconvenient.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that when the ill-fated Bill was brought to this House in the last Session of Parliament, the Government gave the clear undertaking that it should conform with the ruling of the European Court? Is the resolution of the Government now any weaker than it was in the last Session of Parliament? If it is not any weaker, will the noble Earl kindly give an assurance that a Bill will be proposed to deal with this all-important matter in this Session?
The Earl of Swinton: No, my Lords. The decision of this House turned round the Bill which the Government considered was in keeping with the European Court, and that is why we are considering what action to take.
Lord O'Hagan: My Lords, as my noble friend has not yet fully answered a question put earlier, will he now reaffirm Her Majesty's Government's commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights and say whether, in fulfilling that commitment, it would not be simpler if we incorporated the European Convention into British domestic law so that these embarrassing cases arose at home and not abroad and were decided by British judges and not by judges elsewhere?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that I have answered that question. We are committed to the European Court of Human Rights, and we stand committed to it.

Telecommunications Planning Orders: Consultations
3.16 p.m.
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 telecommunication trade associations were

331
consulted before the Department of the Environment issued planning orders laying down that dishes for receiving satellite broadcasts had to be less than 90 centimetres in diameter while terrestrial dishes could, without including the size of the mounting, be up to 130 centimetres.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, I understand that the telecommunications trade associations included in the consultations were: the Association of Telecommunications Services; the British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers' Association; the Cable Television Association; the Computing Services Association; the Confederation of Aerial Industries; the Independent Television Companies' Association; the National Television Rental Association; and the Society of British Aerospace Companies.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, while listening with interest to my noble friend's views, perhaps I may point out that this morning I have been in touch with the most important of the trade associations in the electronic industry; namely, the Electronic Engineering Association. That body was not consulted. This is a very technical matter. The Cable Television Association are deeply concerned because the whole growth of this new technology and the jobs which go with it depend on fair and equitable judgments as well as imaginative judgments being made. They tell me that whereas they were consulted some two years ago, they have not been consulted since. Therefore, will my noble friend deal with this consultation matter and recognise that, when matters of this complexity arise, it is desperately important to put the sponsoring Ministers in the DTI in the picture and to make sure that they have up-to-date consultations with the people who are most sorely affected?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am concerned to hear that my noble friend has been told that an important association has not been consulted. I ought to add to what I said that, in addition to the eight trade associations to which I have referred, we wrote to 37 telecommunication companies; 20 environmental bodies; the four local authority associations; the BBC; the IBA; and 94 other associations and organisations, and we made a press release. I am very sorry if the matter did not come to the notice of the organisation in question.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend do anything about the situation to make sure that there is fair and equitable treatment as between those trying to develop the use of satellites and those concerned with terrestrial communications?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I shall certainly take care to see that nothing has been done that is unfair. My noble friend will realise that the requirement for a planning consent does not stop these things being put up; it merely means that they cannot be put up without permission. The 90-centimetre limit enables not only high-power but allows medium-power transmissions to be received. Therefore, the difficulty may not be as great as my noble friend believes it to be; but I shall look into the matter.

Equities: Average Annual Return
3.20 p.m.
Lord Jacques: 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 their policy of restraint on wages takes account of the fact that the average annual return on equities in the United Kingdom in the five years 1980–84 was 28 per cent., which is higher than the corresponding return in France, Germany, Switzerland, United States, Canada, Australia and Japan.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, after converting to a common currency, the average annual return on equities between 1980 and 1984 is lower in the United Kingdom than it is in the United States and Japan although it is higher than in the other countries mentioned by the noble Lord. The Government do not have a wages policy. Pay in individual firms is a matter for negotiation between employers and employees; but excessive pay rises increase our unit labour costs and damage employment prospects. In the United Kingdom unit labour costs are growing more rapidly than they are in our major overseas competitors.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that the figures which I have put in the Question are taken from a table produced by Phillips and Drew? If the Minister so wishes, I shall send him a copy of the table from which my calculations were made. Is the noble Lord further aware that, so long as we have this kind of return on equities and the kind of increases in top salaries that we had last year, the Government can expect applications for substantial increases in wages from all conscientious leaders of trade unions?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I would welcome applications on the wages front from conscientious leaders of trade unions who would take into account all conditions. The figures issued by Phillips and Drew (and I have a copy of them) are in local currency. They are adjusted to a common currency, and I see that we finish third in the list. I should also like to point out that in the period from 1975 to 1979—a period for which the present Government do not hold responsibility—the figure was 35·9 per cent., and in many cases this figure is a function of inflation rather than of real return.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the fact that Japan and the United States have a higher return on equities is an indication of the profitability of their industry? That is in two countries where employment is high and growth is great. Is my noble friend also aware that, unless there is good profitability in industry, there will not be the attraction for investment which will create further growth and more employment? My noble friend would be making a great mistake if he restricted a good return on capital, because that capital would simply be attracted to other places in the world where it could obtain a better return.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for pointing out the elementary facts of life. I totally agree with him. The most important factor is that our unit labour costs should be lower than those of our competitors. Last year our unit labour costs rose above the rate of inflation; those of the United States increased but were below the rate of inflation; those of Japan and Germany actually fell. Those are the indicators for employment, and nothing else.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, will my noble friend thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for the uncovenanted tribute that he is trying to pay to the success of the policies of Her Majesty's Government and at the same time invite the noble Lord to share his investment advice with other Members of your Lordships' House, so that we can all enjoy a 28 per cent. return on our investments?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that, in spite of what he has just said, the Government do have a wages policy, which is a policy of keeping down wages while all other forms of income are allowed to increase? Has not this policy been very effectively introduced, with the result that British industry has gravely declined and unemployment has increased? Is this not an integral part of the Government's policy?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, an integral part of the Government's policy is to bring about conditions in which employment can increase, and by any standards that has been a success. Last week I announced that since the first quarter of 1983 employment has increased by 709,000 jobs. Ultimately unemployment can only be reduced by the rate of increase of new jobs overtaking the increase in the labour supply. That and that alone is the measure by which matters of this sort can best be judged.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government have set their sights on the wrong target? If we want lower wages costs, we must have both lower profits and lower increases in high salaries. There must be leadership. What happens at the top is copied lower down, and anyone who has been concerned with leadership knows that.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not wish to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, on the question of leadership, but if we look at the leadership which has been exhibited in, say, the nationalised industry sector, or that part of it which has gone into the private sector over the past year or two, we will find many cases of inspired leadership, irrespective of the salary level of those at the top. Leadership and example are not merely the result of measuring money; they are the result of measuring all those other factors which come into account: quality of goods, delivery on time, and many other matters. I suspect that on this issue we are missing the main point. The main thrust of Government policy is to restore that sense of enterprise into our economy which once made our nation great and which will do so again.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in this Industry Year is it not most important to encourage heads of industry not only to be well-rewarded but also to show that they are well-rewarded in order to attract the best people to industry, rather than into banks and financial services?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the main thrust of Industry Year as it develops will be to restore into our educational system a respect for industry and wealth-creation so that the flower of our youth will be interested in going into those activities. In that lies our hope for the future.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the Minister explain what we are talking about? When we talk of "return on capital", what is capital? Does it mean capital revalued from various historical points in time as paid-up capital, rights issues and so on, and reserves formed at different times? Is the whole thing updated to modern money values?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I must confess that at times I find it difficult to understand what I am talking about, and I cannot answer for your entire Lordships' House. However, I must direct the noble Earl to Phillips and Drew, who prepared these figures. From looking at the figures, I suspect that they are in terms of historic costs and are not therefore updated. Inflation is a very real factor. There have been periods when inflation has been greatest in this country and we have had the greatest apparent return on assets. Those are the periods when we were sowing the seeds of our doom.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if, as the noble Lord claims, the Government have no wages policy and hence no policy of restraint on wages, can he tell us by what logic wage settlements can be regarded as excessive and why Ministers keep on trying to talk down wage settlements?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, when noble Lords opposite talk in terms of a wages policy they talk in terms of a prices and incomes policy and they talk in terms of wage restraint. We consistently draw to the attention of industry the supreme importance of getting unit labour costs down, and every time that I have answered a Question in your Lordships' House it has been on the basis of unit labour costs. It is that factor, and that factor alone, which is important. Indeed, wages can go up if unit labour costs come down.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, is it not a fact that, under governments of the party opposite, for a very long time the return on capital investment in this country in real terms was actually negative? Is it not also a fact that, unless profits provide an adequate return on investment, real wages cannot increase?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is significant that only in the past four or five years when we have had the highest growth rate in the whole of Europe—and in one or two years it has been even higher than that of the United States—we have been able to afford to see conditions in which real wages rise

335
above the rate of inflation. Throughout the entire period from 1970 to 1982, when we were constantly bottom of the growth rate in Europe, noble Lords will find that the rate of growth averaged three-quarters of 1 per cent. compared with the 3 per cent. per annum which we have fortunately enjoyed over the past four or five years and will, as long as this Government exist, I hope continue to enjoy.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what the non-oil growth rate was during that period?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, there are many factors to be taken into account. We have oil; we have non-oil. It is a long way from the Question. I shall write to the noble Lord opposite with the detailed figures. What is important is that during this period of oil income we have seen our overseas investments, which stood at £2½ billion in 1974, stand a few months ago at £73½ billion; and that is the restoration of our fortunes for the future.

Business
3.30 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Westland.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Shops Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour, and that during this adjournment the three Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations and the Second Reading of the Gaming (Amendment) Bill will be taken.

Outer Space Bill [H.L.]
Lord Denham: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I beg to introduce a Bill to confer licensing and other powers on the Secretary of State to secure a compliance with the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to the launching and operation of space objects, and carrrying on of other activities in outer space, by persons connected with this country.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Westland: Disclosure of Information
3.32 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the outcome of the inquiry into the disclosure of part of a letter from the Solicitor-General.
336
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the outcome of the inquiry into the disclosure of certain information in my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General's letter of 6th Janaury.
"As the House knows, the Chairman of Westland plc, Sir John Cuckney, wrote to me on 30th December 1985 asking whether Westland would no longer be considered a European company by the Government if a minority shareholding in the company were held by a major international group from a NATO country outside Europe.
"This question was of fundamental importance to the company in making its decision as to what course it was best to follow in the interests of the company and its employees. It was therefore essential to be sure that my reply should be in no way misleading to anyone who might rely upon it in making commercial judgments and decisions.
"The reply was accordingly considered among the departments concerned, and the text of my letter of 1st January 1986 was agreed in detail by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right honourable friends the then Secretary of State for Defence and the Chief Secretary, Treasury, and finally by my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General.
"My letter was made public.
"Two days later, on 3rd January, my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Defence replied to a letter of the same date from Mr. Horne of Lloyds Merchant Bank asking him a number of questions, covering some of the same ground as my own reply to Sir John Cuckney. The texts of the letters became public that same day.
"My right honourable friend's reply was not cleared or even discussed with the relevant Cabinet colleagues. Moreover, although the reply was also material to the commercial judgments and decisions that would have to be made, my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General was not invited to scrutinise the letter before it was issued.
"On the morning of 6th January my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General wrote to my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Defence. He said—and I quote:
'It is foreseeable that your letter will be relied upon by the Westland Board and its shareholders.
'Consistently with the advice I gave to the Prime Minister on 31st December, the Government in such circumstances is under a duty not to give information which is incomplete or inaccurate in any material particular.
'On the basis of the information contained in the documents to which I have referred, which I emphasise are all that I have seen, the sentence in your letter to Mr. Horne does in my opinion contain material inaccuracies in the respects I have mentioned, and I therefore must advise that you should write again to Mr. Horne correcting the inaccuracies.'
"I have quoted extensively from the letter which was published a week ago. As I have already indicated, it was especially important in this

337
situation for statements made on behalf of the Government, on which commercial judgments might be based, to be accurate and in no way misleading.
"That being so, it was a matter of duty that it should be made known publicly that there were thought to be material inaccuracies which needed to be corrected in my right honourable friend the Member for Henley's letter of 3rd January, which as the House will recall had already been made public.
"Moreover, it was urgent that it should become public knowledge before 4.00 p.m. that afternoon, 6th January, when Sir John Cuckney was due to hold a press conference to announce the Westland board's recommendation to shareholders of a revised proposal from the United Technologies Corporation/Fiat consortium.
"These considerations were very much in the mind of my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the copy of the Solicitor-General's letter was brought to his attention at about 1.30 p.m. that afternoon of 6th January.
"He took the view that the opinion expressed by the Solicitor-General in his letter of 6th January to the then Secretary of State for Defence should be brought into the public domain as soon as possible.
"He asked his officials to discuss with my office whether the disclosure should be made, and if so whether it should be made from 10 Downing Street as he said he would prefer.
"He made it clear that, subject to the agreement of my office, he was giving authority for the disclosure to be made from the Department of Trade and Industry, if it was not made from 10 Downing Street.
"He expressed no view as to the form in which the disclosure should be made, though it was clear to all concerned that in the circumstances it was not possible to proceed by way of an agreed statement. My office were accordingly approached.
"They did not seek my agreement: they considered—and they were right—that I should agree with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the fact that the then Defence Secretary's letter of 3rd January was thought by the Solicitor-General to contain material inaccuracies which needed to be corrected should be made public knowledge as soon as possible, and before Sir John Cuckney's press conference. It was accepted that the Department of Trade and Industry should disclose that fact; and that in view of the urgency of the matter the disclosure should be made by means of a telephone communication to the Press Association.
"Had I been consulted I should have said that a different way must be found of making the relevant facts known.
"The report finds in the light of the evidence that the Department of Trade and Industry acted in good faith in the knowledge that they had the authority of their Secretary of State and cover from my office for proceeding.
338
"An official of the department accordingly told a representative of the Press Association of my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General's letter and material elements of what it said. The company was also informed. The information was on the Press Association tapes at 3.30 p.m.
"Mr. Speaker, my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was in my judgment right in thinking that it was important that the possible existence of material inaccuracies in the then Secretary of State for Defence's letter of 3rd January should become a matter of public knowledge, if possible before Sir John Cuckney's press conference at 4.00 p.m. that day.
"In so far as what my office said to the Department of Trade and Industry was based on the belief that I should have taken that view, had I been consulted, they were right.
"My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General has authorised me to inform the House that, having considered the report by the head of the Civil Service, and on the material before him, he has decided after consultation with, and with the full agreement of, the Director of Public Prosecutions and senior Treasury counsel, that there is no justification for the institution of proceedings under the Official Secrets Act in respect of any of the persons concerned in this matter. In order that there should be no impediment to co-operation in the inquiry, my right honourable and learned friend had authorised the head of the Civil Service to tell one of the officials concerned, whose testimony would be vital to the inquiry, that he had my right honourable and learned friend's authority to say that, provided that he received full co-operation in his inquiry, the official concerned would not be prosecuted in respect of anything said during the course of the inquiry. The head of the Civil Service did indeed receive full co-operation not only from that official but from all concerned. My right honourable and learned friend tells me that he is satisfied that that in no way interfered with the course of justice: on the facts as disclosed in the inquiry there would have been no question of proceeding against the official concerned".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating that long and serious Statement. It is in fact very serious, for it affects the way in which Ministers and senior civil servants deal with the nation's affairs. I am bound to say that the critical points are clothed in a good deal of verbiage. A number of important questions arise from the Statement.
In view of the deteriorating relations between the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, which involved the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as well—differences which all of us know became apparent over a fairly long period and came to a head on 6th January with the Solicitor-General's letter of that date—why did the Prime Minister not discuss the matter at that time with the Secretary of

339
State for Defence instead of discussing it with other Ministers behind the back of the Secretary of State for Defence?
The charges against the Secretary of State for Defence in the letter by the Solicitor-General were extremely serious. In those circumstances, why was there no proper discussion while he remained a senior Minister and member of the Cabinet—one of the most important members of the Government? The Prime Minister now says that the matter should be made public. Was there any meeting to decide how the matter should be handled and how it should be made public? The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, according to the Statement, also said that the matter should be brought (I quote him) "into the public domain".
Why was this not done in a more open fashion? Why did the Prime Minister not ask the Secretary of State for Defence for his resignation at this point, if she thought the matter was as serious as it is clear from the Statement she did? The Prime Minister kept the right honourable gentleman, the Secretary of State for Defence in office during the whole of this period. She allowed him to attend the Cabinet where both she and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had agreed that there should be a leak of the letter: a letter which was damaging to her colleague who sat with her in the Cabinet that Thursday morning when he walked out.
Is the noble Viscount aware that from the wording of this Statement it appears that there was a deliberate conspiracy within the Government to destroy Mr. Heseltine?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the Prime Minister says, according to the Statement, that she would have found a different way. She had ample opportunity to consider the way she was dealing with it. She is the Prime Minister of this country. She has ample advice at her disposal. Why did she allow this squalid development to take place without adequate concern for her colleague in the Cabinet?
At this time it is not the Westlands argument that is at issue; it is the way the Prime Minister has handled the matter that is at issue. It is a sad and deplorable story. I am bound to say on my first reading of the Statement, which I saw only a few minutes ago, that in all the circumstances and against this background I am glad that no proceedings are to be taken against any civil servant, because it is not the civil servants who are to blame in this matter. I should think at this stage that the Ministers involved must consider their position very seriously.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I, too, on behalf of my colleagues in the Alliance, should like first to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement. I am sure that I shall have everyone's sympathy in endeavouring to be as constructive and responsible as I can on a matter of this importance, which is on the basis of a Statement which, inevitably—I blame no-one for it—was in my hands for only ten minutes before the noble Viscount rose to deliver it.
340
This is a disreputable and damaging series of events. It is damaging to the chances of good government on three major counts: it is damaging to the fully accepted practice of joint Cabinet responsibility; it is damaging to the fully accepted practice of confidentiality in Government matters; and it is damaging to the standing of the Law Officers, on whom every Government and Opposition equally depend. It is damaging to joint Cabinet responsibility and therefore to the possibility of good government by the present Government in the future because we have seen disclosed a squalid row between two individuals. It is not (I repeat, not) a circumstance normal to every one of your Lordships who has attended Cabinet meetings. It is not the proper airing by heads of departments of their respective views and of the interests of their departments on difficult matters brought before Cabinet. That is what Cabinet is there for. It is the disclosure on personal grounds, on a tit-for-tat basis, by senior heads of the most important departments in our country, one against the other, so that each should achieve his own method and purpose by less than honourable means.
It is damaging to confidentiality because here we have matters not published, but leaked. We all understand the difference. Leaked; and a disclosure made under pressure. Look at the number of days that this matter has been going on: and it is only today that we get a full statement of what has been happening. Under pressure, we find that these matters have been leaked.
Of course I am right in saying, "leaked" and not "published". We were told by the Press Association's recipient of the news that under no circumstances would he disclose who had given him the information. Why not? If it comes on behalf of the head of one of the most important and senior departments of the country, what is wrong in saying, "I am so-and-so, and I am speaking on behalf of the Secretary of State for so-and-so"? That is the normal way of making public something that ought to be made public. Here was a disgraceful way, damaging to that sense of confidentiality without which no good Government can arrive at the best possible conclusions in the interests of the country.
It is wholly damaging to the Law Officers because they have been brought into party issues and personal squabbles. May I ask the noble Viscount: on whose initiative did the Law Officer concerned, that honourable and learned Member—I think it was the Solicitor-General and not the Attorney-General, but it matters not—write to one of his colleagues? Was it his own initiative? Was it his sense of outrage at the way in which the law of the country was not being observed? Or was it a suggestion made to him by some colleague that it would be convenient if he would give his mind to this matter?
That is the first question; and, with respect, I should be very grateful if the noble Viscount would give a clear answer. On whose initiative did the Solicitor-General write that letter? The second question is this. When he wrote that letter, was it within his knowledge that that letter was about to be leaked? Did he write it with a view to it being published to the world at large, or was it a letter written to a colleague in confidence? That is question number two.

341
I share the view that has been put forward by the Leader of the official Opposition on other aspects of the damage of this case. I apologise if I am somewhat heated about it. One ought not to be so; it is a very, very serious matter indeed. I am sure that noble Lords from all sides of the House will accept that, with the greatest possible sincerity, as one who spent a number of years assisting and taking part in government and who tries, as every noble Lord in this place and every honourable Member in the other place equally tries, to achieve the best form of government in the interests of this nation, I feel that lasting damage has been done.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Diamond, for their very important comments on what I accept is a very important Statement. I will do my very best to answer a great many of the questions, all the questions that I can—and there have been, quite properly, a very large number of them. First of all, I will seek to answer the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. He suggested that the Statement is surrounded by a good deal of verbiage. I must say to your Lordships that since I learned of this matter I have had one overriding consideration in my mind. Perhaps it is reasonable for me to say it because I have actually been a Cabinet Minister of this country for 11 out of the last 16 years, so I have some experience of Cabinet Government. I think that I am entitled to say that to your Lordships' House.
I felt it was essential that the clearest possible Statement should be made of all the facts surrounding this matter, and I am bound to say that I believe the Statement that has been made today has been exactly that. It has sought to bring everything clearly before another place, this House and, indeed, the public. I do not accept the charge of verbiage.
I then turn to some of the points made about the relations between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Defence. I think your Lordships will know that I am not in the business, and never have been in the business, of seeking deliberately to run down my colleagues or, indeed, to be unpleasant about other people in any parties at all. But I think I am bound to say that, having observed what went on at close quarters, I have never in my time in Cabinet seen more extraordinary behaviour, to his Prime Minister and, indeed, to all his colleagues, than was exhibited during this period of time by my right honourable friend the Member for Henley. If one looks at many of the things that have happened, that, I must say to your Lordships, is one of the areas why it was so difficult to carry on Cabinet Government in this period.
I should like to refer, in answer to another of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, to the position of the Cabinet. On 19th December the Cabinet met and agreed, as was announced by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that same afternoon in another place, that the Cabinet would be impartial between the two bids; that neither side would campaign. It was recognised that there were strong feelings; and the Secretary of State for Defence never made any secret of the fact that he had decided that he wanted a European option. But it was agreed,
342
and the then Secretary of State for Defence was party to that decision.
I have to say that those who examined what went on between that date and, indeed, the 9th January, when the then Secretary of State left the Cabinet, can have had no doubt in their minds that such an agreement of not pressing for one side had not been kept. On the 9th January the then Secretary of State for Defence was, I think, prepared at that stage, before the meeting of the company, to follow the policy; but when it came to suggesting that everyone should reasonably check their statements with the Cabinet Office, he refused to do this and said that this was unreasonable.
There have been complaints this afternoon about a lack of the proper joint Cabinet responsibility. I do not see in what the then Secretary of State for Defence did anything which made joint Cabinet responsibility at all possible. I think it is only fair to say that, because it happens that I feel deeply and bitterly at the way that I, personally, as a Cabinet Minister, was treated over that period of time; and so, indeed, do all my colleagues. We are entitled to feel it; and if I feel it, I shall certainly say it. I am sorry. I bear my right honourable friend the Member for Henley no personal ill-will, but I cannot pretend that I feel that I was well treated as a colleague in the Cabinet. I cannot feel that.
I turn to some of the other questions which were asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Was there a meeting to discuss how the letter should be handled? No, there was no such meeting. Was there any proper discussion about how it should be handled between Ministers? No, there was not. I think it is fair to say that it was during a Parliamentary Recess. I do not give that as a particular excuse, but a great many Ministers were not in London at the time and there was no such ministerial discussion. There was, however, great urgency that the facts, the material facts set out in the Solicitor-General's letter, should get into the public domain before that meeting of the shareholders because there were material inaccuracies in what the then Secretary of State for Defence had set out in his letter.
4 p.m.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, first raised the question of joint Cabinet responsibility. I have dealt very clearly with that. I think also I have dealt very plainly with the question of confidentiality. I accept entirely the importance of the position of the Law Officers: indeed, that is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked: Why was a full Statement only made today? For the very best of all possible reasons: the report of the inquiry conducted by the Secretary of the Cabinet was received by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister only yesterday. I repeat, the report was only received yesterday. The noble Lord seems to be surprised, but I have to tell him that that is a fact, and I can tell him that I did not see the report myself. The report was in the hands of my right honourable friend yesterday, and for a Statement to be made as quickly as this is very proper and very right.
I then turn to the question whose initiative it was that encouraged the Solicitor-General to write the letter that was pubished on Monday, 6th January.

343
The initiative came from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry because he believed—and in my opinion rightly believed—that there were material inaccuracies in a letter which the then Secretary of State for Defence had written, and that these would adversely affect the company if they were not corrected. I must make it clear once again that the then Secretary of State for Defence was party to the letter which the Prime Minister wrote to Sir John Cuckney earlier that week and agreed with it; and then subsequently put out his own letter without any consultation at all. It was that letter which was felt to include material inaccuracies. I have done my very best to set out what I accept to be—
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I do apologise for intervening and I am most grateful to the noble Viscount who, as usual, is being most honest and fair with the House. However, I did ask a second question to which we attach importance. When the Solicitor-General wrote that letter—and we now know on whose initiative it was done—was he aware that the letter was going to be published or, as subsequently happened, leaked?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I understand that he was not so aware. I apologise to the noble Lord for not having answered that question previously. However, I have done my best to answer many questions about what I accept to be an unhappy story. I have given my personal version, which I think your Lordships would expect, of some of the events from my personal experience, which as a member of that particular Cabinet I think it is only fair to do. I still believe that if one member of a Cabinet decides to conduct a campaign such as the then Secretary of State for Defence decided to conduct against the policy of the rest of the Cabinet, it is extremely difficult for good Cabinet government, for confidentiality and for joint Cabinet responsibility to be preserved.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the way he has answered the questions, but he has not dealt with a major point which I raised in relation to the hole-and-corner way in which this matter was dealt with. It was made clear by Mr. Chris Moncrieff on behalf of the Press Association that the information was passed to him confidentially. Why was it done in that way? Why was it leaked at all? Why was it not put forward in an open public fashion? That is the question people are asking.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I think, without excusing the fact, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister herself also said, the answer, first of all, is that those concerned believed it was very urgent indeed in the interests of the company that if there were material inaccuracies in that letter it should reach the company in time for the meeting at 4 p.m. They believed that was very urgent indeed. Secondly, I think it is fair to point out that here lies the problem of the way the whole campaign was being conducted by the then Secretary of State for Defence and the whole difficulty for Cabinet government: that is, if a statement had been made it would have to have been a statement by one department flatly contradicting a
344
statement put out by another Secretary of State. I think that is one of the problems which undoubtedly and inevitably arise.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, would not the noble Viscount agree that leaks and squabbles between ambitious Ministers are commonplace and that the only thing, if we use the term somewhat loosely, which distinguishes this particular episode is the maverick behaviour of some of the participants, which cannot be defended by anyone? But would not the noble Viscount also agree that there is now a danger that this whole episode is becoming totally out of proportion, to the level of near-farce? Will he not confirm that many people—and one hopes that the Government would agree—believe that there are other things to which the Government should be directing their energies at the present time?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, because I am going to start my answer to him by making a statement which could not be contradicted, if I may say so, by the members of any party who have ever been in Government, even those who may have been a very long time away from government. Of course, he is right when he says there have been leaks and squabbles in all governments. There is no one in this House who could pretend otherwise at all in any way. There always have been, and I suppose frequently there will continue to be, these sorts of troubles. I personally hate them and think they are a great pity, but I can understand how some of them arise. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is right when he says that this issue is occupying far too much time.
Yes, it may be amusing for some noble Lords, but one of the reasons why I was so keen to see this Statement set out in full today was to try to get the whole matter properly out in the open so that it would come perfectly plain and clear; then that would be the moment to leave this issue and all that has gone with it and get on with some very important problems which face our country at the present time.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount two simple questions? Following the Statement, he has made it clear to the House that there has been no mystery whatever about how this letter was leaked. Why, then, was it necessary to have an inquiry at all, and particularly an inquiry which has pin-pointed a civil servant and given the civil servant's career, to say the least, no advancement? Is it fair to pillory a civil servant in this way, when all the facts were apparently known and no inquiry was necessary? Secondly, can the noble Viscount tell the House whether, when the letter was leaked, the Solicitor-General was asked or informed about it before that leak was made and the letter was published?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, first of all, it comes very surprisingly from the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that there should not be an inquiry. No one has spent more of his time during waking hours considering inquiries of one sort or another, over a long period of time, than the noble Lord. I should have thought that had there not been an inquiry the noble Lord would have been to his feet, determined not to

345
lose the opportunity to pursue a great deal more quarry in various parts of inquiries. The answer as to why there was an inquiry was that it was very important to receive the full facts and to make sure that they were in the open.
As to the question of civil servants, it is certainly not the responsibility of the Government that one civil servant was named in another place. I must make it very clear that I deeply regret that that should have happened, but that was not the responsibility of the Government, and it was not the reason for having an inquiry. So far as the Solicitor-General's letter is concerned, I understand that he was not informed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount when the Solicitor-General was informed that this letter had been leaked from the office of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Secondly, is he aware that many of us remain puzzled as to why there was a leak inquiry at all? Given the fact that, on the basis of the Statement we have heard from the noble Viscount this afternoon, this leak took place as a result of approval given by the Prime Minister's own office, why did the Prime Minister then order an inquiry at all?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, the noble Lord's first question was: when was the Solicitor-General told that his letter had been leaked? I imagine, though I cannot give the exact time, that clearly he knew it when he saw it on the tape at about 3.30 that afternoon. But I do not imagine that he can have known it much before that, since his letter was only written and received in the Government departments at 1.30. It must have been sometime in that period. In answer to the question as to why an inquiry, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister believed that as much as possible of the facts of what had gone on should come out into the open. As she made very clear herself, she did not know what had been done at that time. Therefore, she believed it was right to have a leak inquiry and that is why she had it. I believe that there would have been enormous criticism if there had not been the inquiry, and there would have been many calls for one.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, to revert for a moment to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, is it not a fact that the only person who has been remotely responsible for pillorying an individual civil servant is a Back-Bench Member of the Labour Party in another place?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Maude, I have no doubt it is, as one might say in this field, in the public knowledge that the name of the civil servant was given in another place by a Member who certainly—it is also in the public knowledge—is a member of the Labour Party.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Viscount, but on the last point that he made in answer to my second question may I ask him whether his case is that the Prime Minister was not told by members of the office that they had given authority to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to leak this letter? Is that correct or is it not?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, certainly she was not told that, because it was not true. They did not give authority. They had no power to give such authority. The Statement made perfectly clear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave the authority to his own civil servants. He it was who gave the authority to his own civil servants.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, are we therefore to suppose that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did not tell the Prime Minister that he had given that authority?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge, no, he did not.
Lord Silkin: My Lords, in view of what the noble Viscount said a moment ago, why, when this matter first became public and questions were asked about it, did not the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry disclose, "There is no leak. I gave authority for the disclosure"?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that must be a matter for my right honourable friend to answer himself. I could not answer.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the few people to emerge with dignity out of this whole affair is Sir John Cuckney, the chairman of Westland, and that the company would probably recover much more quickly if it was less beleaguered by politicians and press than has been the case heretofore?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Montgomery, in the very difficult situation in which he has been placed there must be throughout the country a considerable amount of admiration for the way that Sir John Cuckney has conducted the whole of the affairs. As to the last point that my noble friend made, I should have thought that probably no one would feel that more keenly than Sir John Cuckney himself.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [H.L.]
4.14 p.m.
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Australia Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Shops Bill [H.L.]
4.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (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.]
Clause 3 [Rights of established shopworkers concerning Sunday working]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I beg to move—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Before the noble Lord proceeds, may I ask whether there has been another agreed list of groupings of amendments? If there has been and there is a spare copy, I should be very grateful for it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: To the best of my knowledge, the groupings that were available on Tuesday are the same today. There have been no additions and no further amendments submitted. So if the noble and learned Lord has a copy of the groupings available for Tuesday, it is the same list.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have just got it. I only had the original list. I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I beg to move that Clause 3 shall not stand part of the Bill, in order to facilitate what I am sure will be a very short debate, at the end of which it will be my intention not to press the matter to a vote. This Motion has been put down because, as those who have followed these matters will have learnt from the proceedings on Tuesday, in particular, there is immense dissatisfaction not just with Clause 2 but also with Schedule 1, which is the substance of Clause 3.
The main debate, which I believe ended with some satisfaction on Tuesday, allowed the Minister to use a form of words which quite clearly indicated that, whereas before he was only going to look at things carefully, now that we have moved on to the employment clauses he will look at them very carefully. Without reading too much into that, some of us believe that there will be opportunities for improving the Bill. Certainly the amendments that are due to follow provide the Minister with a number of opportunities to do so. But I take the view, as do those who support me in general on these matters, that at this stage it would not be helpful to the Committee if we sought to delete the clause from the Bill.
Lord Sandford: I wonder whether I may rise before we leave Clause 3, so as to make some suggestions to the Committee and particularly to my noble friend on
348
the Front Bench. These are suggestions which occur to me as a result of reflecting on what was said to the Committee by my noble friend Lord Stockton on Tuesday evening. He said that we ought not to allow the occasion of this Bill to become one where the conditions under which workers in the distributive trade have to operate, as a result of the change in Sunday trading, are made more difficult. This was something which the Auld Report itself recognised, and they pointed out in paragraph 288 that the whole of the retail trade will now face as a result of the enactment of the Bill rapidly changing and uncertain conditions. That is what they envisaged would follow deregulation, and that is certainly the case.
In what I want to say next I should like to make clear to the Committee that I am departing from much of what I have been saying so far on the Bill where on Clause 1 I have been seeking to draw the attention of the Committee to the views of the Association of District Councils, whose president I am, which are responsible for three-quarters of the enforcement of this legislation. In what I have to say now I am not expressing their views. They have no responsibility for the working conditions of the distributive trades and what I say are thoughts of my own. I should like also to say that in speaking about wages councils and conditions of work I am very much out of my depth. This is not a subject on which I have had much to do in the past. I have, on the other hand, given notice to my noble friend on the Front Bench of what I was about to say and I hope that he will be able to respond in some measure.
The final amendment that we were discussing on Tuesday night was one moved, I think from the same concern as I feel myself and many Members of the Committee will feel, by my noble friend Lord Renton. Many Members of the Committee will have been swayed by his moving account of the way in which the lives of the man in the choir and his son were going to be torn apart by the enactment of this legislation. I have to say that, much as I was moved as others were by this case, if it had been pressed to a Division I would not have voted for it. I think that the effect of the amendment would have been to establish permanently a huge and unjustified differentiation between all those people who in the future will be working on Sundays in the distributive trade, and all those who already and in the future will be working in other businesses which are needed to provide the essential services to keep the life of the nation going—nurses in hospitals, the drivers of trains, the people preparing the Monday newspapers, and so on and so forth.
So I do not think that is a solution to the problem which my noble friend Lord Stockton put before us. But I think there are two other options, and it would be helpful if—not today perhaps because I do not think the notice I have given my noble friend is sufficient—when we come to the Report stage my noble friend can indicate which of these two options is likely to appeal to him. It seems to me that, faced with the turbulence which will result in the distributive trades as a result of the enactment of the Bill, we need to do two things. We need to extend the remit of the wages council which we understand is envisaged by the Government in the legislation they are bringing before the Commons. Incidentally, I understand that the

349
wages council legislation in the Commons will be about a fortnight ahead of this legislation when they get it in a few weeks' time. The two will be in Committee in the other place at the same time and this will perhaps make it easier for them to deal with it than it is for us. That legislation should allow for the remit of the wages councils with responsibility in the distributive trades to be extended only for a limited period to get through the upheaval that the legislation will cause, and then to be reviewed, and to the extent that it is no longer found necessary—as I do not believe it will be—then to be taken away.
The alternative is for my noble friend to look again at Clause 2 and consider whether some parts of those sections which are mentioned there ought not to be retained for the period of transition—three, four or five years; not perhaps all of them, but some of them—and then reviewed, and, in the light of the way in which the industry has settled down, finally repealed. The suggestion I would put to the Committee (for us to hear what my noble friend can say now but certainly to return to it at Report stage) is that either the legislation on the wages councils should be brought forward; or that the legislation in Clause 2 of the Bill should not be dealt with in quite such a wholesale way as is at present intended but protection should be retained for those working in distributive trades for a limited period to see them through this transition which everybody agrees is going to be turbulent, with no one certain about the way it is going to work out. I hope that my noble friend can give some preliminary indication of how he sees that suggestion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My noble friend Lord Sandford has made two interesting suggestions and although I do not go the whole way with him, I think one of them is worth consideration by my noble friend on the Front Bench. I would respectfully differ from my noble friend Lord Sandford when he suggests that the coming into force of this measure will create—I think he used the word "turbulence"—in the distributive trades. I very much doubt that. First of all one has to allow for the fact that a great many shops are already open on Sundays and have been for a very considerable time. There is going to be no sudden transition.
Secondly, those who run shops after the Bill becomes an Act will have to take a decision whether the additional costs incurred in Sunday opening will be justified by the demand which they will meet. That will obviously be a fairly slow process of decision, perhaps of trial and error and perhaps of Sunday opening and then abandoning it. Therefore I am bound to say that I foresee a much smoother transition when the Bill is enacted than does my noble friend. Having said that, I was very glad to hear him say, as I tried to say to your Lordships on Tuesday night, that it would be completely wrong, as was then suggested, to create two distinct categories of new workers: new workers in all other industries without exception where Sunday work takes place—we were told that there were something like 8 million people who work sometimes on Sundays—and those going into shop work. That really would be an indefensible creation of
350
special privilege, and I am sure it would give rise to a great deal of ill-feeling and jealousy. Therefore I was very glad to hear my noble friend Lord Sandford not taking that line which I was sorry to hear one or two of my noble friends taking on Tuesday.
My noble friend's other suggestion that any possible difficulties could be dealt with through the wages council machinery, involving, as would probably be the case, some amendment to the wages council Bill to enable this to be done, seems on the face of it to be worth consideration and it is certainly a point on which, in due course, I would be personally very grateful to hear the view of my noble friend the Minister. That would involve leaving this Bill as it stands in its present form but considering carefully whether or not—I have a fairly open mind on this point—some specific provision to deal with any temporary problem which might arise should go into the wages council legislation.
Lord Denning: Perhaps I may add just one point. At the last session we had on this Bill I understood that, in view of our criticisms of the obscure schedule and its unintelligibility and complexity, my noble friend the Minister indicated that he would ask the parliamentary draftsman to redraft it at least so as to make it intelligible. In the future stages, and even today, are we going to discuss the schedule in its present form when we know it is going in all probability to take a different shape in the future?
4.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I find myself very much in agreement with both the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. It seems to me absolutely wrong to treat shopworkers as a quite different category of employee in this respect from all the others who work on Sunday. On the other hand, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in feeling anxiety about the rapid revision that there is in Clause 2. I should like to see a transitional period. In particular, I revert to the point that I made last Tuesday; namely, that it seems wrong that the 16 to 18 year-olds are left without the protection of either the shops inspectorate and their legislation or apparently—so far as we can judge from the Secretary of State's letter—the wages council legislation.
With regard to the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Denning (whom we would all wish to welcome here on his 87th birthday), I did not understand that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, had undertaken that the schedule should be redrafted. I was going to complain about the fact that he had not done so, and add my criticisms to those that have already been directed at the drafting of this schedule, when the Motion that the schedule stand part is debated; but it seems to me that we have to deal with the schedule as it now stands. As we go painfully through the schedule, it will merely add to the case against its drafting.
Lord Sainsbury: As I understand it, under the existing law a shopkeeper can employ staff to work on Sunday—for example, in filling shelves—so long as he does not open the shop to trade. If that is so, then I find it difficult to justify the existing law. Under Clause 3 of

351
the Bill only existing employees who have not signed any contractual obligation to work on Sunday are protected from being compelled to do so. I favour the extension of that right to new employees who have not signed voluntarily a contractual obligation to work on Sunday. I hope that the Government will give that point of view very careful and serious consideration.
Lord Rochester: I rise only to say in my own words that which has been said already by other noble Lords. I did not have even the short notice that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will have had of what it was that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has just had to say to the Committee. However, I should like to welcome the very constructive approach that he has made—and more particularly to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, last Tuesday. It seems to me that the suggestion he has made that the wages council scheme should be extended to cover the situation of shopworkers, and in particular the lacuna that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, uncovered—not, as he inadvertently said, for those in the 16 to 18 age group but those in the 18 to 21 age group—merit our attention.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am very grateful to the noble Lord; he is of course quite right.
Lord Rochester: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. Alternatively, Clause 2 should be amended in whole or in part for the time being. I look forward very much to what it is that the noble Lord the Minister will have to say. I trust that he will be able to respond in the most positive way possible.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I want very briefly to support the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, to this matter and that the clause should today be agreed to. This in view of the undertaking of my noble friend the Minister given on the only amendment to Clause 3, Amendment No. 24, that he would
"study with great care all that has been said".—[Official Report, 21/1/86; col. 224.]
Not only for the reasons given by my noble friend the Minister is respect of Amendment No. 24 but also for those given by my noble friends Lord Sandford and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I would not for one moment support Amendment No. 24. That creates a curious situation because with the Bill as it stands, there is the inevitable linkage between the drafting of Clause 3 and Amendment No. 24. Only by Amendment No. 24 can one bring in the schedule and give it both pre- and post-commencement effect. So we are getting into a curious situation. I am making that point not to confuse your Lordships but for quite another purpose: to show that this whole situation warrants total basic reappraisal in the light of the approach of principle that was adopted by my noble friend Lord Stockton.
The whole matter of the approach to the employment aspect of this Bill warrants total reappraisal. At the moment it is in the state of a dog's dinner and no amount of amendment, jiggery, correction, niggling or changing can produce a satisfactory result. Against that, we shall have to attend with great care to the continuing debate. Take for example the amendments down in the name of the
352
noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and others—Amendments Nos. 24A to 24C. With the greatest respect to your Lordships, there is not the slightest object in debating those at all, because until we know whether my noble friend the Minister is prepared to move some way towards the paternalistic approach that was put by my noble friend Lord Stockton there can be no purpose in doing so. At this stage, I am therefore seeking some assistance from my noble friend the Minister that might enable the Committee to take a slightly more civilised and shorter course. This debate, although I gather it goes on possibly until 11.30 p.m., is, if I may say so with respect, pregnant with sterility, if that is possible. At least I have thought up a phrase that I have not used previously or heard elsewhere.
I am not seeking to confuse but making a personal attempt to clarify; I have not discussed this with any other noble Lord. The situation is, first, that surely we have to know whether my noble friend the Minister is prepared to move in the direction which I indicated to ensure that all Sunday working is truly optional and to ensure that a measure of safeguard for the shopworkers is provided on the face of the statute. That is the first thing we have to know. That is the approach to which I adhere through thick and thin, and I intervened to make that point at a previous stage in the debate.
But this approach does not of necessity involve the wages council factor. I do not want to take time on it. The paternalistic approach can be adopted without dealing with the wages council factor, or you can deal with it with the wages council factor. There are two ways. Therefore, it may well obscure the merits of the main point if you force the wages council argument too hard on the Government.
The other point I want to make in regard to the principle is that the Government must somehow let your Lordships know where they stand or it will become very difficult. They must surely accept that the approach does not involve nannying in any objectionable sense of the term. I think that some of these suggestions were misunderstood by my noble friend at one stage in the debate. What this approach will involve is three cardinal points of principle. The first is the removal of any distinction between pre-commencement shopworkers and post-commencement shopworkers in the context of Sunday working. The second point is that we must accept that Sunday is not to be treated as any other working day unless the workers concerned so wish to treat it.
The third point—and I dealt with this to some degree on, I believe, Amendment No. 18B the other day—is that we must have express provisions of safeguards; never mind how it is done. Amendment No. 11 seemed to me to be attractive. It attracted me, but it does not matter what attracts me. What matters is what attracts your Lordships. If the point of principle is sound and acceptable, how it is done does not matter in terms of words. But there must be express provision on the face of the statute for the reasons I have already given.
If my noble friend the Minister were to accept the validity of the three points that I have made, or any single one of them, then it follows that not only Clause 3 cannot stand in its present form on Report but

353
neither can Schedule 1. I am delighted to see my noble friend Lord Renton in his place, but neither can his Amendment No. 24 stand because, whether one is for it or not, on any showing it would then be otiose as it deals with the division point which would have been taken care of by the three points of principle to which I have referred.
Therefore, how can one proceed constructively from here? I have been through the schedule. There are parts of it—and I shall not take up the time of your Lordships' Committee by identifying them—which can of course be taken and incorporated within the new concept of the three principles. However, most of it cannot, and there is no way that one can twist and turn it and adapt it. Therefore, if we were to receive, perhaps even after a short adjournment, some form of indication from the Minister there would not be any necessity to consider the matter in great detail.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: It might be helpful if I remind your Lordships, and particularly my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, who has made some most helpful suggestions, precisely where we got to on Tuesday with the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have read the proceedings, twice.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to my noble friend. What I said then was that I would undertake to look very carefully at all that had been said. Only one day has elapsed since then, and it would be impossible to respond fully to all the suggestions that were made and the various arguments that were put forward.
My noble friend Lord Sandford has put forward another suggestion, on which my noble friend Lord Campbell commented. All this is within the ambit of the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that he does propose to suggest that Clause 3 should not stand part of the Bill. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandford for giving me notice that he proposed to make this suggestion. I believe that, rather like the suggestions which came forward on Tuesday, this suggestion must be considered in the same spirit. I appreciate the point made by my noble friends Lord Sandford and Lord Boyd-Carpenter about smooth transition. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, referred to the drafting of Schedule 1. Again, I said, reported in col. 233 of Hansard, that I would have a look at it to see what could be done. However, I hope I did not give the impression then that I would manage to achieve that in the detail necessary before the next Committee sitting which is today. Certainly I stand by what I said and I shall see what can be done. If there is any change it will I hope come forward at the next stage of the Bill. Therefore, we have to discuss Schedule 1 as it stands at the moment.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Sandford will be satisfied if I say to him that I certainly will consider what he said in the same spirit as I am now considering the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Renton and the whole question of the employment considerations. I
354
made it plain then that there were huge difficulties. Nevertheless, I stand by what I said and I shall do precisely that.
On the question of the wages councils Bill, the Committee will be aware that that Bill has not yet appeared, so there are certainly grave difficulties in saying from this Dispatch Box now that something can be done. It has to be considered in the same way that I am considering the other matters raised on Tuesday. I hope that I have explained sufficiently to the satisfaction of my noble friends Lord Campbell and Lord Sandford that I will continue to study what has been said in precisely the way that I said I would. Perhaps we can therefore agree that Clause 3 should definitely stand part of the Bill at the moment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful for this short debate. The Committee will appreciate that, with my intention not to press the matter, I could simply have stood up 32 minutes ago and said "Not moved", as I did on a number of occasions on Tuesday and as I intend to do later. But I had understood from conversations I have had that Members of the Committee wanted to use this opportunity simply to underline and reinforce, without committing any words to paper or putting words into the Minister's mouth, the feeling that there did appear to be the possibility of some improvement which would go a long way toward satisfying the general anxieties. So this short debate has certainly been helpful.
At the same time, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, it is not simply academic to leave on the Marshalled List later amendments which deal internally with the schedule, because in fact we are agreeing the clause. We have not agreed to the detail of the schedule. The noble Lord is saying to us: until we have heard from the Minister, why should we waste our time? With respect, I have some experience in another place as well as here, and one needs to use every opportunity—and this day of the Committee stage provides it—to make the case. We shall be pressing our case on later amendments.
The other point I wish to raise is this. I was interested to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, wanted there to be no differentiation between shopworkers who worked on a Sunday and any other workers working on that day. Such a differentiation would be quite unacceptable, but apparently what is acceptable is that there should be a difference between people who are shopworkers before the Act is passed and those who are shopworkers afterwards. In other words—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Lord allow me—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: In a moment. The principle of differentiation apparently is accepted in that particular instance.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I apologise if I failed to make clear to the noble Lord the view that I was expressing, and perhaps I may try again. I accept that some protection is right where Parliament changes the law affecting existing employees. They became

355
shopworkers under the old dispensation. They will find that Parliament, if it passes this Bill, has altered the law, and I think it is right to protect them.
On the other hand, it seems to me quite unacceptable that where someone newly comes into a trade which like every other trade can involve Sunday working, then he and he only should be given privileges which everybody else who is working on Sunday and going into a trade involving work on Sunday, is denied.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the noble Lord but I am bound to point out that there are many noble Lords, including myself, who believe that the protection for existing workers does not amount to very much at all. While we would not wish to deny them that protection, we shall certainly be questioning very strongly in later amendments the value of this protection. However, unless there is some other noble Lord who wishes to make a point, it is now my intention to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord does that, perhaps I may say very briefly, without prolonging the discussion, that, owing to having to attend the Deputy Speakers' meeting and another meeting, I was not able to be here for the beginning of this discussion; but having heard some of it I should like to say that I welcome the move on the part of my noble friend Lord Glenarthur to consider further this very difficult question.
I must confess that I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because I think that his view overlooks what the other night my noble friend Lord Wolfson called the invidious position where one has some workers in the retail business who are given protection by statute and others who are working in the same business who do not have it. I hope that my noble friend will bear that point in mind.
Lord Sandford: I hope that the Committee will agree with me that this has been a useful discussion and that the assurances given to us by my noble friend on the Front Bench about what he will try to do before the next stage of the Bill are very welcome. I should like to make just one further suggestion to my noble friend on the Front Bench: namely, that I believe the Committee (or it will be the House then) would welcome it if he were able to persuade his noble friend Lord Young, whose department is responsible for these matters, to come and join us at the point when we shall be discussing this Bill again at Report; because I think it would be helpful, as my noble friend Lord Campbell was suggesting, to have a clear view from the Minister who is directly responsible on the philosophy of employment and employment protection, which will underpin everything. Those remarks are intended to be helpful to my noble friend and are not the least bit critical of the way in which he is handling this Bill.
Lord Mishcon: I too do not wish to be critical of the way in which the noble Lord the Minister is handling this Bill. I think we are all very content with it. We should simply have loved a little surrender to the voice of reason now and again.
356
Having said that, I want to make a practical point. I have in mind some words, which we always value, from the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, who did not talk in paternalistic terms, if I may say so, when he said, if I understood him correctly, that we ought to be dealing with a Bill which deals with Sunday opening or Sunday closing and its regularisation or deregularisation. We ought not in any way at all to affect the rights of workers as they presently exist and, he said, a short clause to that effect, if that were the proper way of dealing with it, should be in this Bill. But if that is not the proper way, this is the spirit which ought to be the spirit of the Committee when dealing with this matter.
My practical suggestion is this. We shall have a lot of debates on the amendments now before us. It has been rightly said that, if the attitude of the Minister is changing, perhaps after consultation with his noble friend the Secretary of State who deals with labour matters, then it is a little disturbing because as we give further consideration to amendments during the interval—not a long one—between now and Report stage we shall not know generally, unless the Government put down their amendments in good time, where we shall be standing at that stage.
Bearing in mind the general attitude, which I know the noble Lord the Minister has noticed from all sides of your Lordships' Chamber, that there is anxiety about labour conditions in a field of employment which is very unprotected—that is the way I should like to put it—would he consider between now and Report stage seeing a delegation, perhaps in company with his noble friend the Secretary of State for Employment (though of course he cannot talk about committing him in his absence) in order that these matters could be discussed with the trade union representatives involved and with those who are very much concerned with this matter in your Lordships' Committee? Such a frank discussion—and we are not asking the Minister in advance to give away anything—would enable us to know that all the points of view have been put and been considered by the Minister, and reactions to them would enable us to know what we ought to be doing at Report stage. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister would react to that suggestion, which I hope the Committee will think is a practical one.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandford and to the noble Lord opposite for their suggestions. I find myself in a rather difficult position because I cannot, as I think both noble Lords will appreciate, commit my noble friend. What I can say, however, in response to both suggestions, and particularly the first suggestion, is that it is something which I am sure that my noble friend will note. As regards the second suggestion of a delegation which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I accept the spirit in which he makes that suggestion, but I think that it really needs to be considered within the overall examination of the arguments that have been put forward on the whole question of the anxiety that he expresses about those who feel they are not sufficiently protected in this field. I am grateful to him for his suggestion and I shall react to it in due course, but not now.
Lord Rochester: I do not expect the Minister to respond, but I may have been guilty of a slip of the tongue. Following what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said, I may have suggested that Clause 2 should be retained in whole or in part as one of the alternatives. If so, I of course intended to say it should be amended. I apologise to the noble Lord.
Clause 3 agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 24A:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Secretary of State's report on the operation of the Act.
.—(1) One year after the coming into force of this Act it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to prepare and lay before Parliament a report on its operation.
(2) The said report shall contain an assessment of the effect of operation of this Act upon the following matters, namely—

(a) the exercise of the right to worship;

(b) the employment, remuneration and working conditions of employees;

(c) costs and prices in retail and distributive industries;

(d) the interests and wishes of the consumers;

(e) the incidence of crime;

(f) the demands on transport; and

(g) the effect on the environment and the interests of residents.

(3) In preparing the said report it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to seek evidence from members of the public and from persons and organisations representing those directly affected by the matters referred to in subsection (2) above, including religious bodies, trade unions, representative organisations in retail and other business, local authorities, the police, representatives of consumers, representatives of residents.").
The noble Lord said: I cannot believe that any member of your Lordships' Committee will feel that the amendment is not most reasonable. It does not interfere in any way with a single line, comma or jot of the Bill. Those who believe that there is literally not a word wrong with the Bill will be relieved that the amendment does not seek in any way to alter the words, the spirit or the intention of complete deregulation and of the provisions in Clauses 2 and 3 and Schedule 1. Thus we can have a relaxed debate about the general situation which has been alluded to by a number of noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, believes that the transition from the law as it stands to the law as it will be will be reasonable; it will not be without problems but it will not merit the term that has been used—turmoil. From time to time noble Lords have pleaded in aid evidence gathered from surveys, observations, letters and arguments advanced from one quarter or another. Somebody puts up one argument and evidence then comes from another quarter. I am prepared to say, but not with absolute certainty, that a lot of people who believe that there will be no turmoil or distress will be surprised at the size of the problems that will emerge.
During the general argument over the past two or three years, although it has been going on for longer than that, a number of concerns have been expressed. This amendment says to the Government, "Have your Bill in full or in part but at least put to rest the anxieties on both sides of the argument". Twelve months is perhaps a short time, but whether there are problems or not, let us have a proper report; not a press release, a conference, a leak or anything of that kind, but let us
358
do it properly. Let us not tie the Government down about what they should do in the light of the report. This procedure has been carried out on a number of occasions in the past. We invite the Government, in effect, to put their money where their legislation is.
I completely accept the Government's sincerity. They believe that the measure is in the best interests of all those affected—the consumers, the workers, the employers and the local authorities. I do not dispute their sincerity. But I believe that there are many noble Lords throughout the House who feel it is possible for things to go wrong. For instance, let us consider the effect on the workers. The trade unions are apprehensive. They talk of hoaxes, disasters and catastrophes. Events may prove that to be unfounded. A report to Parliament in 12 or 18 months' time may prove that or it may produce other evidence that we cannot see now because we cannot gaze into a crystal ball.
In the Auld Committee report it is said that the measure may increase employment; on the other hand, it is argued that it will create more unemployment. In the retail and distributive sector in 12 months' time statistics on that question ought to be available.
Many of the trade unions are concerned not only about Sunday working but about late night working. As your Lordships know, I am not an alarmist, but various trade unions have told me that we should bear in mind that the bulk of retail workers are women and that many are part-time, and they need, sadly, to take into account the environment and ambience in which many of them work. They may be leaving work later at night in the future. I am talking of crime, mugging and fear in workers' minds. When we are talking about crime, I could quote, although time does not permit, letters from police chiefs who recognise that the longer shops are open the more shop related crime there will be. That is a fact of life, which could be assessed, tabulated and reported to the House.
Some people argue that costs will rise. There is the whole nexus of wage rates, premium rates and one rate. Will the costs be absorbed? Will Sunday become just another weekday? Some argue that the cost to the consumer will go up and others say that will be minimal, if anything. A report would be able to give us that evidence.
Some people talk about greater environmental distress for the people living in the areas of likely increased shopping. I live in Edmonton and know Edmonton Green. I am satisfied that if Sunday trading occurs the life of the people who live within a mile of the green (which is simply an enlarged car park) or around the town centre will be a misery on seven days, as opposed to six days, a week. I may be wrong. A report on the effect on the environment of residential areas could tell us that.
I do not say that the Minister has not consulted properly in the past, but a range of people will have a view—the churches, the trade unions and the retailers, and I am talking not just about the large retailers represented in the retail consortium. There is the national chamber of trade and groups such as the Hardware Federation, the meat retailers and the Bakers' Institute which represent the smaller traders. All those bodies are entitled after 12 months to tell the House their experience and to produce the evidence.
The councils will have a view also. I am talking not merely about the councillors and the Association of District Councils, which is well and authoritatively represented in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. There are also the shop inspectors. I remind your Lordships' Committee that they have said that the present law is not difficult to enforce provided that they have support. Let us hear what they have to say in 12 months' time. I can certainly see the police, the Consumers' Association and the consumer councils having a view.
All the arguments can be resolved without disturbing the Government's intention to bring in the Bill, though many of us wish that they would not. But let us test it in the light of experience. In 12 months', or, with the way that legislation goes, two years' time, let us see how the legislation is working, whether there are lessons to be learnt and whether we need to bring forward amending legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I am surprised that anyone as experienced and as practical as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has proved himself to be over the years that we have been in Parliament together, should think for one second that an amendment such as this would be inserted in a Bill by any responsible Parliament. Why should this be granted only to the people who work in the retail trade? The report would contain an assessment of whether they have had their right to worship interfered with, what their remuneration is, whether their working has increased prices or affected them, and about the interests and wishes of the consumers. If this one industry was asked to do this because of some special reason—which the noble Lord did not explain—why would it not apply to everybody who has to work on Sunday? Why should not all these questions be put to them?
To ask a Government to set up such a precedent, after having produced legislation which they truly believe is in the best interests of the nation, is to ask them to doubt the real effectiveness of what they are doing. It would be asking them to admit in advance that they have doubts about the real quality of the legislation which they are asking Parliament to accept.
I do not believe that any responsible Parliament could pick out one industry—in this case the retail industry—and say that it is the only one which ought to have this kind of annual report put on the records. If one does it in this instance one would have to do it in many others. I do not think it is being fair to the people who are engaged in the retail trade to represent them as though they are all that different from other workers in other industries. I am connected with the hotel industry. The people in that industry are workers; they give a similar kind of service—and by and large it is very good and very satisfactory.
By putting in this kind of safety chain one is giving the impression that those in the retail trade are in need of the special, almost unbelievable, protection of an annual report, which would cost money and time. The noble Lord is a practical man who is experienced in these matters. I do not think that he would expect one industry to have this written in without thinking that it would have to be extended over the whole of the industries where people have to work unsocial hours or on Sundays.
360
This sets a precedent which would boomerang in a way which I believe would be disastrous to business and commerce as a whole. The noble Lord was persuasive in presenting the amendment. That is one of the problems: the noble Lord is a very persuasive arguer on these matters, and his love of Edmonton was obvious to everyone when he quoted his example of how he obtains this knowledge. I come from the Midlands, Staffordshire, and I know that there are many industries in Staffordshire which would feel that, if this kind of thing was done for one industry, the same should be done for them. One would be opening the door to something which would not be very pleasant for Parliaments of the future. I do not think we ought to do that.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury: I am afraid that I cannot support this amendment. To the retailer the prospect of a review after one year when patterns of trade have already been established would create the opportunity for the whole divisive controversy to be started all over again. The report suggested by the amendment would obviously require the setting up of another committee. If the committee covered all the matters mentioned in this amendment the work might easily take two years to complete, by which time the pattern of trade would be even more firmly established. Therefore, I think that this amendment, if pressed, should be opposed.
Lord Gallacher: I have a great deal of support for this amendment for reasons which I hope briefly to put before the Committee. First, what we are dealing with in this Bill is not merely Sunday trading but Sunday and Sunday night trading. It is not weekday trading along the present pattern of weekday trading under the 1950 Shops Act. It is the legalising of the right of retailers to be open from one minute after midnight until 23.59 on the same day. Thus, in effect what the Bill seeks to legalise, and what the Auld Committee recommended, was that the shops of this country, if they so wish, can be open for 168 hours a week. That, by any stretch of the imagination represents a major change in the social habits and the life of the people of this country.
There are two views as to how retailers may react to the freedom which the Bill proposes to confer upon them. There are those who say that it will not be very different from what happens in Scotland on a Sunday. There are others, including myself, who say that it will be vastly different. We have our reasons for that judgment, not least the fact that 50 per cent. of the multiple retailers are simply waiting for the starting gun. Fifty per cent. of them will open; the remaining 50 per cent. of multiple retailers in this country will have to give serious consideration to what is happening to their trade if their principal trading rivals are open and they are closed. We are dealing with a situation which is, in a sense, unknown and goes beyond anything of which we have practical experience in this country.
Turning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I think that the amendment makes it perfectly clear that the process of consultation is not one in which workers only are to be consulted but a whole range of interests which may be affected. I am

361
particularly concerned with those people mentioned by my noble friend Lord Graham who, through no fault of their own, happen to have the good fortune or misfortune to live close to areas which may suddenly find themselves transformed on a Sunday. If their only defence—once the Bill becomes an Act—is to rely upon the law of nuisance, then I think they may find themselves facing court proceedings and not getting very much joy out of those proceedings.
In deference to those people in particular sympathetic consideration should be given to this amendment. Modern retailing can be a fairly noisy business. Music comes into it—at least, I am told that it is music. Motor-cars certainly come into it; car doors certainly come into it. If one is saying that these effects can go on quite legally 24 hours a day, seven days a week, without the possibility of a review, one is making a very harsh judgment indeed and inflicting on the people of England and Wales a situation which I do not think Parliament has the right so to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, also mentioned the fact that nobody else has even had a review of parliamentary legislation in this way and that we shall be creating a dangerous precedent. I have had the misfortune to have been at this game quite a long time. I recollect quite clearly the occasion when the Bill on policyholders' protection was going through Parliament—admittedly a different kind of measure but one which aroused great opposition from the orthodox insurance industry. One irate insurance officer told me that it was a rogues' charter. Your Lordships will recall that the purpose of the Bill was to provide a fund for the protection of people who might be disadvantaged by the collapse of insurance companies. In deference to the kind of view expressed to me the Bill provided for just such a review as that now proposed after five years. The review was made, and, significantly enough, there was no question of any revision to the Act because the worst fears of the insurance industry about its operation were not realised.
It may be that under this amendment, if it were to become law, the review would take place and our worst fears for the people of this country and for their peace and quiet in the late evening would not be realised. But I say that at least the opportunity ought to be given.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, says that we shall be disturbing established patterns of trade. In my capacity as an assessor to the Auld Committee, I did a fair amount of legwork. I did not even charge for shoe leather! However, I went round the garden centres and the DIY shops which are currently breaking the law on Sundays, in order to observe how much trade was going on. I found—and I readily admit it—that a great deal of trade was going on, both on Sunday mornings and again on Sunday afternoons. I also found that, in so far as they were giving notice of what their opening times were on Sundays—and many of them were not doing so for fear of incurring the wrath of local authorities—most of them were closing at 6 p.m.
I personally felt that the Auld Committee made a mistake in going for total abolition, and it may be that at the Report stage of the Bill we shall ask the Government to think about this matter. If no one is
362
asking for midnight trading, then in my view it is an imposition on the people of this country to give it to them through a Bill of this character. However, as the Bill stands, I believe that the case for a review is very powerful. It may be that 12 months is too short a period. I think that it is. However, certainly within the period of one to two years those people who may be oppressed by what lies before them have the right to feel that the Home Office will be looking at the whole matter and maybe drawing conclusions as to the practical results of the operation of the Bill and possibly giving them some redress, some amelioration in respect of the disturbance which the Bill may quite unwittingly impose upon them. I support the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the noble Lord opposite will forgive me if I do not follow him in that part of his speech which seemed, if he will allow me to say so, more appropriate to Second Reading than to the debate on this rather limited amendment. I shall confine myself to the amendment.
I am bound to say that I do not take quite as adverse a view of the amendment as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. In my view the amendment is very well-intentioned. However, like many well-intentioned proposals, it requires examination as to its practical effect. First, I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that it really would be quite absurd to have the review within a year. It is not clear from the way in which it is drafted whether the review is to start after a year or to be completed after a year. Quite obviously, if we look at what is proposed and know something about the speed with which governmental machinery works, we will realise that we are talking about a process of at least a year as regards the preparation of the report. On any view that would be too soon.
As was made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who speaks with more experience of this matter than any of us, it would be quite absurd to start reviewing the Act (as it will then be) after so short an interval and before its real patterns have settled down. I understand the point of view of the noble Lord. Lord Graham of Edmonton, and that he feels that the Bill will have serious effects and that people may be reassured by knowing that it will be reviewed. I suggest to the noble Lord and to your Lordships that there is a much simpler and less cumbrous way of dealing with the matter.
For example, if any section of noble Lords opposite feel after a year or any other period that the Act has turned out to work less well than some of us hoped, there is nothing whatever to prevent them staging a debate in the House. In so far as they are in the Official Opposition—a position in which I think they will be, happily, for many years to come—they will be able to use one of the very large number of days which are allotted to the Official Opposition (a far larger number of days than allotted to my noble friends) to have a full debate. They will be able to put down a Motion and to ask for answers on a large number of points which appear in the amendment. The Government of the day will have to answer them. Surely that is a great deal less cumbrous, more efficient and a more flexible method than that proposed. Therefore, while to some extent I am with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, as

363
regards the intention, I am wholly against him as regards the method.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I hope that your Lordships will allow me to make a brief intervention. Of course I sympathise with the fears expressed by the noble Lord opposite. However, if we look at the matter objectively we realise that these provisions are wholly inappropriate to put on the face of a statute. They are not provisions which are apt to carry legal enforceability. If we begin putting questions of sentiment onto the face of a statute, however well-intentioned, we mess up the statute law. I therefore ask the noble Lord who has proposed the amendment to reconsider his suggestion.
Lord Milverton: I do not think that I can support the amendment, because I rather agree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls in asking why, if we are to do this type of thing for one group, it should not be done for others. As my noble friend has said, there are many other people who have to work on Sundays. One of the noble Lords opposite raised the question of noise. There are plenty of activities which occur throughout the country on Sundays which involve noise. For example, there are motor-car rallies. Some people may like them but some may find them a dashed nuisance. Therefore, I do not think that the point about noise being a nuisance is very relevant.
Basically, when it comes down to it, the question of business on Sunday and what work is done should be left to the conscience of people and, one hopes and prays, to the good conscience of employers to deal decently and respectfully with employees and to respect their conscience about Sunday and worship. That is the matter that will have to be watched and studied. If any employers do not honour that position, which I think is implanted in the Bill, they must be brought to account.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I should like very briefly to give my support to the amendment, for the following reasons. I am sure there is general agreement that one of the recurring themes in the debate on this Bill has been that we do not really know what exactly will come out of it at the end. We do not know how many shops will take advantage of the Bill. We do not know how many shopworkers will choose to work on Sundays. We do not know how much disruption it will cause to the communities living around those shops which stay open. Therefore, a great deal of the debate has been hypothetical.
That is the reason I should like to support the amendment. It seems completely logical and appropriate that there should be a review at some stage—be it one year, two years or three years after the Bill comes into law—to disclose not only what has gone wrong but also what has happened. In my view that is great justification for the amendment.
As my noble friend Lord Gallacher said, we are talking not simply about Sunday trading but about something which could cause much more of a fundamental upheaval to all kinds of aspects of life. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that the whole point of having a review would be simply to arrest some of the patterns from settling down. But surely, if some of those patterns are settling down in
364
the wrong way, that would be the point of the review. I am sure we would all agree that if the patterns were settling down to the disadvantage of people generally—shopworkers, consumers and sabbatarians—then it would be quite a good idea to stop them settling down altogether.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for intervening. There is force in what she says if sufficient time is allowed. However, the amendment to which she is speaking would not allow time for patterns to settle down in a form or shape as regards which it would be possible to form an intelligent judgment as to whether that form or shape was good or bad. That is the point. If we were talking of a period of five years it might be a different matter.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has made a very good point. The point about whether the interval is correct has already been brought up. I mentioned one, two or three years. I do not know what the correct time should be. However, I agree that one year would not be long enough to see exactly what is happening.
The different matters which my noble friend Lord Graham has listed, which he thinks would need reviewing, are eminently sensible. We would want to see whether the working conditions of employees were right. I know that it has been pointed out many times, but I do not think one can point out enough the percentage of women who are employed in the retail business. Those women's rights are always the most vulnerable and need the most protection. We certainly want to know whether they have been able to get home safely if shops have stayed open late at night on weekdays or Sundays. This is something which will be revealed when the Act has been in force for a little time. We shall have to see how our transport system has dealt with it; perhaps not many new demands will be made upon it.
However, these seem to be the most eminently sensible matters to be looked at in order to see whether any adjustment needs to be made. Therefore, I should like to give my support to this amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: It is part of the function of Government to keep under review the needs of our society, to see whether new controls are needed and whether old controls have outlived their usefulness. It is part of this process that has led the Government to bring this Bill before Parliament. Your Lordships will know that the Government keep records and statistics of all the major aspects of our daily life. These records are kept by the different departments of state. For example, crime statistics—one of the features of the noble Lord's amendment—are produced by the Home Office; employment statistics are produced by the Department of Employment; information on costs and prices is produced by the Department of Trade and Industry; social trends generally are measured by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys; and matters of transport are dealt with by the Department of Transport. It is from the collation of all these figures and the make-up of the information which results that Government departments seek to distinguish long-term trends and to decide on future legislative needs.

365
The Institute for Fiscal Studies carried out an economic review for the Auld Committee and concluded that were there to be de-regulation:
"it is unlikely that … there would be effects of sufficient magnitude to be distinguished readily from the other changes which would be occurring as a result of other influences on the style and structure of British retailing".
Frankly, if the effects of this Bill on the style and structure of British retailing are unlikely to be separable from the other trends in this sector, I very much doubt whether the effect of the Bill on the right to worship or the incidence of crime would be able to be separated any more easily.
One section of this report might require a most elaborate analysis of the incidence of crime. Some research already takes place in order to determine the strategies which our society needs to combat crime. Yet for all the research that takes place, I suggest that it would be a foolhardy criminologist who would claim that he could attribute a crime to one particular reason.
Should this Bill produce any small effects, it will not be possible to separate and isolate them from the many other larger social and economic influences that affect the crime rate. The Government produce sufficient information in each of the fields mentioned as a continuing duty. It is unlikely that the effects of de-regulation will be distinguishable in any one of these fields.
The aim of the amendment appears to be to focus attention on the various aspects of the life of our society and to blame any deleterious effects on this Bill. This appears to me to be another example of, to use the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, "tunnel vision". Government information and statistics are very detailed and have certain very valuable uses. This amendment proposes a report which would repeat information available elsewhere, which would shed little light on the negligible effects which the Bill would have and would be of little use to any of us.
It is the function of this House, as has been suggested, and of another place to bring to the Government's attention and to debate any problems that arise in the country as a direct result of legislation or from any other cause. Should difficulties arise from this legislation after one year or after five years or at some point in the future, we shall be free to discuss them. To lay down that such a wide-ranging report should be prepared would merely be to generate unnecessary expense and time-consuming work.
Your Lordships' House is never slow to discuss problems of this or any other sort which affect us in this country. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, we do not need a report of such doubtful value, however well-intentioned it may be. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I apologise to the Committee for not being present earlier, but I have heard the Minister's reply and I should like to congratulate him on his opening remarks. His opening paragraphs were most statesmanlike in relation to the Government's activities. I do not blame the noble Lord for what is in his brief, but I think that his brief
366
has missed the whole point of the amendment. It is that one year after the coming into force of this Act there should be a report. Why is it put forward as:
"One year after the coming into force of this Act"?
There is great dissension throughout the whole country; there is great dissension in parts of your Lordships' Committee. There is great dissension in parts of the noble Lord's Party, some of whose members abstain from voting on this Bill because it raises such great issues in relation to social activities as well as details about the number of hours that shops should open. There is a great cleavage.
This Bill is a serious experiment, and after a year its operation may not be as good as the noble Lord the Minister and the Government think. Therefore, it seems reasonable that one year later certain aspects should be discussed and a report prepared and laid before Parliament on the operation of a very controversial Bill which raises such important matters as social aspects. I agree that some of the items in subsection (2) may not be of any consequence to discuss, but is the Minister on behalf of the Government able to say now that:
"the employment, remuneration and working conditions of employees"
will be absolutely satisfactory a year after the coming into force of this Act? How can he say such things?
Lord Glenarthur: With respect, I do not think that the noble Lord can have heard some of the other arguments that were put forward if he came into the Chamber only at the beginning of my speech. The noble Lord is missing the whole point. By not being present, he missed my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls asking whether if we were to accept this amendment to this Bill we should amend in a similar way all the other Bills which we consider. What does the noble Lord think about that? I cannot believe that it is a sensible suggestion. Nor did I at any stage say that paragraphs (a) through to (g) would not be looked at through the normal machinery of Government and the various other means of collecting statistics.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for that most helpful intervention. At the moment I am dealing with my case on Amendment No. 24A to Clause 3. In putting forward my argument, I do not have to concern myself with the arguments made by other Members of the Committee, however distinguished they may be. It may be amusing to Members opposite, but I am dealing with an amendment. I am entitled to put my case.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: This is not an amendment, it is a new clause.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was so anxious and I could not deal with the duet.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I was wanting to help the noble Lord, of whom I am very fond. If he was arguing

367
on the basis that this was an amendment to Clause 3, he was wrong. It is not an amendment to Clause 3. It is a new clause which I claim sets up a precedent that we may not like when it is applied to other industries in the future.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: As always, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is most helpful to me when I am floundering about. He corrected me on a technical point, and I did say that it was an amendment to Clause 3. I apologise for that great mistake. Of course, we are dealing with a new clause after Clause 3. I apologise to the Committee for having made that mistake.
I am entitled to put my view, and the view of many here, having heard the Minister. The Minister is replying to all the argument, while I am dealing with the Minister's argument and nobody else's and I am entitled to do that. I should have thought that the working conditions of employees ought to be considered carefully after a year. It is reasonable to want to understand, with this controversial Bill, whether what the Government are saying is right.
"Times have changed", we have heard from the Minister; "the country is all right; employers will know when to do this, that, and the other"—after the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton. The noble Lord the Minister laughed about item (e) of the suggested new clause, the report about "the incidence of crime". Surely, crime, shoplifting—
Lord Glenarthur: With respect to the noble Lord, I really cannot accept that I laughed about anything to do with crime. I see quite enough of the effects from other matters to do with the Home Office. What I simply tried to do was to set out my answer to Lord Graham's amendment, for which he has had some support, but which some of my noble friends, and others including the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, have said does not make sense, I believe for various good reasons.
I also went on to say—and the noble Lord may have missed this—that the Government produce a mass of information in each of the fields with which this amendment deals as a continuing duty. I cannot believe, that the noble Lord feels, if that continuing duty exists, that there is a need to elaborate upon it in the way that this amendment proposes. That is all I am suggesting. I gave some examples of the kind of information collected.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am again obliged to the noble Lord, but of course he has misunderstood what I said. I strongly resent that he suggested that I thought he was laughing at the question of crime. I never laugh at the question of crime in relation to the noble Lord's outlook on these matters. I was saying that I understood him to be somewhat scornful of an amendment to contain a clause asking for a report on crime.
368
I took from the way the noble Lord was speaking that he was not scornful about the necessity for dealing with crime; he was scornful, as I understood it, about the need to have an amendment to the Bill which says that in a year's time we shall consider questions of crime, like shoplifting, or difficulties of monitoring the Bill and other matters associated with this Bill.
I feel that it would be reasonable after a year of the operation of this Bill, which causes such great dissension—and there is a cleavage of opinion throughout the country—to have this report because it would be helpful to the Government after one year to reconsider the whole position. I am sorry to have taken up the time of this Committee, and I apologise to those Members of the Committee whom I have not heard. But apart from the Minister, with great respect, what was said before I came in was irrelevant to the speech which I have now addressed to the Committee because I was merely dealing with the speech of the Minister.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I shall be exceedingly brief. I simply wish to reinforce a point eloquently made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. There is dissension on this whole issue, not merely in this Committee but throughout the country. I happen to elevate this issue higher than many others in this Committee who look upon this in the generality of legislation. I believe that the impact and effect of this legislation, once passed, will have enormous social consequences, as well as retailing consequences, etc. That is why I believe that it is very special indeed.
Scorn has been poured upon Parliament writing into primary legislation the need to review that which it has agreed is right. Three years ago Parliament passed legislation in respect of seat belts. It said that three years after the passage of that Bill it would be reviewed. This week it was reviewed. Therefore, those who pour scorn on the idea that it is right after a certain time to say, "We will look at it again", need to reflect seriously on what they are saying.
I take the point that perhaps one year may not be right. Perhaps two years or three years would be better, in which case, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, nods his head, on some other occasion he will get the opportunity to support the principle, not of one year but of perhaps two years. If it turns out that as early as a year later it can be clearly seen that what we have done is wrong, and a majority of the people of this country recognise that it is wrong, why do we not have a mechanism, a peg, upon which we can stop?
The Minister says that we do not need all of this, and that statistics are kept regularly. That negatives the argument that we shall be asking for a lot of work to be done under this new clause. If the statistics are there, they can be assembled and used. It is a sensible amendment which is in keeping with the unhappiness that I sense about the Committee and the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, says, "Once it is done, it is done". I say that if once it is done it is seen to be wrong, we ought to have the opportunity to reflect and review. That is why I give the Committee the opportunity to express its view.
5.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 24A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 110.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Attlee, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bottomley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Collison, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Phillips, B.

Denington, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Derby, Bp.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Diamond, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Donoughue, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Eldon, E.

Seear, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Serota, B.

Ennals, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stamp, L.

Ezra, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gallacher, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Underhill, L.

Gregson, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hooson, L.

White, B.

Jacques, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Willis, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kagan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Glanusk, L.

Ampthill, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Arran, E.

Gridley, L.

Atholl, D.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Auckland, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Aylestone, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Bathurst, E.

Hayter, L.

Bauer, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Belstead, L.

Henley, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hertford, M.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hives, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hood, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hooper, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Butterworth, L.

Kimball, L.

Caccia, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Caithness, E.

Lawrence, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Layton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Long, V.

Carnock, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cathcart, E.

Lyell, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Colwyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Margadale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Marsh, L.

Cox, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Davidson, V.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

De Freyne, L.

Avon, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Melville, V.

Dilhome, V.

Merrivale, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mersey, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Milverton, L.

Elton, L.

Monson, L.

Enroll of Hale, L.

Montague of Beaulieu, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Gainford, L.

Mottistone, L.

370

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Munster, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Newall, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Norfolk, D.

Somers, L.

Norrie, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Orkney, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Sudeley, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Portland, D.

Teynham, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Vickers, B.

Renton, L.

Vivian, L.

Rodney, L.

Westbury, L.

Romney, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Rugby, L.

Windlesham, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wise, L.

Salisbury, M.

Wolfson, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Young, B.

Sandford, L.

Ypres, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly
5.55 p.m.
Clause 4 [Short title, consequential amendments, repeals and extent]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: May I ask the Minister about the meaning of subsection (3)? If it means anything, why is it in this extraordinary place and not in Schedule 2? I gave the noble Lord notice that I wanted to raise this question, but if he is not prepared to deal with this today I am content to have it dealt with on Report. I shall put down the appropriate amendment myself, or he can do it. Perhaps it would be convenient if I indicate the problem. Would that be convenient for the noble Lord the Minister?
Lord Glenarthur: I may be able to satisfy the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. Under Section 21 of the 1950 Act the occupier of premises selling refreshments may opt to apply the special provisions of Section 21 instead of the half-day holiday and meal break provisions of Sections 17 to 20. If he opts for this he has to display and maintain on the premises a notice describing the special provisions and the steps taken to comply with them. The form of the notice is prescribed by regulation.
One of the provisions described by the notice is the maximum number of hours—65—that an adult shop assistant may work in any week under these special arrangements. But this maximum does not apply to young persons employed on the premises whose maximum hours are set down elsewhere in Part II of the 1950 Act; that is, Sections 24 to 31. The restriction of Section 21 to young persons only means that this part of the provision is no longer relevant and it is being repealed by Schedule 2, paragraph 6. This means that the notice is accurate.
The simplest way to correct this notice is to deprescribe it and to give guidance on the form it should take in an information leaflet to be published. The provision does not remove the requirement of an occupier to display a notice explaining to his young shopworkers the details of the arrangements he has adopted. The noble and learned Lord asked me why this provision is in Clause 4. This matter is covered in Clause 4 because it is not consequential and therefore

371
cannot be in Schedule 2. I hope that that clarifies this for the noble and learned Lord. I am most grateful to him for having given notice that he would raise it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has clarified matters, but on neither point has he given, in my respectful submission, a satisfactory answer—either on the question of what the subsection does or why it is in Clause 4.
The noble Lord has dealt with Section 21 and he has explained that that can now apply only to young persons. Therefore the requirement on the employer to display a notice in the form prescribed by regulation is no longer relevant. That is so, and therefore Section 21 including these words is of no possible interest for the reason that the noble Lord explained; namely, that the hours of young persons working are dealt with in a different section: that is, Section 24, which deals with young persons working generally and puts a maximum of 48 hours. Section 25 deals with the catering trade and therefore covers the ground covered by Section 21, which is the section dealing with the shops at which refreshments are consumed on the premises.
Section 25—which, as I have said, covers the ground of Section 21; so there is no need for one to look at Section 21 at all—prescribes a fortnightly maximum of 96 hours; in other words, twice the general weekly maximum of 48 hours. What is more, Section 25 requires a notice in the prescribed form, and that is the relevant section; so that, with all respect to the noble Lord, I cannot find his explanation satisfactory. In fact, if anything is needed to deal with Section 21 in any way at all, it should be in Schedule 2 because it disappears completely as to its relevance to adult workers, being repealed by Clause 2 of the Bill.
Therefore the repeal ought to appear in Schedule 2 of the Bill. So far as young persons are concerned, the relevant section of the Shops Act is Section 25. If that is to be dealt with at all—and I cannot see any need for dealing with it at all—it should be dealt with as a consequential provision and not tucked away in this kind of clause. I have never before seen this kind of provision in the final clause of a Bill or statute. Do I take it that the noble Lord has got another answer?
Lord Renton: Will the noble and learned Lord allow me to intervene? He suggests that this should be as a consequential amendment in Schedule 2. But surely it should be in Schedule 3, which deals with repeals. He has, quite rightly, described it as a form of repeal.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I think the noble Lord is right. It could be in Schedule 2 as a minor and consequential amendment in so far as it picks out particular words; or it could be in Schedule 3. The one place that it is certainly wrong for it to be is in the enacting provision of this Bill.
Lord Glenarthur: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord and to my noble friend. It all goes to show that things are never quite so simple as one thinks. I must tell the noble and learned Lord that when he gave me notice that he intended to raise this matter, I was convinced that the Bill was right. But I have listened with great care to what the noble and learned Lord has said. It provides me with an
372
opportunity to correct one thing that I said when I was talking about the restriction of Section 21 to young persons only. When I referred to that, what I should have said was that it means that this particular part of the provision is no longer relevant and it is being repealed by Schedule 2(6). This means that the notice is inaccurate. I think that I used the word "accurate".
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: That is not the point. The point is that Section 21 does not deal with young persons. That is dealt with in Section 25. It does not deal with young persons and never has dealt with young persons.
Lord Glenarthur: I entirely appreciate the point. I was trying to correct some information that I gave the noble and learned Lord more generally on this point. What I should like to do, since this is a very complex matter, is to study what the noble and learned Lord has said and to write to him about it, having sought the advice of those who have drafted the Bill. I think that is the only way we can take it forward. I respect the sincerity which the noble and learned Lord has expressed and his concern that we have got it wrong. I shall do my best to examine it and explain it further.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps I may suggest that he sends a copy of his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who naturally keeps a fatherly interest in all matters arising out of the Renton Report.
Lord Glenarthur: I would not dare not to send a copy to my noble friend.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Rights of established shopworkers concerning Sunday working]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): I should explain on Amendment No. 24B that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 24C or Amendment No. 25.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 24B:
Page 3, line 9, leave out from beginning to end of line 14.
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move the amendment standing in my name in relation to the schedules. There has been a lot of discussion in the Committee about the complexity of Schedule 1. Certainly I share those views. In particular, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, finds it incompre-hensible, it is certainly very difficult for less experienced and less expert people to deal with it. I wonder how employers and workers are going to cope with it if it remains unamended.
I say at the outset that I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for setting out with such clarity the principles that really underlie the series of amendments that stand in my name on the Marshalled List in regard to this schedule; because what I am seeking to do in this amendment and in those that follow it is really something quite simple. What I am saying—and other speakers have said so

373
already—is that I am not happy at all about the provisions for what amounts to a two-tier labour force where you have some employeres engaged on some sort of contract and others employed on other terms.
Lord Glenarthur: May I ask the noble Baroness whether she is speaking also to Amendment No. 26C, 27A and 31A? I believe that those are in her name.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Yes.
Amendment No. 26C: Page 4, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Amendment No. 27A: Page 4, line 25, leave out ("uncontractual").
Amendment No. 31A: Page 4, line 42, leave out ("uncontractual").
Perhaps it would be simpler if I were to do so, as they are all consequential one upon the other and stand together as part of a general concept.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I must apologise to the noble Baroness. I am rather lost. Are we on Amendment No. 24B and the others that go with it?
Baroness Turner of Camden: Yes, we are. If I may continue, I was saying earlier that I disagree with the concept of a two-tier workforce, with some employees employed on certain conditions and others employed on quite different conditions. I may say this is also the view of the TUC, which, in a document it has sent to me about the provisions in the Bill, says:
"This would create a two-tier workforce in the retail trade and the TUC is strongly opposed to the introduction of legislation which is divisive among workers and contributes to the downgrading of certain workers compared with others".
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, made rather similar points, I think, when he was moving his amendment on Tuesday evening.
If one departs from the concept of a two-tier workforce, one then does not have to have in all this wording about whether it is uncontractual or contractual; because what we are seeking to do in this series of amendments is to establish quite simply that every shopworker who is required to work on Sunday is enabled to do so in a quite voluntary way. As noble Lords have said earlier, there are many trades and industries where it is quite common for people to work on Sundays and also, if I may say so, to work overtime during the week. But it is not always part of a contract or contractual obligation.
In many instances—I speak as a trade union official of some experience in these areas—the employer has no difficulty in persuading people to work on a Sunday because he pays a premium rate for that work. He pays a premium rate for work in the evening on an overtime basis and he pays a premium rate if he wants people to come in and work on a Sunday. People do so quite voluntarily because they are prepared to work for those premium rates.
That is the object of the amendments that we are putting forward. What we want to ensure, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, explained with great clarity earlier this afternoon, is that there shall be a situation in which shopworkers, whether they have been employed for 20 years or whether they start working in a shop next year, may completely
374
voluntarily decide whether or not they wish to work on a Sunday, and the employer may, if he wishes to do so, pay a premium rate to encourage them to do so. We are able to ensure that they have that right by writing into the Bill a provision, which was originally in Amendment No. 11—to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred—for people who are forced to work, as they see it, on a Sunday when they do not want to do so and are threatened with dismissal if they do not work. If it is not in a contract they would have the right to take their case to a tribunal, and they are given rights to sue for unfair dismissal if they are dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays when it is not in their contract.
Those are the objects of these various amendments. Regarding the amendment in relation to uncontractual Sunday work, the paragraph about uncontractual Sunday work comes out if the concept of the two-tier workforce to which I referred earlier is abandoned. If one looks further down at the amendment in relation to paragraph 2(1) of the schedule, there again that is not necessary if the concept of the established shopworkers is abandoned. Over the page, the next paragraphs are also not required, again if the concept of the established shopworker is abandoned and all shopworkers are treated in an equal way and are not bound by contract to work on a Sunday and have the rights under the Employment Protection Act if by any chance they are threatened with dismissal or with actions short of dismissal if they refuse to do so. I commend these amendments to your Lordships.
Lord Renton: In spite of the fact that as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said earlier, we may all be wasting our time discussing the first schedule because one hopes the Government will revise it, or perhaps even do away with it altogether, I think that the noble Baroness has done us a good service by saying what she has said, because she has touched on difficulties that arise on this first schedule, especially with regard to this strange concept of "uncontractual Sunday work". To my mind, as a simple lawyer, the expression "uncontractual work" is a contradiction in terms because all work is contractual unless of course it happens to be unpaid, casual, voluntary work done by somebody interloping almost as a bystander. Therefore I hope that when this matter is considered further this quite absurd new notion, which is almost a legal fiction, will be done away with; and to that extent we must be grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: On one matter I find myself in entire agreement with both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Renton: namely, that this part of the schedule, and indeed most of it, is absolutely baffling. Also I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Baroness and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. When she says most shopworkers do not work under a contract, what she really means, I think, is that they do not work under a formal contract. I think I have appreciated what she means. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is absolutely right when he says that, except for voluntary work, all work in

375
shops—in fact all pecuniary employment—is under a contract of employment. Therefore I agree with him that it does really make a nonsense to start off with a definition of "uncontractual Sunday work".
Then again this paragraph, which the noble Baroness understandably wishes to get rid of, is very difficult to understand because not only is it wrongly described but it is couched in a negative form, "other than". One really has to translate it into a positive form in order to see what it does. So far as I understand it—and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—put positively, it means that a shopworker is bound to do Sunday work and the employer is bound to employ him and pay him for the Sunday work under a contract of employment, in two circumstances. The first is that if previous to the Act he was employed on Sunday work in that case he can—and indeed must—simply carry on and the employer is bound to employ and pay him on Sundays after the Act.
The other circumstance is that if he was not employed on Sunday work before the Act he has the same opportunity for opting for Sunday work as any other entrant to the shop trade. The only difference is that then he has to agree in writing to be employed on Sunday work, whereas the employee previously employed on Sunday work is employed afterwards under a contract of employment, either written or unwritten. It seems to me, apart from the infelicity of drafting, that the noble Lord has the matter right.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: I hesitate to intervene and disagree with my noble friend Lord Renton, but I hope he will not mind my pointing out to him that there is no such thing as "a simple lawyer". It seems to me that in itself is a contradiction in terms. I wanted to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, a question concerning voluntary work on Sundays. If I understood her amendment correctly, she is proposing that Sunday workers should be on a voluntary basis. Can she please advise the Committee what would be the circumstances for a retail organisation when the workers, for some reason or another, did not volunteer and whether that organisation therefore would be able to obtain workers from elsewhere without any prejudice to their activities?
Baroness Turner of Camden: This is not an uncommon situation in industry where the employees are employed on contracts which set out the hours they work, and there is an arrangment under which if an employer wants to employ people outside those hours he offers premium rates to do it. Often, if he cannot get volunteers from his own workforce he will get them from elsewhere. But he pays for it separately, and the people who do it have a separate contract. It is a separate arrangement in relation to that work, and it is usually at premium rates.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: I find very offensive the idea of dividing into sheep and goats people who are working side by side, for the same employer, in the same conditions, in the same circumstances and at the same time. That is a situation which would create resentment and uncertainty; but it would have a further effect which would fly in the face of what is proposed in the Bill. It would give an employer an
376
incentive to get rid of all the existing workers, who enjoy a special protection. That is not difficult. Indeed, the cases of unfair dismissal which have filled the reports of tribunals demonstrate the ease with which it can be done. Any employer who has the attributes which I believe are held by those who welcome this Bill will know exactly how to get rid of people.
I believe that we have to protect the right not to work with the same enthusiasm as we protect the right to work. The right not to work individually, as with the right not to work collectively, is a distinguishing characteristic of a democracy. The right of workers to say, "No, I will not work on Sunday", and not be victimised as a consequence, is something which we should have very close to our hearts in putting legislation of this sort on the statute book. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will bear that in mind.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Lord knows far more about these matters than I do, but is he right under this part to say that anybody is forced to work? As I read it, it is purely that an employee who worked on Sundays before the commencement of the Act is entitled to go on working if he wishes—it is put round the other way in the clause—whereas if he did not before then work on Sundays it is purely up to him whether he does or does not. The only stipulation is that he should agree in writing, and I imagine that that is for the sake of certainty.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has a highly optimistic view of conditions in the shops trade. If he believes that a person who had previously not worked on Sundays and who wished to continue not working on Sundays would be able to withstand the pressures put on him by an employer of the kind I am discussing, then my views of the qualities of that sort of employer differ from those of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Glenarthur: I think we all agreed at an earlier point in debating this part of the Bill, and parts close to it, that this schedule is a very complex one. I listened with great care to the interpretation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, of how he understands the schedule to read if it is changed into the positive, to use the same form of words as he used. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord is quite right if he suggests that the schedule gives any right to employees to be offered Sunday work. The schedule gives rights—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: May I say that I think I put it right the first time, but I was conscious of putting it wrongly when I intervened in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Murray. If the noble Lord will look at Hansard, I think he will find that I got it right the first time.
Lord Glenarthur: Of coure, I will study what the noble and learned Lord said, and I am sure that he did get it right. But it is a complex area. If I may go on to explain, what the schedule does is to give rights to workers so that they cannot be compelled against their wishes to work on Sundays. But if workers have agreed to work on Sundays under a contract, then they will not have the statutory rights in the schedule.

377
My noble friend Lord Renton was concerned about the phrase "uncontractual Sunday work". It is defined in paragraph 1, and it expresses the idea of work which a worker is not obliged under his contract to do but which an employer may be seeking to compel him to do. The effect of these amendments would be that established shopworkers could not be held to their agreement to work on Sundays. Although shopworkers could enter into agreements to work on Sundays, there would be nothing that employers could do if the shopworkers decided not to keep to their part of the bargain. Employers would be put in an intoler-able position, as they would never know whether their workers would turn up on a Sunday. Employers would be unable to rely on any permanent commitment to Sunday work and would therefore be placed in the weakest of all possible bargaining positions.
I suggest to the noble Baroness, who expressed the purpose of her amendment with great clarity, that it would be increasingly difficult to run a shop efficiently with this handicap. Moreover, if the other amendments were passed shopworkers joining the industry after the commencement date would be placed in the same position. I wonder whether this sort of amendment and this change in English law is an appropriate suggestion. It introduces the concept of a unilateral breaking of a contract, and I cannot see that it is the sort of condition which is likely to safeguard either employers or employees. I hope that the noble Baroness sees the force of that argument and will not press her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am very sorry, but I feel that I must press my amendment because, although I am not committed overwhelmingly to the wording—and it has been very difficult, given the schedule and its complexity, to draft suitable wording—I should nevertheless like to test the feeling of the Committee on the principles that I have enunciated. I shall go over them very briefly again.
There is the issue of the two-tier workforce, to which I am irrevocably opposed; there is the question of having contractual and uncontractual working, which is a recipe for confusion; and there is the situation in which employees in the shops industry do not have the same kind of conditions as exist in many other industries, where the employer has, as it were, to provide incentives for people to go in and work on a Sunday through premium rates or in other ways, plus the other requirements that I envisaged in the amendments, that people dismissed or threatened with dismissal, because they do not want to work on a Sunday should have the right to sue for unfair dismissal under the provisions of the Employment Protection Act. Because I did not hear in the Minister's statement any acceptance of the validity of what I said. I feel that I have no alternative but to press the amendment.
6.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 24B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 85.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jacques, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Attlee, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Bottomley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Brentford, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Collison, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Phillips, B.

Denington, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Derby, Bp.

Rochester, L.

Diamond, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Donoughue, L.

Seear, B.

Eldon, E.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Ennals, L.

Swinfen, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Underhill, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

White, B.

Hanworth, V.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Willis, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Lawrence, L.

Arran, E.

Layton, L.

Atholl, D.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Auckland, L.

Long, V.

Bauer, L.

Lothian, M.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Bessborough, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caccia, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monson, L.

Carnock, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Mottistone, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Munster, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cox, B.

Norfolk, D.

Davidson, V.

Norrie, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Orkney, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Elton, L.

Portland, D.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rodney, L.

Glanusk, L.

Romney, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Rugby, L.

Gridley, L.

Saltoun of Aberaethy, Ly.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sandford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Halsbury, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Somers, L.

Hayter, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Teynham, L.

Hives, L.

Tryon, L.

Hood, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wise, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 24C:
Page 3, line 11, leave out ("the commencement date") and insert ("14th November 1985").
The noble Lord said: Again it needs to be said that clearly we are overtaken by events. We ourselves have conspired to provide the uncertainty that enables some noble Lords quite properly to say, "Is there any value in seeking to amend in tiny detail something that may very well be radically altered at a later stage in the Bill, if not in this Chamber perhaps in another place?" The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who is in his place as always, has raised quite properly the wisdom of appearing to go over ground which in the event may prove not to be necessary. But as I have said—and I say it again—there are obligations on Members on this side to make the case because the later opportunity literally may not present itself.
I do not intend to delay the Committee too long, but I draw the attention of the Committee to the schedule. On page 3, line 9, the present wording reads:
"'uncontractual Sunday work' means, in relation to any shopworker, shop work to be done on a Sunday other than work which on the day before the commencement date the shopworker was obliged under his contract of employment to do".
I stress the words "the commencement date". We have taken out that nebulous concept. It will be quite clear and precise at a later date, but the commencement date is not clearly defined. We have sought to insert "14th November 1985". In other words, the schedule will read:
"'uncontractual Sunday work' means, in relation to any shopworker, shop work to be done on a Sunday other than work which on the day before 14th November 1985 the shopworker was obliged under his contract of employment to do".
Why do we choose the date 14th November 1985? That was the day on which the Bill appeared. That has some significance because in preparation for the possible passing of this Bill—and a Bill will of course eventually emerge in some form—a great many people have reflected on, and aim to protect, their interests. Employers have, legitimately and properly, in protecting their interests, given consideration to the best way in which they will be able to proceed from the commencement date, when they will be legally entitled to operate under all of the clauses of and schedules to the Bill.
It may be held to be reasonable for employers to prepare for the situation that will confront them. They have to earn a living and they have to remain in business. Competition is fierce, and employers need to examine the kind of contractual arrangements they will require to make. I am speaking not only of the provisions covered by this Bill but also of the negotiations and free collective bargaining that employers will have with the major trade unions.
We are of course advised by a number of people outside your Lordships' Committee. I should like to read to the Committee an extract from an article that appeared in the Financial Times on 16th December 1985. Under a major heading, "Union worried over forced Sunday working", Mr. David Thomas wrote:
"The shopworkers' union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, says that shop workers presently employed may be forced to work on Sundays once the Shops Bill has become law, in spite of guarantees by ministers to the contrary. The Bill says that shopworkers employed before its enactment would not have to work on Sundays. However, a little-noticed provision excludes from this protection shopworkers already contracted to work on Sundays. USDAW is concerned that retailers might write into the contracts of workers recruited before the Bill was passed the stipulation that they work on Sunday once the law permits.
380
Gateway, the food retailing chain, has stated on its application forms for two years that employees may be asked to work on Sundays if the law were changed and business were to require it. Mr. Peter Fisher, Gateway's personnel director, said, 'If people have been employed and it has been specifically drawn to their attention that they might have to work on Sunday and they have agreed, it is entirely reasonable that any legislation should not override this'."
But he added:
"It is most unlikely that we would turn round and say to someone, 'You must work on Sunday because you have signed'."
In other words, the employers are saying that although by some subterfuge or device, or as a result of openhandedness, they have the right under the contract that the employee has signed to insist that he does work, even though the law says that he cannot do so, they, the employers, will be able to determine whether or not they want to exercise their rights under the employee's contract.
What worries me and a great many people in the trade union movement, and I believe most fair-minded people, is that everyone has reasonably assumed that when the trigger is pulled, the date upon which it is pulled will be the operative date; that is, some time after Royal Assent. The Minister will do a service to the Committee, because his advisers will have done their research on the purport of this amendment, whether or not the Government accept it, if he will state whether his department has been able to ascertain whether or not Gateway's practice of writing in a condition of employment that seeks to override a subsequent Act is prevalent. I am told that Debenhams, in addition to Gateway, have also used that device.
6.45 p.m.
I am not building all this up as something sinister, and I am not speaking of some heinous crime. I am talking about an employer who is seeking to protect his interests in the event of this Bill becoming an Act. I shall not lay too much stress on that. We are simply saying that it is surely better that the date whereby the non-contractual part of the Bill becomes operative should be specific and be determined as the date upon which everybody knew precisely what was going to be in the Bill. I do not blame the Gateways and the Debenhams of this world—and I believe there will be others—who, perhaps shrewdly, have seen a way around the Bill.
From the trade unions' point of view and from the workers' point of view, and I believe from the point of view of this Committee, there is a genuine belief that any person who has been in regular employment as a shopworker before the commencement of the Act will be protected. I have drawn to the attention of the Committee the practice of some employers. I repeat that I do not malign them, but by such practices it is possible that someone who has been working as an established shopworker over the past two years will have signed such a contract.
One might argue that it was surely up to the employee not to sign. My noble friends Lord Murray of Epping Forest and Lady Turner of Camden, and many others, have pointed out that we are living in a climate of unemployment. In such a climate, one clause in a contract of employment containing many clauses may not have been understood or specifically drawn to the employee's attention, or the worker may

381
not have felt it necessary to question such a condition. He might instead have said to himself, "I have the chance of getting a job. I will get that job if I sign this contract, which includes a clause about Sunday working. If I do not sign the contract with that clause, then I shall not get the job. My prospective employer only wants workers who are willing to state that when the law is changed, and although it may say that people do not have to work on Sundays, their employer has the right to say that employees will work on Sundays—not under the Act but under their contracts of employment".
In our view it would be much more sensible to say to employers, as indeed the Prime Minister said to large organisations before Christmas, that they should not for goodness sake begin to act unlawfully before the law is changed. We are saying that we should make the law that will be changed eventually fair and reasonable. We cannot go back to an unspecified and undertermined date. We believe it is reasonable to start the new practices from the date when the Bill was published. That date was 14th November 1985.
I shall very much welcome the Minister's observations. This amendment has not been dreamt up as a device or a peg with which to delay the Committee. I have already declared my interest through my association with USDAW. The TUC, on whose behalf my noble friend Lady Turner has spoken so eloquently on more than one occasion, has asked us to establish whether the Committee is prepared to go a fraction of the way down the road to protect at least in part the intention of the Government that existing shopworkers shall be safeguarded in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Your Lordships will certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that one must have a precise date for ascertaining the status of the worker which gives rise to the rights that the Bill gives him. I do not know whether it was a slip of the tongue on the noble Lord's part, but commence-ment date is a precise date. The date of Royal Assent is the date that a Bill becomes an Act. Under a statute of somewhere near the end of the 18th century—I have forgotten its name—the Clerk of the Parliaments writes under the Title of a Bill, at the moment it receives Royal Assent, the date of Royal Assent. That is, by statute, part of the Act of Parliament and that is the commencing date unless some other date is specified.
The noble Lord also spoke—and I think probably did not quite mean it—of the employers writing into a contract an obligation for their employees to do Sunday work unless this provision were given retrospection. However, what the Bill says is this. If someone is doing Sunday work at the time of Royal Assent under a contract of employment, written or unwritten—as the noble Baroness pointed out, it is quite frequently informal but both the employer and the employee know perfectly well whether the employee is doing Sunday work—he cannot claim the privileges that are given under the Bill: the right not to be dismissed or have penal action short of dismissal taken against him if he thenceforward refuses to do Sunday work. In that respect, as I understand it, all the
382
Bill says is that the existing contract of employment, whether written or unwritten, is merely carried forward.
The other case is that where no Sunday work was done previous to the date of Royal Assent. In that case, under the Bill the employee has the right to claim protection from penal action only if he agrees in writing at that time to do Sunday work; in other words, at Royal Assent or thereafter. There can be no question of a unilateral alteration to the contract of employment by the employer between the date of publication of the Bill and Royal Assent. A change of contract must be, as with every other contract, bilateral.
The noble Baroness was quite right on the earlier amendment in drawing to our attention that quite frequently that is informal. I would expect to find that in a small shop; in other words, the employee is merely working Sunday after Sunday and then one would presume a contract of employment to do Sunday work. In the case of the big retailers one would expect—and I am sure this is the case where they have a personnel manager—the obligations to be in writing.
It seems to me that the commencement date here is the right date and I really do think that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is seeing bogeys. Although I know he speaks with all the force of the TUC behind him, I think that they are afraid of shadows in this case.
Lord Renton: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will not mind my saying that I hope he will withdraw this amendment as quickly as possible. It is against the interests of those for whom he is apparently speaking. I should have thought that it would deprive thousands of workers of the benefits of Clause 3 and the first schedule to the Bill. It will mean that those employed at the earlier date he mentioned of 14th November 1985 will have the benefit of the clause, but those who come into employment between that date and the commencement date will not have the benefit of it. That is entirely contrary to all that he has been working for.
The amendment, of course, also assumes the continuation of the two-tier system—the one that the noble Lord and I have both referred to as the "sheep and the goat situation"—so let us get this out of our way as quickly as possible.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he be good enough to tell me which clause he refers to as being detracted from as a result of this proposal? I am sorry, but I did not catch what the noble Lord said from the beginning.
Lord Renton: If the noble Lord had been here earlier and on Tuesday night he would realise that I was referring to Clause 3 and the first schedule.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: And the first schedule.
Lord Glenarthur: Now that I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and his explanation I understand what this amendment seeks to achieve, but taken at its face value it will mean that existing employees who, since 14th November 1985, wish to work on a Sunday must put their agreement in writing.

383
This will mean that employees who have, since 14th November 1985, made an oral agreement to work on a Sunday will be able, retrospectively, to change their minds.
I believe that to be unreasonable. I think it is unfair to employers who have made agreements in good faith. I hope the noble Lord will not press an amendment which, I suggest, is blatantly unfair on employers and enables shopworkers to break agreements that they have entered into.
The Bill excludes from protection those who have entered of their own free will into contracts to work on Sundays. If employees do not wish to enter into contracts to do Sunday work they should not do so. They should just refuse to enter into such a contractual obligation and the employer cannot unilaterally vary the contract.
The noble Lord gave some examples of concerns that have been expressed about the matter. It has been said that pressure is being put on existing shopworkers to agree to work on Sundays in advance of the new rights under this schedule. This was very much the theme that lay behind the noble Lord's point. Existing employees cannot be forced to agree to Sunday working against their will. Employers do not have the right unilaterally to alter a contract of employment. If existing employees are dismissed before the Shops Bill comes into force for refusing to agree to work on a Sunday they will, according to the provisions of the Employment Protection Act 1978, be able to take their case to an industrial tribunal and claim unfair dismissal, provided that they have the normal qualifying period.
I listened with care to my noble friend Lord Renton. I am not convinced that he was absolutely right in the point he was making. I do not think the amendment alters the qualifying date for the rights, which is the commencement date; and, of course, the commencement date is defined in paragraph 1 of the first schedule. I believe—
7 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: As the noble Lord has mentioned it, may I ask why we should define it, since it is already defined by the statute to which I referred? There are several other unnecessary definitions in that paragraph: "shop", "shopwork" and I think "shopworker". Why in particular is it necessary to define "commencement date"?
Lord Glenarthur: I wonder whether the noble Lord could point me to the relevant part of the Shops Act. He may have that definition already to hand. I think what lies behind it is simply a question of clarity. I do not think there is anything more serious than that underlying it. It may well be defined. I shall try to find it myself.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division, but I am wholly unconvinced that the noble Lord the Minister and other noble Lords who have spoken have it right in respect of the ability of employers to "persuade" their employees freely either to sign a contract when they become employed or even to agree to the insertion into
384
an existing contract of a clause which overrides their rights under this Bill.
Let me quote the words of an official from Gateway, the food retailing chain:
"it is entirely reasonable that any legislation should not override [our agreements]".
The official is saying, in other words, that where there is a conflict between an agreement and the law, then it should be settled in favour of the agreement that has been made with their employees. I completely accept that between November 14th and the commencement date (let us say it is 1st June, 1st July, or whenever) there will be a number of employees (I will not hazard a guess as to the number) who on entering employment will be invited to sign a contract which states that in the event of the law regarding Sunday work being changed, the employer reserves the right to say to the employee that he shall work.
The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is an interesting one: whether in seeking to advantage a number of new employees we are actually disadvan-taging many thousands more. The noble Lord the Minister disputed Lord Renton's reading of the situation. I am certainly prepared to reflect on this and to have consultations with people from outside the House who have long experience of negotiations.
Lord Renton: My noble friend the Minister questioned what I said. But, with great respect, and I think that the noble and learned Lord agrees with me, it is unquestionable. If we look at Clause 3 we see the expression "at the commencement of this Act," and it is right up to the commencement of the Act that the protection afforded by Clause 3 is declared to be given. If we make the commencement date an earlier date then we deprive people of the benefit of Clause 3.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: With respect, if there is no question that existing contracts which take away that right are negatived by the passing of Clause 3, then it will be welcome news to a great many people because not everyone has been under that impression, and a great deal has been said about the protection of the shopworker, the conscience clause and the right not to work. However, if, despite a contract which has been entered into which specifically lays down not that shopworkers shall work but that in the event of legislation being passed the employer shall have the right to make them work, that kind of condition is, in effect, non-operable in the light of the passing of this Bill, then I believe that a number of people outside the House will be very well satisfied. It is clearly something that needs to be studied, as the noble Lord the Minister has said, with care and even on occasions with special care. Those outside the Committee will study very carefully what has been said. Does the noble Lord the Minister wish to be helpful?
Lord Glenarthur: I make only a brief intervention to say that, as I understand it, the amendment is limited to uncontractual Sunday work. I am not quite clear in what way it amends the content of Clause 3. I do not believe that it does.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I thought that the noble Lord had finished. I think he has now made his point

385
perfectly clear. What he is worried about is a new entry into employment after the 14th November last where the employer insists as a condition of employment that he shall agree after the date of commencement, or the Royal Assent, to work on Sunday. I had not understood it before. I think the Minister might be willing to look at that aspect. I have no idea how real is the fear.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I do not want to ask the Minister to look at it because that might invite him to say, "I hear what you say", which I have heard so often. It is a point which is of genuine worry to those outside the Committee. I have said more than once that I am not casting aspersions on employers, who have businesses to run, but the contents of the official record will certainly be looked at by people outside the House as well as the Minister and his advisers. If the point can be taken, and sympathetically taken, by the Minister, and he is able to make a suggestion either informally or even at Report stage, I shall be very grateful and be satisfied.
Lord Glenarthur: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I certainly agree that this matter is exceedingly complex. Sometimes I wish I were a lawyer; sometimes I am glad I am not. However, I can say that I still find myself floundering on issues such as this. I shall study what has been said with great care and perhaps I may write to all those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we take a break now. I suggest that we do not resume our deliberations before ten minutes past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Local Government Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1985
7.9 p.m.
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 28th November be approved. [6th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1985 be approved. There are two other sets of regulations on the Order Paper, and, if your Lordships agree, it might be for the convenience of the House if I move the three sets of regulations together. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered the regulations and has made no comment.
These regulations introduce a small but important change, for which enabling powers were taken in the Representation of the People Act 1985. Then main purpose is to provide electoral registration officers to supply the electoral register in computer-compatible form to local party political associations, to candidates and other users. The number of local constituency associations and others which have their own computers is increasing. It will make their job much easier if they can have access to the electoral register in the form of data, and it need not involve registration staff in much extra work. These regulations therefore make a most useful change which will be warmly welcomed by all the political parties.
There have been full consultations on the changes in the regulations. We issued a consultation document in January last year and we have held discussions with representatives of the political parties and the local authorities. The regulations as now drafted reflect agreements reached in the discussions, subject only to some local authorities wanting to charge a higher fee. We believe, however, that the fees that we have set are right, as I shall explain in a moment.
Let me now briefly explain about the main provisions in the regulations for England and Wales. The provisions in the regulations for Scotland and Northern Ireland are the same except in the few cases that I shall mention. Regulation 6 inserts new Regulations 29A and 29B into the Representation of the People Regulations 1983. New Regulation 29A(5) and (6) has the effect of requiring a registration officer who is a data user to supply data, on request, to the local Member of Parliament, local party political associations, candidates, and any other person who is entitled to a free copy of the printed register (Or the area. The officer is required only to supply data in the form in which he has it. The fee for supplying data to electoral users is in paragraph (7) of new Regulation 29A—£1.50 for each thousand names or part thereof, or £25, whichever is higher. Costs will vary from one area to another but overall this level of fee represents a small subsidy to electoral users.
The arrangements are different in Scotland because some electoral registration officers are responsible for many constituencies and would not be able to cope with supplying data for units smaller than a constitu-ency. I should mention that so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, these regulations just relate to the supply of data to electoral users in relation to parliamentary elections. Other cases are covered in a separate order.
Paragraph (8) of new Regulation 29A allows for the discretionary supply of data to non-electoral users at a much higher fee of £15 per thousand or part thereof. This will offset the cost of the subsidised supply to electoral users.
Regulation 29B leaves the supply of labels to the discretion of the registration officer in all cases. The fee for supplying labels to electoral users is £10 for each thousand and £20 for other users. The Government's aim on fees has been to ensure, so far as possible, that local authorities will recover their costs.
Regulation 5 increases the fee for the supply of additional copies of the printed register to electoral users from 15p to 20p per thousand names. The fee for other users is increased from £1.50 to £2.00 per

387
thousand names. The fees were last set in 1983. These changes have been agreed with representatives of the political parties.
Finally, Regulations 8 to 20, which affect England only, allow for the procedures for issuing and receiving postal ballot papers in ILEA and London borough elections to be combined. This is necessary to pave the way for the combined elections to be held in May.
The regulations are fairly technical and they have been the subject of full consultations. I hope that this explanation has helped to clarify some of the detail and that your Lordships will be content to approve them. I beg to move
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 28th November be approved. [6th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Viscount Davidson.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his clear explanation of the three sets of regulations. As he said, they are rather technical. I am pleased to note that there has been thorough consultation with the political parties, which are in agreement with the general provisions.
We naturally welcome the regulations that deal with the election of members of ILEA when the elections are at the same time as elections for a London borough. They are common sense. I note the increased charges for additional copies over and above the free issue. I might have questioned whether the charges were over and above the rate of inflation, but as there appears to be no dissent from the political parties, I presume that they have no objection.
The important regulations are those regarding the supply of tape data and labels. The advantage of tape data is that a constituency organisation which has its own computer facility will be able to run off as many copies of the register as it desires. May I have the noble Viscount's assurance that where a registration officer compiles his register on a computer, that will in no way affect the supply of free copies of the register under existing regulations, which are carried forward to the new regulations?
I note the reasons given why a tape of a computer-ised register cannot be supplied to other than a full constituency in Scotland. That is regrettable, and I note that that was discussed in the Commons Standing Committee. I understand the reasons, but it is regrettable that the request cannot be complied with.
I welcome in particular the new regulation for the supply of addressed labels. As the noble Viscount will know, many registration officers have supplied labels to constituency agents for election purposes for quite a time. It is good to have that put in statutory form. I regret that the supply of labels, even to interested parties—candidates, election agents and so on—is to be discretionary. Where a register is computerised that should be mandatory if requested. In the Standing Committee in the other place on 21st January the Minister said, at col. 5:
"That is an extra service which, though useful to the parties, is not in the same category of importance to them as the supply of the register. That is why it is not obligatory but discretionary".
Frankly, I cannot accept that.
388
The supply of the register is vital; indeed, free copies of the register are vital. The supply of tape data to prepare one's own register may be useful to many constituencies, but it is not essential. It is the supply of labels that many agents regard as essential. I personally have welcomed the supply of addressed labels, rather than having the effort of writing out envelopes to some 60,000 individual electors. The only problem is that registration officers can supply labels only for individual electors and not for families. Therefore, the cost of envelopes and election addresses is something that the agent has to consider.
But if the supply is discretionary, will guidance notes be given to registration agents, stating that notice should be given to interested parties well in advance? The plans of an election agent could be thrown completely out of gear if he is working on the basis of the new regulations and he believes that he will be able to get the labels, and the registration agent has computerised registers?
On the other hand, I accept the provision in two of the orders for the discretionary supply of labels other than to interested parties—that is, to commercial users. I thought that the noble Viscount said that in another order there was provision for Northern Ireland. This is not in the Northern Ireland order. Perhaps the noble Viscount could confirm that point for me.
I question whether the charge of £20 for 1,000 labels for commercial users is on the low side. Surely we ought to be doing all that we can to avoid the use of registration data to be used for mail order business and matters of that kind. I know that we can do nothing about that—it is in the regulations now—but I should have thought that it would be desirable to limit the use to which registration data is put by commercial users. Apart from those points, we welcome the three orders.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in congratulating the noble Viscount the Minister on explaining these regulations so clearly.
I note that there has been full consultation on the subject matter of all three regulations and that the fees have been agreed with the political parties. I suppose it was inevitable that the Data Protection Act should be cited in these regulations. I note that in Regulation 29A, which has the title "Supply of data", in paragraph (3) there is a restriction on what the registration officer can do about supplying data. There is a proviso in that paragraph. I am not quite clear why it is necessary to put that in, but it is not a very important question.
The proviso says:
"Provided that this restriction shall not apply to the supply of data to the returning officer for the constituency".
I wonder whether there is a restriction in these regulations on what the returning officer can do when he has from the registration officer full information which the registration officer cannot supply.
We welcome these regulations, but I should be interested to know the answers to the three questions that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked. Apart from that, we support the regulations.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for their welcome for these regulations.
I can answer the questions by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, as follows. On the question about the free supply of the printed register, I can confirm that the supply of the electoral register in computer-compatible form under Regulation 29A would not affect any present entitlement to free copies of the printed register. The noble Lord asked at what stage the fee would be paid for data. Regulation 29A(6) requires a fee to be paid before the registration officer complies with a request for data. It will be for the applicant to establish before paying the fee that the computer system used by the registration officer is compatible with his own.
Regulation 29B leaves the supply of labels to the discretion of the registration officer in all cases. We did not think it right to impose an obligation on registration officers which could detract from their ability to get on with their main job of preparing the register. We acknowledge the usefulness of labels to the parties and we are sure that registration officers will do all that they can to meet requests for their supply. Provision for discretionary rather than mandatory supply was made after full consultation with the political parties. Local authorities are well aware that consistent refusal to supply labels will only lead to demands for their supply to become mandatory.
In regard to the fee for the supply of labels, the demand for labels from non-electoral users is uncertain. The fee of £20 per 1,000 labels will more than enable local authorities to recoup the cost of subsidised supply to the parties. If the level of the fee to commercial users is set too high it will deter potential purchasers and so defeat the Government's aim on fees, which has been to ensure, so far as we can, that, overall, local authorities recover their costs.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I am informed that some of the data gives information which is not publicly available but is useful to the acting returning officer. I hope that these answers will satisfy both noble Lords. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1985
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 28th November be approved. [6th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Viscount Davidson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1985
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 4th December be approved. [6th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Viscount Davidson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gaming (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.28 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Second time.
I am particularly glad that the noble Lord. Lord Allen of Abbeydale, will be participating in the debate. I am glad for two reasons. The noble Lord is a former chairman of the Gaming Board and has immense knowledge and experience of this industry. He was also a notably successful chairman of that board. We all owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the noble Lord for the fact that, because of his high competence in that office, we in this country have avoided many of the problems that have arisen in other countries where casinos have not been properly regulated. I have another reason for being glad that the noble Lord is speaking. He is supporting the Bill, which makes it even more attractive that he is following me in this debate.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Harding, is speaking, because he too has substantial knowledge of the industry. I think it is right to say that the noble Lord is approaching his 90th birthday, and in case he is not in the House again before that occasion perhaps I may say that we all wish the noble Lord the happiest of birthdays and hope that he will long be in our midst.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, this Bill is designed to implement two of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Gambling under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. It would amend Section 16 of the Gaming Act 1968, which relates to the provision of credit and the use of cheques. I shall set out the central purposes of this Bill fairly briefly.
As the House is aware, the Gaming Act, among other things, governs the operation of commercial casinos in England, Wales and Scotland. One of its most important provisions is the strict control which it imposes on the operators of licensed casinos over the prohibition of credit. For this reason, the use of cheques is subject to conditions which do not apply in any other part of our commercial system in this country. When a licensed casino operator accepts a cheque in exchange for chips to enable someone to take part in gaming he is required to accept two conditions. First, it must not be a postdated cheque. Secondly, the cheque must be delivered to a bank for payment or collection within two banking days. The purpose of those requirements is fairly obvious. It is to ensure that cheques cannot be used as they might otherwise be: for the player to obtain credit or to incur debt.
After the Gaming Act came into operation in 1970 it soon became clear that the requirement for all cheques to be lodged at a bank within 48 hours

391
produced one inequitable and, in my view, entirely unnecessary side effect. When a player cashes in his chips at the end of the gaming the casino cannot allow him to redeem any cheque that he has given to purchase them at the outset or during the course of paly. Not only does the casino have to carry the risk of that cheque being dishonoured—indeed, there have been many cases where cheques have been dishonoured—but it must also pay cash or issue its own cheque for the value of returned chips even when the player has lost part of his original stake.
The risks involved in this procedure are fairly obvious. The casino can suffer a compounded loss if the player dishonours his cheque and cashes that of the casino. At the same time, many players dislike not being able to redeem the cheques they have issued or to recover them by giving a single consolidating cheque at the end of play.
The Royal Commission when it considered this matter after visiting 40 casinos up and down the country in the course of an inquiry which took somewhere in the region of two years, came to the following conclusion. I apologise that the quotation is slightly lengthy but is is absolutely fundamental so far as the central purposes of the Bill are concerned. It said:
"At present players are prevented from redeeming cheques they have written in the course of a gaming session, either with their winnings or with a single consolidating cheque. From our visits to casinos we have found that this aspect of the gaming laws causes more irritation than any other, both for the casino proprietors and for their customers. Casinos can also be exposed to considerable risk when they have to give cash or a cheque of their own to winning players whose cheques given in exchange for chips might subsequently be dishonoured. This risk could often be avoided if casinos could return a winning player's own cheques to him in full or part payment of his winnings. We therefore recommend that Section 16 of the Gaming Act should be amended to enable a casino to return a player's cheque to him in exchange either for the player's winnings or for a consolidating cheque."
Having made that recommendation, the Royal Commission introduced one rather important qualification; namely, that the prohibition of the giving of credit for gaming should not be eroded in any way, and for this reason the redemption of a cheque should be allowed only during or immediately after the playing session in which it was tendered.
The Bill implements those recommendations, providing no more and no less. I know that the Bill has the support of the Gaming Board, and I very much hope that of the Government as well. Indeed, it should do so, because on 29th October 1979–15 months after the Royal Commission's Report was published—the present Leader of this House (who was the then Home Secretary) the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, when speaking in another place during a debate which was then taking place on the report of the Royal Commission, said at col. 853 of the Official Report:
"I can say that the Commission's recommendations for changes in the law relating to cheques and the provision of credit for gaming in casinos are acceptable and we shall be prepared to implement them when there is an opportunity for legislation".
More than six years have elapsed since that speech was made, and no such opportunity has arisen. In that situation we came to the conclusion that it was right to come forward with this Bill in order to end what I
392
think is generally recognised to be a highly unsatisfactory situation. In those circumstances, I very much hope that the Bill will obtain the support of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
7.33 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I should like to add just a few words, and I can confirm that those few words will be in support of the Bill. As chairman of the Gaming Board for eight long years, I suppose I can claim some acquaintance with the subject, but the views I shall express this evening in the next few minutes are my own and I am in no sense speaking for the board.
This is not the occasion to discuss the rights and wrongs of providing facilities for gambling, but it could hardly be disputed that, if there are to be casinos, it is important that they should be well run and that the risk of irregularities should be reduced to a minimum.
When casino gaming was legalised in this country in 1960, no adequate enforcement machinery was provided and things became very badly out of hand. When the Gaming Act 1968 was passed to clear up the mess, one of its most important provisions was Section 16, dealing with credit—the section which Clause 1 of the Bill seeks to amend. The aim of that section—and I was somewhat involved in this legislation even in those days—was to provide limits tighter than perhaps are to be found anywhere else in the world. However, there were obvious objections to gamblers being expected to wander around with large amounts of cash, and it was thought right, and inevitable, to allow the use of cheques, but subject to the very strict controls which the noble Lord has just explained.
I can confirm that experience in the very early years after the Act came into force suggested that in the one respect dealt with in the present Bill the section had probably gone a little too far. As has been explained, the Gaming Board itself—and this is now nearly 10 years ago—recommended to the Royal Commission on Gambling that this was one area for possible relaxation. We knew that it was a problem primarily affecting the London casinos, but in money terms the London casinos account for far more than all the provincial casinos put together. As we know and have been told, the Royal Commission, in its report published in 1978, accepted the board's recommendation.
However, it is worth bearing in mind that in that report the Royal Commission also said, in effect, that the board had completed its initial assignment of cleaning up the casinos and could now turn to other things. Characteristically, the board almost at once became involved in coping with irregularities in a number of casinos which led to what is sometimes referred to in the industry as the holocaust. Suffice it to say that a series of court cases resulted in a number of operators relinquishing their interest in running casinos, not always voluntarily.
One of the main areas of trouble in those exciting years involved the operation of the statutory provisions about cheques, and the problems of

393
interpreting just what Section 16 meant. Although there was nothing to cause the board to resile from the recommendation which it had put to the Royal Commission about the consolidation of cheques, that was not the only recommendation which the board had put to the Commission. The others were for a tightening up in various respects, particularly in regard to accepting cheques from players who had previously defaulted. The experiences in the years immediately after the Royal Commission Report heavily underlined the need for some further provision on those lines.
In the end, after a wide-ranging judgment from the Court of Appeal, it proved possible to achieve a solution to these problems by administrative means. The report of the Gaming Board for 1984 sets out guidelines dealing with the acceptance of cheques, including those presented by defaulting players, which had by then been agreed between the board and the British Casino Association under the benevolent chairmanship of my noble and gallant friend Lord Harding.
Therefore, the relaxation sought in this Bill is not to be looked at in isolation. It so happens that the relaxation requires an Act of Parliament, whereas the tightening up did not. The present proposal is therefore acceptable to me when seen in this wider context.
On a point of detail, I should like to ask whether the Bill will apply to third party cheques and to bankers' drafts. I take it that it could not in practice apply to travellers' cheques, notwithstanding that they are, slightly misleadingly, designated as cheques?
I should like to make just one further comment before I sit down. The present proposal is not without its risks. To take a very simple example, at present a punter betting on a modest scale might in the course of an evening present five cheques each for £20,000 and it might then turn out that the first three are honoured and the last two are not. Under the Bill, he could recover all his five cheques and substitute one cheque for £100,000, which would then be dishonoured in toto. I know that the operators would do their best to avoid such a contingency, but—alas!—experience suggests that these things happen.
It seems to me to be quite essential therefore that detailed records should be kept of all these transactions so that the Gaming Board's inspectors, and if need be the police, can see just what has happened; and it is equally essential that these records, like other casino records, should be kept in writing and not simply kept on a computer from which, in the event of trouble, they can be removed at the touch of a button. I take it that Clause 2 is designed to cover this state of affairs, and I look on it as a very welcome and necessary part of the Bill.
I have one incentive for supporting this Bill which has nothing whatever to do with gaming. As a member of two Royal Commissions whose reports have been almost totally ignored by the Government, I cannot but derive some satisfaction from legislation which, even years after the event, seeks to implement a Royal Commission recommendation. Who knows, perhaps the habit will be catching.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, I intend to speak briefly in support of this Bill. However, first I must declare an interest as, for the past 12 years. I have been chairman of the British Casino Association, which is the trade association of the gaming industry in Great Britain and therefore responsible for watching over the interests of licensed casino gaming. There are at present some 120 licensed casinos in England, Scotland and Wales, and 117 of those—that is all but three—are members of the British Casino Association. Therefore, I think we can claim that the association is fully representative of the gaming industry in this country as a whole.
I also want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for his kind and generous remarks about my approaching 90th birthday. Although I am of a great age, I hope that I am still of fairly sound mind and can speak intelligibly. The noble Lord. Lord Harris, has explained in detail the objects of this amending Bill and the importance of it for casino clubs in regard to financial management, the prevention of loss and the convenience of club members. I do not propose to go into all that detail again; but as regards the point which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, made towards the end of his remarks, I am quite confident that the casino association and the governing council body would be only too happy to reach agreement with the Gaming Board on the way in which records of transactions—that is, the redemption of cheques under the amendment in the Bill—should be recorded so that they are readily accessible to the Gaming Board's inspectors during their visits to casinos. I am quite sure that we can reach agreement on that point just as we reached agreement on the handling of cheques of members of clubs who are already indebted to their club, to which reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen.
With that reservation about records and knowing that the Gaming Board is in favour of this Bill and that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has explained in detail the importance to the industry of the amendments in the Bill, I should like to confine myself to emphasising a few points which I think are of importance and which I think are relevant. The first, as has already been made clear, is that the amendments in this Bill are strictly in line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Secondly, the amendments in the Bill in no way damage the social, commercial and financial provisions of the Gaming Act 1968. I should like to emphasise the word "social" because, as we in the industry see it, the social objectives of that Act are far and away the most important, although of course the others are important. However, the first ones are of particular importance.
Thirdly, the Gaming Board has been fully consulted throughout the preparation of this Bill and has made valuable comments which have been considered in the final drafting of the Bill. In conclusion, I think that the House will be pleased to know that, thanks to the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has conducted the business of the Gaming Board over the past eight or nine years during which time he was chairman, relationships between the industry and the Gaming Board are, in my opinion, now on a sound and workmanlike basis. Matters of common concern

395
—for example, future regulations that will need to be published regarding records of redemption of cheques, and so on—are regularly discussed by the council of the association with the Gaming Board in an objective, realistic and constructive manner. As one with some personal experience and knowledge of the gaming industry and of the factual problems which face it, and particularly knowing the present standard of management throughout the industry and the relationships between the industry and the Gaming Board, I strongly support this Bill.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I should like to intervene for a few moments as one of the survivors of the Standing Committee of your Lordships' House which considered the 1968 Bill in immense detail. All those years ago we gave a great deal of thought to Section 16. At that time it did not occur to us that the redemption of cheques would, as a result of Section 16, become illegal. I remember being surprised and annoyed—and I most warmly support the Bill, because it is very wrong that one should not be allowed, if one has a good evening, to pay in what one has got for the cheque and pay your cheque out—when I first visited a gaming club after the Act came into force and happened to win, to find that I could not get my cheque back. That is completely wrong, and there is absolutely no reason for it.
The main point I want to make is that when I asked the cashier on that occasion why I could not redeem my cheque he replied, "Under the new Act any cheque that you give us must be paid into our bank within 48 hours", and indeed that is what the noble Lord said in his opening remarks. It was because such cheques had to be paid into the bank that they could not be redeemed.
My main purpose in rising is to suggest that in tackling this problem the noble Lord has perhaps tackled the wrong subsection. It is quite clear from the Bill that he is taking the view that if cheques are redeemed there is some contravention of Section 16(1) of the Gaming Act. Indeed, it says that if certain
"conditions are fulfilled, the return of a redeemed cheque … shall not be taken to contravene subsection (1) of this section".
I do not think that this is a Committee point. It is more than a Committee point, because what needs to be tackled is not subsection (1) but subsection (3). What we need to say is not that redemption of a cheque is a contravention of subsection (1) because it involves having given credit for the short period between the time when the cheque was written and the time when it was redeemed, but that it is wrong because that cheque must, under the existing Act, have to be presented to a bank within 48 hours.
Therefore, I feel that the way to do it is to leave out subsection (3) of the proposed Clause 1 and instead simply add words after the section about the bank to make it clear that redeemed cheques do not have to be paid into the bank.
May I comment for a moment on what the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said about the player who comes in and writes three or four cheques for £10,000 or for £1,000, or whatever it may be. It seems to me that that is not the worry in this case because it is a matter for
396
the casino whether they agree that the cheques should be redeemed or not, and if the cheques have been given and they do not want to redeem them they do not have to. Clearly the Bill is a good one. I feel it may not be correctly drafted, but in any case I support it.
7.54 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, all speakers in this debate have shown their gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for producing this amendment to the Gaming Act. It has produced an interesting debate, as I am sure the Minister will agree—almost as interesting as the telephone bingo debate last night in which he and I shared. There is no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, with all his authority and experience, as well as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding, gave their support to the Bill. Although the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, agreed that there was a flaw in the present law, he suggested another remedy to it, and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has based his Bill entirely on two of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission chaired by Lord Rothschild. Indeed, he quoted the relevant part. Without wishing in any way to repeat what he said, when I looked up these recommendations made by the Royal Commission it struck me that the most relevant point was that, following the visit of the members of the commission to the casinos, they said:
"We have found that this aspect of the gaming laws causes more irritation than any other both for casino proprietors and for their own customers".
I felt that just those two lines in the recommendations were powerful and gave force to what they then recommended.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Allen, pointed out that he preferred to see this change in the law set in a wider context. This was of great interest. He pointed out that, although this remedied one thing, it introduced another risk when punters offered a whole series of separate cheques. The point struck me with great force that the casino proprietor still was endangered.
The point that he made, reinforced by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding, was that the way out of this was that there should be a detailed record of all the transactions, and that these detailed records should be in writing. Therefore, they would be forthcoming and would be kept so that the authorities, the police and the inspectorate would have full access to them. This was his way of ensuring that the recommendations made by the Royal Commission and contained in Lord Harris's Bill would serve the purpose intended.
If I went on any longer I should simply be repeating what has been said before, and I do not think that that would serve any purpose. Therefore, may I conclude by saying that from my reading of the recommendations, and from listening to what previous speakers with all their authority and experience have said, I would agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, offers to us in his Bill. What he is trying to achieve seems clear and straightforward and entirely logical. Perhaps the only criticism could be that so many years have elapsed between the recommendations being made and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, bringing forward his Bill.
7.59 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has explained his Bill to us so capably and so fully that I hope I shall be forgiven for putting the Government's views briefly. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that it has been a most interesting debate, and I also should like to add my congratulations to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding, and thank him for his extremely useful contribution to this debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has explained, Section 16 of the Gaming Act 1968 was very tightly drawn. It does not permit a player to redeem his own cheque. This can lead to risks for the casinos who may find that the original cheque is dishonoured, and it causes irritation among players. The Government support the recommendation by the Royal Commission on Gambling which reported in July 1978 that there should be a change in the law in order to allow cheques drawn by players in casinos to be redeemed, subject to necessary safeguards. This had been suggested by both the Gaming Board and the British Casino Association.
The Bill which is now before the House seeks to amend the 1968 Act so that in clubs licensed under the Act a player's cheque may be returned to him for its full value either during or within 30 minutes of the end of the playing session in which it was tendered. In order that records may be kept of these transactions the Bill also makes provision for my right honourable friend to make regulations governing the records to be kept of returned (or "redeemed") cheques. We propose to make regulations along these lines. The details will be worked out with the Gaming Board in consultation with the industry. The Bill will be welcomed by the casino industry and by players. It is a modest measure but a useful one, and the Government support its principle.
I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on the drafting of the Bill, which seems to be very much on the right lines. There will be an opportunity to examine it in greater detail at Committee stage and to correct any minor defects there may be. In conclusion, I should like to reaffirm the Government's support for the principle of the Bill and to wish the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, every success with it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am much obliged to all who have spoken, not least the noble Viscount. All concerned have supported the central purpose of the Bill, and I have to detain the House for only a few minutes in order to deal with one or two questions which have been asked, primarily by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken.
Taking the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Allen, first, he raised the matter of third party cheques, bank drafts and travellers' cheques. As I understand it, a third party cheque can be redeemed like any other that has been properly accepted in fulfilment of the conditions specified by Clause 16(2). Bank drafts and travellers' cheques are regarded as tantamount to cash, and their usage would remain unchanged from present use.
398
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, on being one of the survivors of those who considered this matter some substantial time ago. I shall consider the point he made, as it is extremely interesting. However, I suspect that the approach of the Bill is probably right. There have been substantial discussions in which the Gaming Board has been involved, as has the Home Office, and the Gaming Board has been in touch with the Home Office over a period of time. I repeat that I shall gladly consider the point that he has made, but I suspect that were we now to try to start redrafting the Bill fundamentally it would die pretty swiftly and the next time we discussed it we should be complaining that an even longer period had elapsed between the publication of the Royal Commission's Report and action by Parliament.
I repeat that I am deeply grateful to all who have spoken. I look forward to meeting noble Lords again when this Bill goes into Committee.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.4 until 8.10 p.m.]

Shops Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Schedule 1.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert ("and to which he has not withdrawn his agreement by notice given under paragraph 8(2) of this Schedule.").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 25, I beg leave to speak also to Amendments Nos. 28, 32 and 34.
Amendment No. 28: Page 4, line 25, at end insert ("or has given notice under paragraph 8(2) or otherwise that he intends to withdraw his consent to do shop work on a Sunday.".
Amendment No. 32: Page 4, line 43, at end insert ("or penalising him for giving notice under paragraph 8(2) that he intends to withdraw his consent to do shop work on a Sunday".).
Amendment No. 34: Page 5, line 19, at end insert ("so long as that employee has not exercised any right under this Act to terminate his agreement to that provision.
(2) An employee may at any time cancel his consent to do shop work on a Sunday by notice in writing given to his employer.
Such notice shall have no other effect on his contract of employment save to terminate his consent to do such work and to cancel the employer's obligation to pay for such work.
Any notice under this subsection shall take effect at (but not before) the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the notice is given.").
These are all part of the same argument. This amendment is designed to ensure that a worker who has contractually agreed to do Sunday work may withdraw from that agreement after a reasonable period of notice. It is modelled on the wording of Section 3 of the Payment of Wages Act 1960.
The Bill as it is presently drafted will place shopworkers in a highly inflexible contractual position. The right to protection against unfair

399
dismissal for refusing to work on Sunday depends on the maintenance of an existing contract. Thus, workers who are uncertain whether to accept Sunday working may be less likely to be prepared to accept a change of shift patterns for fear of losing the right to protection against unfair dismissal if they change their minds. Obviously, this inflexibility will also work against an employer's interest. On the other hand, vulnerable employees may be placed in a position where they unwillingly abandon their original contractual terms under pressure from the less scrupulous employer, thereby permanently losing any right to refuse Sunday working.
I am simply saying to the Committee that in this series of amendments we are continuing to try to protect the right of choice of employees as to working on a Sunday. In our view, the amendment will benefit both employees and employers. A decision to carry out Sunday working remains without a once-and-for-all disfranchisement from unfair dismissal protection. The amendment will contribute towards greater flexibility, which will help employers and will also enable workers more securely to balance family and leisure needs with the requirements of Sunday trading.
These amendments complement previous attempts, with which we have not made progress, and provide protection against victimisation or dismissal for those exercising their rights under other amendments. It certainly would not be our intention to press these amendments. We are at a stage of the Bill when we believe we can make most progress by raising matters and allowing the Minister and his advisers to give us the benefit of, undoubtedly, their greater access both to experience and record. It is in that spirit that I move this amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, but if these amendments were to be passed they would give one party to a contractual arrangement carte blanche to change unilaterally the conditions of his employment and place the other party at a considerable disadvantage. It would place employers in what I believe would be really a quite impossible position. The amendments would give those established shopworkers who have entered into a contractual obligation to work on Sundays the right to change their minds as often as they wished without consultation or negotiation with their employer.
Indeed, if all the noble Lord's amendments were passed, similar licence would be granted to shopworkers joining the industry after the commencement of the Act. What is proposed in these amendments, I have to tell the noble Lord, is quite inequitable. Employers have rights just as employees have rights. They, too, deserve consideration. If these amendments were approved, employers would be unable to rely on any permanent commitment to Sunday work by their employees. Employers would be placed in the weakest of bargaining positions, and would find it much more difficult to plan their working schedules and their staff needs with efficiency or certainty.
I cannot see that at the end of the day it would be to the mutual advantage of the employees and the employers, and I cannot see that it is in the interests singly of the employees. What the noble Lord is
400
suggesting would not be a reasonable restraint on a bad employer. Rather, I suggest, it would be a charter for the unreasonable employee. I believe that these amendments are unreasonable. They would create a thoroughly unfair situation, and I hope the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw them.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I do not support these amendments in their present form, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has made one very important point. That is, I think there are a lot of people who are not quite sure whether they do or do not want to work on a Sunday. People who, some months ago, spoke to me about their never wanting to work on a Sunday are now saying to me that they think they might. But they appreciate exactly the point the noble Lord has made: that if they accept that opportunity to work on a Sunday, to give it a try, then they have lost their right ever to say that they do not want to do so. I think there is a case for some sort of a trial period by mutual agreement, perhaps, between employer and employee, which would still give them a later right. It seems to me that we may be losing a lot of people who, if they only had the opportunity to work on a Sunday, might find it suited them very well.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not know whether my noble friend was in her place when the earlier amendments were discussed, which made clear that on various points concerned with employment—notably on Amendment No. 24, put down earlier by my noble friend Lord Renton and debated again this afternoon on Clause 3 stand part—I had indicated that there may be food for thought in what my noble friend Lord Renton had said. I think that what my noble friend Lady Gardner is suggesting would perhaps be encompassed within those remarks. It may not necessarily mean that this particular amendment is suitable for ideas of the sort she is putting forward. Nevertheless, I did give an undertaking to consider very seriously and with great care all the remarks that were made in connection with earlier amendments, which might meet my noble friend's point.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I would thank my noble friend for that and state that I was not here. I have only just flown back into London. I have come in because I have an amendment down in my name. But I will read in Hansard what was said.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: As I told the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I feel considerably embarrassed in that I feel that I have to oppose this amendment after having told him that I was in general sympathy with him on this part of the Bill. So far as the noble Baroness's intervention is concerned, perhaps the Minister would bear this in mind. We are concerned here with written contracts. It would be perfectly possible to have the contractual obligation to work on a Sunday which was entered into after the date of Royal Assent provisional. I realise that is a lawyer's point of view, but I think it is a valid one. USDAW might consider putting out pamphlets pointing out that as a possibility—or possibly the Ministry might do so: I do not know. It seems to me that would be preferable to writing anything into the Bill. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, seems to

401
me to run up insuperably against the objections offered by the noble Lord the Minister.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, hit exactly on the reason for the amendment; and that is the example of the employee who voluntarily enters into an agreement to work on a Sunday in the changed circumstances (shall we say?) of 12 months' time, and where there are financial inducements, but who finds in the event that it does not work out to suit him.
I take the Minister's point that employers have responsibilities and rights as well as employees, and this amendment argues for flexibility. I would imagine that when it comes to a question of working on a Sunday there will be much less flexibility on the part of the employer than on the part of the employee. I take the point that employers are likely to face problems. They need to be able to feel certain that it is within their gift to be able to say, "On every Sunday that I want to open I am guaranteed a workforce." It will not work out like that although it might: that is the sense of my amendment earlier, asking for a report to see how the Act had worked out in practice.
What in fact we are pleading for here is a modicum of flexibility. It talks of terms of notice: it does not say how long. I am very seized of the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that it would appear that these matters entered into after the commencement of the Act can be provisional. I should be very grateful if he can take the time of the Committee for a moment or two to explain to us the context in which something entered into is provisional. Does it mean that it is terminable at the will of either party? If so, that would certainly meet my wishes. I should be grateful for one or two more words on this matter.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am not sure that the noble Lord is not drawing me on to very dangerous ground. I certainly do not like giving instant legal opinions—indeed I am much too old to give legal opinions of any sort—but it struck me that might be a way of meeting the point that both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have in mind: in other words, an agreement without prejudice to reconsideration, say, after two months. I am thinking quite loosely. I have no doubt that the USDAW lawyers will be able to work out something very much better, and certainly the very able legal department of the Home Office.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister, without giving anything away, said to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that perhaps reference to earlier debates on these clauses might lead her to believe that, although nothing is being given away, all things are being considered with care at this stage. This is part of the consideration and there might very well be an outcome which would be acceptable to a great many people. It is in that spirit, again not putting words into the Minister's mouth, that I would beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): I have to advise the Committee, before
402
calling Amendment No. 26, that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 26A or 26B.
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 44, leave out paragraph 2.
The noble Viscount said: I should like, if I may, to speak not only to Amendment No. 26 but also to Nos. 26A, 26B, 27 and 31.
Amendment No. 26A: Page 3, line 44, leave out sub-paragraph (1)
Amendment No. 26B: Page 4, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (2)
Amendment No. 27: Page 4, line 22, leave out ("an established") and insert ("a")
Amendment No. 31: Page 4, line 40, leave out ("established")
The effect of these amendments is to remove the difference between established workers and others who are not established workers. If one looks for instance at paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, which deals with the dismissal of an established shopworker and says that it shall be regarded as unfair if the principal reason is that the shopworker has refused to do uncontractual Sunday work, if this amendment were accepted, it would mean that the dismissal of a shopworker shall be regarded as such.
We have touched on this issue a number of times of course, and I propose to skip very lightly over the points which have been made several times. However, there are one or two points I should like to make which, so far as I can see, have not yet been made to the Committee. In fact I have very limited experience in this Chamber, and what intrigues me at this moment is that much of what I am going to say has already been said by my noble friend the Minister in dealing with other amendments and I am "pinching" some of his arguments to use in support of my amendments because I have agreed with much of what he has said. So far as that is concerned, and to that limit of course, I am changing places with my noble friend.
There are a number of reasons why I believe that these amendments are important and would be clear-cut in what they do. First, I shall touch on the question of anomalies. We have had various examples of them raised here, but it seems to me extraordinary that if two people begin their employment on two different days—one employed the day before the Act becomes law and the other the day after the Act becomes law,—10 years later everyone would regard them as having been employed at the same time: but one of them is protected and one of them is not.
During the debates on this Bill I have been arguing that anomalies are perfectly acceptable and my noble friend the Minister has said, "Away with all anomalies: we shall not have any anomalies in this Bill." I am offering to help him now by removing an anomaly from this Bill and ensuring that it runs much more smoothly and clearly and along the lines of what he wants.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Good for you!
Viscount Brentford: I should also like to make the point, as concerning anomalies, and particularly in respect of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said earlier, that we are only considering shopworkers, and not others, in the course of this Bill. Further, I should like to point out that to give

403
protection to shopworkers is not unique in the law. He will be far more aware than I of the protection afforded, for instance, to women and young people by Section 93 of the Factories Act 1961. We are not going against the current of legal thinking by providing unlimited and unfettered protection for people in this way. The principle of protection has already been conceded and this amendment simplifies and extends it, but makes it easier to work, in my submission.
Secondly, this amendment does not affect the principle of the Bill. It does not support what I am keenest on, which is keeping Sunday special: it permits complete deregulation of Sunday trading to continue. My noble friend Lord Stockton pleaded for protection for those who have least power, and I believe from my experience that shopworkers fall into that category. Thirdly—and here again I poach an argument from my noble friend the Minister—this Bill provides two categories of workers: those who are established and those who are not.
8.30 p.m.
My amendment removes these two categories and provides only one category of workers, and thereby simplifies the regulations. On Tuesday my noble friend made this argument in connection with another amendment, and I support his reasoning and am using it to support this amendment. Next I should like to point out that the schedule, which has been spoken against quite vehemently by certain members of this Committee, would be greatly simplified. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, have certainly commented on it. The removal of this distinction between established workers and others will make the schedule run much more easily. My noble friend the Minister has already undertaken to look at it and this would simplify his job a great deal.
As my fifth point, I should like to touch on the question of employment contracts. The Bill seems to me to write an extra condition into the employment contracts of those who are not established workers and I submit that this is not the right time for such an additional regulation to be made; this condition that, although there is no contractual obligation to work on Sundays, the employer has the right to make employees do so—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: May I ask the noble Viscount where he finds that?
Viscount Brentford: It is in the Bill. It seems to me that there is no condition in an employment contract for a new employee in a job in retailing to work on Sundays, and if this Bill is passed that condition will be written into the employment contract because the employer will be able to force the man or woman to work on Sundays.
I should also like, while I am talking about them, to make one or two other points on employment contracts. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was, of course, absolutely right on Tuesday when he said that an employee would be able to ask for a term to be written into the contract, whereby he did not have to work on Sundays. But I seriously ask whether in practice he would. To quote another phrase of my
404
noble friend Lord Stockton, these are the humbler people of the employment industry and many of them would not dare to ask for special conditions to be written into the employment contract. Furthermore, I would question how many shopworkers do not have any written employment contract at all.
My last point is that I believe that without this amendment there would be increased discouragement to recruiting for the higher echelons of, in particular, the management side of the retail industry. I have had expressions of anxiety put to me about the calibre of the future management with this new provision for Sunday working coming in. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister does not want to discourage bright youngsters from going into the retail industry and, particularly, from taking up careers in the management side of retailing. Managerial skills will be needed as much in the industry as ever before. Those are six reasons why I believe these amendments that I have proposed should be accepted by the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have considerable sympathy with this amendment, on the ground that anything that lightens and mitigates the complication of this schedule is to be welcomed. But I do not, I am afraid, follow the noble Viscount when he says that the employer can force the employee to work on Sunday. All he can do is to hold the employee to a contract to work on Sunday, just as the employee can hold the employer to a contract to employ him on Sunday.
That contract arises in two ways. The first is if there was a pre-Act contract to work on Sunday, whether written or unwritten, or, as the noble Baroness indicated earlier, to be deduced from conduct, and that merely continues. The other is a new written contract to work on Sunday. It is only in those two circumstances where there is a bilateral agreement that there is any compulsion to work on Sunday.
On the other hand, as I have said, there seems to me to be a good deal to be said for this amendment. When I looked at this part of the schedule with considerable bafflement, it was obvious that the aim of the draftsman was to ensure that the pre-Act shopworker continues to be employed as such up to the attempted dismissal (paragraph 4) or other penal action (paragraph 6). When I originally tried to see what the draftsman was attempting to guard against, I could envisage only two situations, but the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, on another amendment mentioned a third, though not in this connection. Of those three only the first seems to me to have any weight and it can be much more easily accomplished than by this extremely convoluted provision.
The first is where there is a change of employer. The shopworker at the time of the passing of the Act is employed by employer A. He subsequently changes to employer B and this provision which the noble Viscount seeks to omit states that in those circumstances he cannot claim the protection of the Act. It seems to me to be right that he should not be able to do so, but, as I say, it also seems to me that that could be far more easily accomplished by a redrafting.
The second case that occurred to me was a change in the nature of the employment. The shopworker

405
starts as a shopworker, then changes his employment to, say, a separate accounts branch under the same employer, and later goes back to shop work. The noble Lord will tell me whether I have got this wrong. That seems to me to be one of the things that the draftsman had in mind, but it is so remote a circumstance that it is certainly not worthwhile going to all this trouble to deal with it.
The third case is that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in another connection, where the employee leaves employment with employer A and subsequently goes back to it. Again, I admit that I had not originally envisaged that, but it is something that might happen. I should have thought that it is so rare a circumstance that it could be safely disregarded. I hope that the noble Viscount will give the noble Lord a chance to look at this provision if he thinks there is anything in what I have said, and not press the amendment.
Baroness Seear: I should very much like the opportunity of supporting the amendment put forward by the noble Viscount. I apologise for the fact that I am coming into the Committee as I recognise at a rather late time. Unfortunately, I was held up with obligations I had entered into before I knew that the Committee was going to be held today. We must be extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for elucidating the legal points and raising possible legal problems. But we are not really talking about the refinements of law in this matter. What we are talking about is whether a woman who goes into the retail trade after the introduction of this Act is going to be forced by the terms of her contract—of course it is by the terms of her contract—to work on Sunday.
I know the argument is that if she does not work on Sunday she should not enter into the contract to work on Sunday. Let us get to the level of reality. We are talking about a very large number of women, most of them married women at an unskilled level, who have very few other opportunities of employment and for whom the retail trade has been an absolutely essential opportunity to earn some money. That is what we are really talking about. If they are presented with a contract which requires them to work on Sunday they are not going to go in and say, "Yes, I should like to have the job very much, but I am not going to work on Sunday". They know perfectly well that in the present conditions of unemployment, put politely or not put politely, the person interviewing them will say, "Sorry my dear, there are heaps of people who will. Goodbye". That is what we are really talking about.
It is one thing to say, as I have heard said in discussing the Bill, that other people enter into contracts which involve them working on Sunday—air hostesses—but the life and attitudes of air hostesses are miles apart from the lives and attitudes of most of the women working in the retail trade. The reality is that if this passes as it stands, a very large number of women will have to accept contracts to go to work on Sunday; otherwise they will not get any work at all. That is the reality. Therefore, I do not wish to see this happen. It is most unfortunate if the only oportunity to work involves working on Sunday for people who have no desire to do so. Therefore, I should like very
406
strongly to support the amendment of the noble Viscount.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: I have listened with care to the views that have been expressed both by my noble friend Lord Brentford and just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. When he introduced the amendment my noble friend went some way towards indicating that the arguments on drawing the line, if that is the right turn of phrase to use, between those who would have been employed before the time the Act comes into force and those who would be employed subsequently had been debated at some length in the broadest terms on Tuesday and that I had then made quite clear to the Committee that I proposed to examine with the very greatest care all the arguments that had been deployed. I can if the Committee feels it appropriate rehearse some of the arguments that I deployed then again tonight. I am sure that my noble friend will realise that the undertaking I have given to examine carefully the points that were made was made in good faith and that I think the point he is trying to make is very close—not identical because it comes in a different part of the Bill—to the point which was made by my noble friend Lord Renton.
I understand the point that my noble friend made about simplification and many of the other points that he expressed in his list of six; but when it comes to the question of an extra condition on contracts, I very much agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that there is absolutely no obligation in the Bill on shopworkers to work on a Sunday—none whatsoever. The obligation applies solely to contracts. I cannot feel in any sense that the theme of the amendment is very much different from that which was expressed by my noble friend Lord Renton.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, raised three points upon which, so far as I can possibly tell, I believe him to be absolutely right. Certainly, on the question of whether it is the same employer or the nature of the employment, if the nature of the employment changes, the employee would lose his protection, if I have it the right way round. That is an essential part and the noble and learned Lord was quite right to make those points. I shall study his points with care but I believe him to be absolutely correct.
I am reluctant to rehearse the many arguments—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Lord is very good to say that he will look at this. My point was that two of them were so remote that they are not worth troubling about, and the only one that is worth troubling about can be dealt with much more simply.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. That again fits in with the whole question of the drafting of the schedule which I have said I shall look at to see whether or not it can be simplified. I do not know yet precisely how it can be, but I have given that undertaking. I am reluctant to embark upon a long debate setting out the reasons that I rehearsed before. I hope the Committee will accept

407
that, and that the noble Viscount will not press the amendment.
Viscount Brentford: I thank my noble friend the Minister. I agree with what he says and I am quite content to rely on his undertaking. My name was below that of my noble friend Lord Renton on his amendment. There were, however, quite a number of points that I made which had not previously been made in this debate. I hope that my noble friend will take those into account in considering the protection of shopworkers.
I should perhaps add that when talking about being forced to work on Sundays I was using a shorthand phrase for the fact that if he did not work on Sundays without having any contractual written obligation to do so, he could be dismissed without compensation. I was just using a shorthand phrase for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 26A to 28 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 28A:
Page 4, line 25, at end insert—
("Any agreement by a shop worker to do work on a Sunday may be withdrawn by the shop worker after one month's notice.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment covers in very simple terms the situation of a shopworker who undertakes to work on a Sunday but then decides that he or she would prefer not to do so. I know that we discussed this earlier this evening but I should like to make one or two points on this amendment because I think it is important.
In the first place, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has so graphically illustrated, many women have no alternative but to opt for employment even though when opting for that employment they are going to have to work on a Sunday. Many women may quite honestly take on such a commitment and then find thereafter that they have great difficulty in carrying out the commitment to work on a Sunday—not only women, but men as well. The amendment provides an opportunity for a shopworker to withdraw his or her agreement to work on a Sunday by giving one month's notice. That seems quite fair and reasonable to me because the one month's notice gives the employer the opportunity, if he wishes to do so, to make some alternative arrangements. I do not share the view of the Minister that an arrangement of this kind—a similar kind that was discussed earlier—is in any way particularly unfair to the employer.
We are, as many noble Lords have indicated when debating this Bill, operating now in a situation where there is a large amount of unemployment and where other labour is available to work on a Sunday if the person concerned is unable to do so for whatever reason. Moreover, when the employee enters into a contractual arrangement with the employer, he or she really is not in a position of equality, as has already been demonstrated. The employee wants the job, and if he or she is not prepared to accept the stated conditions then he or she will not get that job—and rarely is alternative employment available.
This amendment would provide an opportunity for somebody who honestly and fairly has undertaken to work on Sundays to get out of that commitment if, because of domestic commitments or otherwise, he or she finds it impossibly burdensome to meet that obligation. It would also give the employer the opportunity, by the provision for one month's notice, to make alternative arrangements. I beg to move.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I should like briefly to support this amendment and to build on what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in respect of the enormous importance to women of finding jobs within the retail industry. I remind the Minister that at one point he said that shops can only be run on the basis of goodwill between employees and employers. Those two attitudes contribute much to this amendment being a very good amendment.
Let us consider the case of a married woman who is a shopworker and whose family circumstances change because she and her husband separate or because there is some kind of problem for her as a parent. She may suddenly find that she can no longer be absent from the home on Sundays and that she should be there with her children, because her husband is no longer at home or because of some other change in her family circumstances. She may have undertaken to work on a Sunday in perfectly good faith, when her life was fairly well organised, but now finds that her life is no longer well organised and that her presence at home on Sundays is suddenly necessary. She could by this amendment give a month's notice to her employer, and by that procedure being followed the good relationship that the Minister has described in connection with previous amendments would be maintained. There would be fairness shown to women who need such jobs but who are very often mothers as well and therefore have a duty at home; and that duty may frequently be on a Sunday.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: This amendment seeks to do in another way that which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, sought to do with an earlier amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I say that if I had to choose between the two, I should prefer the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It has gone now!
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: There is the objection to this amendment—and this is really to elaborate on what was said earlier by the Minister—that such a provision could work very unfairly against an employer. Take, for example, the case of a small petrol filling station that has a shop, and the proprietor of which wants an attendant to work three days a week, including Sundays. One can take any figure one likes; it could be three half-days per week, including Sundays.
Even if the proprietor is given a month's notice to find an alternative employee for the Sunday work, his whole work schedule may be thrown out. In fact, the proprietor may find it difficult to employ somebody willing to work only one day a week. That seems to me to be the objection to either amendment. However, as I have said, if I had to choose between the two, I should

409
prefer the noble Lord's proposal for withdrawal in writing.
Lord Glenarthur: I listened with care to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and to the remarks made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, concerning women who may need jobs to fit in with the circumstances that surround their families. What I say in connection with this amendment will not detract in any sense from my understanding of the general proposal that the noble Baroness makes.
Amendment No. 28A would enable a shopworker who had entered into an agreement to work on a Sunday to unilaterally change his or her mind. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has just remarked, a similar amendment has already been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. It was not accepted by the Committee, or maybe the noble Lord withdrew it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It was withdrawn.
Lord Glenarthur: I hope that this amendment similarly will be withdrawn. I share the view of the noble and learned Lord that the earlier amendment was perhaps the better of the two, if there was any preference to be accepted.
If employees are allowed unilaterally to change their minds about Sunday working, then employers will be placed in an impossible position, as they would not be able to rely on any permanent commitment to Sunday work. They would be put in the weakest of bargaining positions. Moreover, it would be very difficult for employers to run their shops, or their garages in the way that the noble and learned Lord illustrated. They could not run them efficiently and would incur additional costs.
I accept the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, about goodwill towards employees, but I cannot accept that such goodwill should be so totally loaded against the employer. I fear that that is what the effect of this amendment would be. It would make it very difficult to run a business. If the amendment would make it difficult to run a business, it could make it equally difficult to attract employment in the way that we all wish to see.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If the Minister will allow me to intervene, he makes a fair point about the arbitrary nature of an employee exercising his or her rights, if this amendment were to be passed. Take the case of the employee who comes to terms with a change in his lifestyle because his employer insists on Sunday working but then, because of the exigencies of his business, decides not to open on Sundays. The situation there is that, by force of competition, the employer arbitrarily declares to the employee, "I do not now want you to work on Sundays", even though the employee's lifestyle has already been reorientated towards Sunday working.
Lord Glenarthur: It is true to say that in many walks of life—and not just in shops—circumstances change, and it is possible for a business to want to alter its
410
approach in one way or another, whether that business be engaged in the retail trade or in any other. However, I do not accept that employers are necessarily such difficult people when it comes to a general change in an employee's family circumstances such as that described by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
I am not sure that the illustration given by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was not one that would indicate that an employer would be in breach of his contract. I believe that may well be the case. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.
9 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: What worries me very much about this amendment is its absolutely unlimited nature. As I read it, a shopworker could keep giving one month's notice. The shopworker could regularly keep saying to the employer, "Yes, I will work on Sundays" and do a few Sundays, then give another month's notice and be off again. There is no suggestion in the amendment that it should be a once-only notice.
An extraordinary family situation could arise, which I think is a worrying thought, and someone's circumstances change dramatically. I hope an industrial tribunal would look kindly on a case brought where there was a dramatic change in circumstances. Usually a reasonable attitude is expected on the part of the employer at least to take circumstances into consideration; for example, if an employee was suddenly widowed and had a family to cope with on Sundays.
However, the amendment as drafted is totally unlimited in that an employee could give the one month's notice two or three times a year. An employee could be hopping backwards and forwards on Sunday work and that would be a hopeless situation for an employer in trying to manage his workforce.
As I mentioned earler, I think there is a case for the once-only trial system whereby an employee going on to Sunday working at the beginning could say, "I will give it a try". There could be an agreement at the beginning that this should be a once-only trial. If employees found it was not possible it would not be held against them in employment dismissal terms.
Baroness Seear: I want to add a point to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and by a number of people while I have been listening to this debate. I refer to the assumption that provided an employee is protected against unfair dismissal at a tribunal he is all right, but the fact is that reference to an industrial tribunal rarely results in reinstatement. It results in some degree of compensation, but if one's livelihood depends on having a job in the retail trade winning an unfair dismissal case does not help. It tides you over for a while but it is rare that an unfair dismissal case results in reinstatement. It is no good saying that an employee will be protected by an industrial tribunal and that it deals with the matter. It does not.
Lord Glenarthur: I take the point that the noble Baroness is making but I do not understand in that case why there should be such a difference between those in the retail trade and employees elsewhere who

411
presumably are affected by the same set of rules, so to speak.
Baroness Seear: I follow the noble Lord in that sense, but we have all been arguing for the protection of women in the opportunity to refuse to work on Sundays. The argument refers to where a woman refuses to work on a Sunday and is unreasonably denied the right not to work on a Sunday—as was said, perhaps when there is a bad time at home and she does not want to work on Sundays—and the employer, instead of saying that it is all right and it will not be held against her, says, "Sorry, we cannot employ you any longer if you cannot work on Sunday". It is no adequate compensation to that woman to say that in those circumstances she will win an unfair dismissal case, because she does not get her job back. That is the argument.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The point must be made here that in most of the cases I see people are not applying for reinstatement. Compensation is what most people are asking for. However, an industrial tribunal does have the right to order reinstatement.
Lord Glenarthur: May I clarify one point for my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes concerning the trials, which was the point in which she was interested. There is no reason why the employer and the employee should not agree in the contract for a trial of, say, three months or whatever. There is nothing to stand in the way of that.
Lord Coleraine: The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is surely a good one. My noble friend is wrong. Even if the tribunal orders reinstatement—and I think it is right that they rarely do—there is no compulsion for an employee to be reinstated. I am sure the law recognises that where an employer and employee do not get on the only solution is compensation and not reinstatement.
I do not know whether this is valid, but it seems to me that, if an employer sacks an employee in such circumstances, in effect that means that forever after the likelihood is that the employee is not going to be an established shopworker, for the purposes of this Bill, and will lose the rights that he or she might otherwise have.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I have listened very carefully to the debate and have decided not to press my amendment. On the other hand, I still think that there is a great deal of validity in what has been said by a number of noble Lords in the debate.
In particular, I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, concerning a woman who starts working on Sundays and, possibly through domestic circumstances, cannot continue. There may be a case, as has been said, for a pilot arrangement or something of that sort. Perhaps it would be possible to return to this point at Report stage, but in the meantime I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28B not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 28C:
Page 4, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) In the case of a dismissal regarded as unfair by virtue of paragraph 4(1) above the tribunal shall automatically remedy the complaint by making an order under sections 69(2) and 69(3) of the 1978 Act. Such an order shall be mandatory upon the employer subject to account being taken of the wishes of the complainant as to the nature of the order to be made.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment takes forward part of the argument that we have just been engaged upon. It attempts to do what the noble Lord opposite said might very well be exceedingly difficult to do; that is, in the event of a dispute, hearing, or award it could be exceedingly difficult for the employee to work again. I am referring to the atmosphere, loss of confidence and morale. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said, most people come to the conclusion that the best way of settling matters is to endeavour to get the best compensation in cash—six months' wages, or whatever it might be. Around only 5 per cent. of successful complainants against unfair dismissal end in the worker being reinstated or re-engaged by their employers. I have references here which I would gladly give if necessary. However, that is our general view.
The amendment is saying that there are special circumstances. We are dealing with a category of workers and a change in their life style which, frankly, could be traumatic. I do not want to be too dramatic but it is a major upheaval. In those circumstances, we are saying that if the cause of dismissal is held to have been an unwillingness to work on a Sunday and that is heard by a tribunal and judgment is given in favour of the employee, then this amendment ensures that at the wish of the employee he or she should determine whether he or she wishes to be reinstated or to have compensation. In the present climate jobs are very difficult to obtain, but it may be accepted, as I accept it, that most employers are not unreasonable, even though there may be disputes and harsh words and strict company policies may be in force.
In fact, if the employer is fair, but he has put his case and it is held that it was wrongful dismissal, then I am hoping that this amendment will maintain harmonious relations—I am not talking about nasty employees, mischief-makers, trouble-makers or lazy people but about good workers who do not wish to work on a Sunday and are able to prove to a tribunal that the reason for their dismissal has been their refusal to work on a Sunday. This amendment simply gives the tribunal the possibility of ordering reinstatement or compensation at the option of the employee. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: This amendment would require an industrial tribunal which has found a dismissal to be unfair under paragraph 4 to make an order that the employee be reinstated in accordance with Sections 69(2) and 69(3) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.
I feel that it is completely unreasonable to tie the hands of a tribunal in such a way. For all cases of unfair dismissal brought under the current legislation, discretion is given to the tribunal to decide upon the appropriate remedy according to the facts of the individual case. Present legislation allows a tribunal, if

413
it has found proven a case of unfair dismissal, to order the employee to be reinstated—that is, to be re-employed by the same employer in the same job, or be re-engaged. In other words, to be employed by the same or a connected employer in a comparable job; or to be awarded instead the financial compensation which was mentioned just now by my noble friend Lady Gardner.
An industrial tribunal will order reinstatment or re-engagement only if the employee asks for it. There is really no reason why dismissals which come under paragraph 4 of this schedule should be treated any differently from unfair dismissals for reasons covered by the 1978 Act. Moreover, surely it is also unreasonable to take away from a tribunal the discretion to award the most appropriate remedy in the light of the facts brought to its attention. In many cases the employment relationship will have broken down completely and it would be unreasonable to expect the employer to reinstate the worker. Also, because of the breakdown of the employment relationship, many employees themselves will not wish to be reinstated.
I am not clear from what the noble Lord has said whether what he is trying to do with this amendment will enable shopworkers who do not wish to be reinstated to decide to accept an alternative remedy. I suggest that in essence what the noble Lord is trying to do will tie the hands of a tribunal in a most unrealistic way and that to proceed in this manner would be detrimental to all concerned.
Baroness Seear: May I ask the noble Lord for information? My memory is beginning to fade with old age, but I think that at one time it was possible that if a tribunal ordered reinstatement, an employer could avoid reinstatement by paying additional compensation. I am speaking absolutely from memory and such a course may never have been possible or may have ceased to be so, but I think that it is rather important in this context.
Lord Glenarthur: The memory of the noble Baroness is much longer than mine. I do not know the answer to her question but perhaps I can let her know in due course.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I intend to withdraw the amendment but I want the Committee to know that we believe that there are far more employees than employers who are likely to be hurt by the operation of this Act. I am not talking about employers who are vindictive. Employers have a business to run, a profit to make and they have to survive. I am talking in terms of situations where hard decisions are made by an employer who opens his shop and then the Act comes into force.
The Minister is right that the amendment seeks to tie the hands of a tribunal. If the tribunal is satisfied that the employee is right, automatically it could make an award and allow the employee the option of the right to reinstatment or to cash. I have listened carefully to what has been said. In fact, I shall sit down and listen again!
Lord Glenarthur: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, which I think he is about to do, let me say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that I believe that she is right. If a tribunal orders reinstatement but the employer disobeys the order, an additional award will be made.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister and even more to the noble Baroness for getting that put on the record. That may help those outside the Committee who are looking for amelioration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 4, line 27, after ("64(l)") insert ("a)").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 29. I shall deal with Amendment No. 30 also which is in my name and relates to the same issue.
Amendment No. 30: Page 4, line 30, leave out ("or has attained retiring age").
I put these forward as probing amendments. I am quite unable to understand the Government's thinking. The additional protection suggested in paragraph 5 on page 4 of the Bill would cover part-time workers and people over retiring age. I suppose that logically I should try to delete any major change in employment law affecting either category, but as I have such personal sympathy for part-time workers I should like to see them protected under the legislation. However, I feel quite differently about people over retiring age.
There is so much youth unemployment that we do not want to change employment law to give additional protection to people who should have retired and left the vacancy for a young person. That is why I cannot understand that the Government want to introduce a new protection for people over retiring age which is totally out of line with all existing employment legislation. My amendments seek to remove the additional protection. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I smiled when the noble Baroness said that we should not make provision for people over 65. In her absence on another day of this Committee stage great play was made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and others about the nonsense of limiting a person's working life to the age of 65. As was pointed out, in this Chamber there are many good examples of people who work beyond that age—and I am not yet 65! Whatever figure is suggested, the other side argue that it is wrong. I shall be interested to hear how the Minister deals with the point of the noble Baroness, after having expressed great sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said.
Lord Glenarthur: The amendment is intended to prevent established shopworkers over retirement age from making a claim for unfair dismissal if dismissed for refusing Sunday work. My noble friend has been good enough to say that it is a probing amendment. I shall endeavour to explain where a misconception in

415
her mind may have arisen about the basis of this schedule generally.
We believe that the more generous treatment proposed for established shopworkers is fully justified. It is also soundly based on relevant precedent. Under the 1978 Act employees over normal retirement age can bring a case of unfair dismissal if the reason for dismissal relates to the employee's membership or non-membership of a trade union or to his participation in union activities. Moreover, workers over normal retirement age are not debarred from complaining under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 or the Race Relations Act 1976. We believe that the right not to work on a Sunday is sufficiently important to be regarded as analogous to those fundamental rights and that the exclusions that apply to normal unfair dismissal cases should not apply to established shopworkers if they are dismissed for refusing Sunday work.
In a nutshell, that is based on trade union type legislation and not on the other legislation to which I referred—sex discimination, race relations, and so on. That is why the safeguards are built in in that way.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. There are still a few points in it which do not satisfy me. Although people over retirement age—as he mentioned—can bring a case, as I understand it no compensation is payable to anyone over retirement age; compensation is reduced by so much per year for every year when one approaches retirement age. I understand that no compensation was payable for unfair dismissal over retirement age. However, if I am wrong I should like to be corrected on that.
The other point is that these over retirement age shopworkers can be dismissed for any other reason without there being unfair dismissal. There does not have to be any reason for dismissing them. If they are over retirement age they can be dismissed, as I understand it, at any time, the provisions of unfair dismissal do not apply to them, apart from those rare instances that the Minister has just mentioned.
I shall study the answer given by the Minister in detail. I should like at some stage to have an answer from him on whether I am right in saying that no compensation would be payable to these persons even if they had such a case. I do not know whether the Minister is able to comment now or whether he would rather reply at another time.
Lord Glenarthur: I shall certainly consider the views of my noble friend—messages arrive with great speed in your Lordships' House. I understand that compensation is made up of two elements: a basic award which is not payable if the employee is over retirement age; and a compensatory award which is payable in all cases. Perhaps I can expand on that point to my noble friend in writing.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister. I can check from my own books on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 not moved.]
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 5, line 6, leave out ("sub-paragraph (3)") and insert ("paragraph 8").
The noble Viscount said: This is a purely technical amendment to correct a printing error in the Bill. I am sure that your Lordships have realised that the words "sub-paragraph (3)" do not make sense because there is no sub-paragraph (3) in paragraph 7. Clearly the correct words are "paragraph 8". I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: There is obviously a mistake in the Bill but I wonder why it is subject to paragraph 8. Paragraph 8 says that an established shopworker can contract out of his rights under the Bill. As such it seems to me merely declaratory because the Bill has said earlier that he can contract out by writing on or after the Act comes into force.
I confess that I have not looked up the three sections of the 1978 Act which are mentioned in subparagraph (2) of paragraph 7, but I should have thought that paragraph 8 refers back to the definition of an established shopworker. I do not at the moment see why those three sections and Part IX should apply subject to paragraph (8).
Lord Renton: As we are discussing this subsection (2) in the course of dealing with this simple amendment to correct a printing error, I hope that it will not be inappropriate for me to say that I find sub-paragraph (2) very strange indeed. It refers to three sections of the 1978 Act, and asks us to assume that paragraph 6 of this schedule was contained in Part II of the 1978 Act. It is a mind-bending operation. In my view, if not only parliamentarians but the users of legislation are to receive any help from drafting at all, then this is just the kind of drafting that should be avoided.
Viscount Davidson: I am sure that noble Lords who have spoken will not expect me to give an answer off the top of my head, let alone from anywhere else at the moment! My noble friend Lord Glenarthur has already said that he will look at the drafting, and this matter probably comes under the drafting point that he mentioned earlier. All that I can say at this stage is that I shall ensure that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur writes to both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord who have spoken on this point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before we come to Amendment No. 33A, I have to tell the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 33B or 34. I call Amendment No. 33A.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 33A:
Page 5, line 17, leave out paragraph 8, and insert—
("8. Any provision in an agreement (whether a contract of employment or not) shall be void in so far as it purports

(a) to exclude or limit the operation of this Schedule; or

(b) to preclude any person from presenting a complaint to, or bringing any proceedings under this Schedule before an industrial tribunal.").

The noble Baroness said: As has already been indicated, paragraph 8 provides for the opportunity to

417
contract out of obligations under the Employment Protection Act. It is because we do not want that to stand in the Bill that we have tabled this amendment. The effect of Amendment No. 33A, which stands in my name, is to write into the Bill the actual provisions of Section 140(1) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. The wording is exactly the same. The Act says:

"(a) to exclude or limit the operation of any provision of this Act; or

(b) to preclude any person from presenting a complaint to, or bringing any proceedings under this Act before, an industrial tribunal".

Any agreement which provides for that would be voided under the terms of Section 140 of the Employment Protection Act.
What we want to do under the amendment is to continue to preserve for employees the right to sue under the Employment Protection Act and not to be under pressure from employers to negotiate away that right. I must say, for your Lordships' information, that the TUC is particularly concerned about the effects of this paragraph in the new Bill. It says that, unlike the normal unfair dismissal provisions, the Bill allows employers to insert terms into the contracts of employment of shopworkers which waive these new rights to lodge or pursue industrial tribunal claims on Sunday working.
It also says that under the unfair dismissal provisions of the Employment Protection Act, which I have just read, any such terms in employment contracts are automatically null and void. But if this is expunged as far as shopworkers are concerned under this paragraph, then it is not null and void and it is possible for employees to "negotiate"—in inverted commas—because very often, as we have just heard, employees do not have all that much freedom when it comes to negotiation, particularly if they need the job. It is possible for employers to bring pressure to bear upon employees to get them to waive rights which appear to be theirs under the legislation, under the Bill, as if they were established shopworkers, but which in fact they can be pressurised—and I use that term advisedly—into giving up if the employers apply sufficient inducement to them to do so.
The TUC has further told me that it is firmly opposed to the principles of contracting out of employment rights since, if that practice were to become accepted, it would undermine employment rights everywhere else and produce a very unfortunate precedent for other pieces of legislation.
Therefore, I emphasise that from our point of view this is an important amendment. We want to preserve the rights that exist already under Section 140 of the Employment Protection Act, to which I have just referred, and we do not think that it should be open to employers and employees to negotiate for those rights to be waived. It is a very bad precedent indeed and I commend the amendment to your Lordships on those grounds. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have already indicated that it is at least arguable that the existing paragraph 8 is for no more than the avoidance of doubt. As such, I personally have no objection to it, but I would ask the
418
noble Lord the Minister in any event to look sympathetically at the substance, though not necessarily at the actual drafting, of Amendment No. 33A in the name of the noble Baroness.
Modern legislation very frequently intervenes to limit complete freedom of contract between two people where they are likely to be inherently unequal in power. Very usual examples are landlord and tenant, and the noble Baroness herself mentioned the Employment Protection Act. Obviously, the thought behind that is not likely to be between two persons of equal bargaining power. In so far as I remember, whenever a statute intervenes in that way there is always a provision against contracting out. I only had time to look up one which I had in mind, and that was the Agricultural Holdings Act which says in Section 3:
"This section shall have effect notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary".
Where the statute intervenes to prevent complete freedom of contract and to limit it in some respects, some such provision is almost inevitably necessary, otherwise you come full circle again to unequal parties contracting together under a new contract. Obviously this will not do in this form because there is already written in a contracting-out provision under the rather disliked paragraph about established shopworkers. Therefore, this would have to be subject to that. Otherwise, it seems to me a necessary provision of this schedule.
Baroness Seear: I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I accept that there are aspects of employment protection which in general terms need looking at again. It is not all holy writ; it could well be revised in some respects. However, the way to do it is not to allow people to contract-out in, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has said, agreements between unevenly weighted parties. I do not think that that is the right way to modify employment protection legislation because it leaves people open to very considerable exploitation.
Lord Glenarthur: I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is quite right. Section 140, which prevents contracting out of the statutory rights, applies to the rights in the schedule. All that the present paragraph 8 does is to ensure that an employee can enter into a contractual agreement to do Sunday work. However, the purpose of the amendment would certainly be to prevent established shopworkers from waiving their statutory rights and voluntarily agreeing to work on a Sunday.
As regards the employer, these amendments, rather similarly to the earlier amendments that we discussed, would make it extremely difficult to run a shop effectively. Although established shopworkers could enter into agreements to work on a Sunday, they could not be enforced, and employers would be put in an intolerable position as they would never know whether their workers would turn up on a Sunday. Employers would be unable to rely on any permanent commitment to Sunday work, and would therefore be placed in the weakest of all possible bargaining positions.

419
One can readily envisage the difficulties that this would cause for employers, especially the small shop, and I suggest that it would again place a thoroughly unfair burden on employers. Because established shopworkers could not waive their statutory rights, they would not be able to enter into a binding contractual agreement to work on a Sunday. If established shopworkers wanted to work on a Sunday they would be put at a disadvantage compared with new recruits, who would be able to make a contractual agreement to work on a Sunday. Employers may therefore prefer to give Sunday work to those employees who they know will be obliged to work on a Sunday because of their contract.
We are, in a sense, on the same theme here as we discussed on earlier amendments—the intolerable load that it would place on the employers. I repeat what I said earlier, that I do not believe that at the end of the day this would serve the interests of either the employees or the employers. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that the noble Lord will consent to look at this point again. It is not really the same point we discussed before. It is really that if you limit in any way the power of perfectly free contract—and this Bill does limit to some degree the free contractual power of employer and employee—you need some such provision as this. I hope that the noble Lord will not close his mind to the matter, and will look at the debate in Hansard.
Lord Glenarthur: I shall certainly look at the debate in Hansard and study what has been said. I believe that notwithstanding the effect which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, described, the main point which the noble Baroness expressed in her amendment would be the effect I have just described. I do not think that I can detract from that one bit. But I shall examine what has been said, though without any commitment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I have listened carefully to what has been said, and in particular to the interesting point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I, too, hope that the Minister will look at the points made in the debate. The point I made was different from the point that the noble Lord made in reply to me. We are talking, as I understand it, about a specific provision whereby rights which exist in Section 140 of the Employment Protection Act can be waived as a result of an agreement between an employer and an employee—and an employee who is certainly not going to be in a position of equality when it comes to negotiation with his employer.
That is why we regard this as important, and I hope that the Minister will have another look at it. I do not intend to press it tonight because the hour is very late, but I think we shall have another look at this at Report stage. In the meantime, I hope that the Minister will perhaps have second thoughts about this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33B, 34 and 35 not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 35A:
Page 5, line 19, at end insert—
("Time off in lieu of Sunday working
9. Any employee who has worked on five days during the week and also works on the Sunday following, must be given 2 days leave during the following week.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment has a slightly different purpose from some of the previous amendments. The suggestion is that if an employee has worked for five days in the week preceding a given Sunday and he then works on that Sunday he should be given two days off in lieu in the following week.
The reasons for this amendment are several. One is that it will make employers think very hard before they decide to work on a Sunday. If they have to make arrangements of this sort, it is only when they are convinced that they will have heavy trading that it will be worth while calling people in on Sunday. This puts a brake on the introduction of Sunday trading, which, in itself, would be highly desirable. It is possible, and I think it will happen, that people who work on a Sunday will negotiate for double time on Sunday, as is the present practice. If that were accompanied with this amendment, there would be a considerable burden upon employers, which from my point of view would be desirable, before they asked people to work on Sunday, and they would have to think very hard about the real commercial advantages of so doing.
Although that is one reason for moving this amendment, it is not my primary reason. If we are to have Sunday trading it will present us with an opportunity to do something which a great many of us have been pressing for a long time; that is, to provide a much greater opportunity for a genuine sharing of work. There are a great many people who are out of work in the unskilled and semi-skilled grades who will not get back into full-time work ever. These are people who in many cases are quite capable of being able to cope with selling in a shop. The hope in introducing this amendment is that if the burden is put on the employer of providing two days off in lieu of Sunday working, that will be a strong incentive to employ people on a part-time basis to work at weekends. This will mean that people who are otherwise probably permanently unemployed would acquire part-time jobs, which would have considerable economic and social value to them. One would hope that it would be possible to combine this with an assurance that people who so worked would not have their benefits reduced. That would be a useful way of being able to improve the position of people who are otherwise permanently unemployed.
This would also make it easier for the people who are working a five-day week to have a normal weekend. It would mean that the housewife, of whom we have talked a great deal, who wants to be home on Sunday would be able to be at home on Sunday because the employer would have the part-time workers or weekend shift workers coming in. That would in many ways be a desirable development. It would be cheaper for the employers—they would not have to give the two days off in lieu—and it would be advantageous to the unemployed person because it would give him a job. If we are to have Sunday working this would be a desirable step. Such workers might become regular employees.
If I may say so in parenthesis, I have been slightly entertained with the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, about the employer being certain that people will come in to work. This is highly desirable from the employers' point of view, but a great many employers are familiar with the situation where employees do not come in to work all the time. I strongly suspect that if we have double time on Sundays what employers will really worry about is that people will not come in on Monday. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about this amendment. Obviously, it offers us a new idea and new concept about how this Bill is going to affect employees. It offers the idea that an opportunity for work sharing can be made available. Also I think that this amendment corrects the balance a little between the advantages to employers and employees. The noble Lord the Minister has spoken a lot about the problems that previous amendments would put on employers and how it would be impossible to run a business and so on if certain amendments which would advantage the employees were adopted. I think this is a very interesting amendment and I look forward to hearing what the Minister will have to say about it.
Lord Glenarthur: It was with great interest that I heard the last remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about the difficulty of persuading people to come into work on a Sunday—
Baroness Seear: I was referring to the difficulties on the following Mondays.
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, or even a Monday. But the fact is that at the moment, so far as I understand it, there is no great evidence to suggest that there is difficulty in finding staff to carry out the work on either the Monday or the Sunday. Be that as it may, despite the fact that Sunday work appears to be popular the noble Baroness's point is directly concerned with Section 22 of the 1950 Act which provides that shopworkers are given time off in lieu if they work on Sundays. Perhaps to avoid confusion I could first of all explain that the Bill as drafted retains these provisions for young people at the same time as lifting them for adult shopworkers.
At the Second Reading debate the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, put forward the proposal which she is now raising in this amendment. As she described, her reason for doing so was that she believed that it would encourage shops to employ part-time employees on Sundays and that full-time staff would be discouraged from working on Sundays. At the moment shopworkers who are employed for more than four hours on Sunday are entitled to a day off in lieu. If they are now to receive two days off in lieu, as she suggested, then I would have thought it quite likely to encourage more full-time employees to work on Sundays and they would not be disposed to see Sundays staffed by part-time employees. But be that as it may, the Government believe that it really should be left to shopkeepers and their employees to decide who should
422
work on Sunday and how those who do so should be compensated for the Sundays upon which they work.
The abolition of restriction on hours of work for adults and the removal of restrictions on trading hours will mean that, as for the majority of employees in other parts of our life in this country, conditions of employment will be decided by collective or individual bargaining. Employers and employees will be able to decide what suits their particular circumstances, whether it be to provide time off in lieu on a weekly or monthly or annual basis or to provide additional payment for Sunday working or whatever.
I cannot agree with the noble Baroness that matters like this should be decided by legislation. I believe this should be left to be decided between the employers and employees. That is why I hope she will not press the amendment.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Lord sits down, are the Government contemplating getting rid of all the restrictions on hours of work of women in industrial employment? The restrictions on hours of work for women in industrial employment have existed since 1833. I am talking about the Factories Acts. The noble Lord talks about all other fields of employment and there being no legal restrictions on hours of work. There is extensive restriction on hours of female employment in manufacturing industry, and that has been so for over 100 years.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Baroness may have misunderstood me. What I was suggesting was that it was perfectly reasonable to expect individuals to come to arrangements with their employers, within their contracts, on this whole substance. I do not see any particular reason why the retail trade should be so different in the way the noble Baroness suggests. I am not suggesting that we are going as far as the noble Baroness suggests. What I can say is that the Government propose to remove restrictions on women's hours of work in a sex discrimination Bill. I do not think that goes quite as far as the noble Baroness feels I am going here.
Baroness Seear: There is nothing exceptional in legal restrictions on women's hours of work: that is what I am saying. It has been the practice in this country for over a hundred years and the Government are not, as I understand it, leaving the hours of work in manufacturing industry to be determined entirely by collective bargaining.
Lord Glenarthur: I wonder whether perhaps the noble Baroness and I are talking at cross-purposes. What I am saying here is that as things stand the 1950 Act provides that workers in shops are given time off in lieu—on that I think we are agreed—and that, as the Bill is drafted, provisions for young people will remain the same and they will be lifted for adult shopworkers. I then went on to say that the abolition of restriction on hours of work for adults and the removal of restrictions on trading hours will mean that for the majority of employees in this country conditions of employment—and those, I think, are the key words—will be decided by collective or individual bargaining. Is the noble Baroness saying that individual bargaining in other industries does not take place?
Baroness Seear: I am not saying that individual bargaining does not take place, but I am saying that the law limits what you can agree in individual bargaining about women's hours of work in factories, and has done for well over a hundred years. The noble Lord is trying to pretend that to put any restriction at all on hours of work in the retail trade would put women in an exceptional position. I am saying that, so far as women's employment is concerned, not having restrictions puts them in an exceptional position.
However, I do not propose to press this tonight. I shall return to it at a later stage. The reason I moved it tonight was to ask the noble Lord whether he would think seriously about the benefits that would accrue from really trying to use Sunday opening as a means of developing for a considerable number of people the opportunities of weekend shift working or part-time working. That is really what it is all about. I do not want to be sidetracked on this other argument, although I am quite certain I am right in saying that it would be quite exceptional if there were no restriction on women's hours of work in the retail trade when there have long been restrictions, and still are, in manufacturing industry. However, that is not the major point. The major burden of this is to ask the Minister—and he has been very generous about saying that he will consider a number of the points that have been made—to think about this, because it seems to me that it would be a very good opportunity to provide work opportunities for people who would otherwise never have them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, shall he agreed to?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: In 1975 a very strong committee on the preparation of legislation, the chairman of which was the noble Lord, Lord Renton, started off Chapter 6 of their report:
"Our terms of reference imply a widespread concern that much of our statute law lacks simplicity and clarity".
In their recommendations, recommendation 8 said:
"In principle the interests of the ultimate users should always have priority over those of the legislators. A Bill should be regarded primarily as a future Act".
I take part in only one or two Bills a Session, but a recent Session included the National Heritage Bill where one of the schedules—a vital schedule—was so incomprehensible that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, moved to have it out of the Bill altogether, notwithstanding that that would have wrecked the Bill.
In the following year, 1984, we had the Housing and Building Control Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will remember because as a newcomer to the House he had to deputise at an important stage of the Committee for the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and he made an immediate impact on the House. There we had to struggle and finally, only after repeated debates and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor being brought in, did we get what was admittedly—admitted by Ministers—the incomprehensible Part I reprinted in the Statutes in Force in time in a form which could be understood by the council tenants who were affected.
424
Then, last Session, we had the Transport Bill and, again, one of the clauses was universally criticised as meaningless and unnecessary. Now we have this schedule which, I say with respect, is the worst of the lot. It has been stigmatised by my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
I ask the noble Lord, bearing in mind the Renton recommendations, to consider paragraph 1, subparagraphs (2) and (3), and paragraphs 5 and 7 of this schedule and to say who he thinks the users of this Bill will be. One thinks first of shopworkers and shopkeepers, including small shopkeepers. Does he really think that they could make anything of those provisions? I have spent most of my life as a lawyer, but it took hours finding the right section of the 1978 Act, seeing how far it was amended by this schedule and then re-applying it to the schedule. I am bound to say that that seems to me to be an absolutely shocking way of drafting.
There is one other point before I make a few positive suggestions. The noble Lord said on Tuesday (at col. 223 of the Official Report):
"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 draftsmen."
That is absolute heresy. Many of us have argued for a long time that parliamentary counsel will continue to flout the wishes of Parliament, and the recommendations of the Renton Committee, unless they are put in some department which can pay effective attention to their method of drafting. That has not been done; but until it has been done it is the Minister in charge of the Bill who is responsible for its drafting as well as its contents. I hope that the Minister will recant that heresy and assure us that this schedule will be recast in a form that can be understood by users and at least by Members of either House of Parliament. Speaking for myself, if it is presented in this form on Third Reading I shall find myself compelled on that very ground, although I am strongly in favour of Clause 1, to vote against the Bill.
10 p.m.
I have one positive suggestion in addition to the general suggestion of redrafting. Some of these most impenetrable paragraphs and passages such as subparagraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 1 and the other ones that I mentioned should be recast as a Keeling schedule. A Keeling schedule is generally used only where a complete Act is amended and the amended Act is then reprinted as a schedule to the amending Act, distinguishing typographically between the original parts, the parts which have been superseded by the amending Bill and the superseded parts—three types. I see no reason why it should not be done with these provisions even though they are only parts of a Bill. But something must be done. I say with all respect that it is quite intolerable that Session after Session a Bill is presented, and your Lordships are asked to take responsibility for it, which is bound to be quite incomprehensible to the people who are affected by it. It is the very negation of parliamentary democracy.
Lord Renton: If I may say so, I think that the noble and learned Lord has done a great service by saying what he has just said. I should like to support him very warmly indeed. Perhaps I may add one short point. Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 which purports to be an interpretation provision is the worst interpretation provision that it has ever been my misfortune to have to study.
The discussions that we have had on this first schedule do to my mind increase our gratitude to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur for his undertaking to have its drafting reconsidered. As to this question of whether he or the draftsman is to have the last word, may I tell him the solution? All that he has to do is to say to the draftsman, "I do not understand this and I do not think that the shopkeepers and other people who are going to have to obey the Bill will understand it either. Please make it more clear". That is in Hansard, that can be quoted, and that I think is the solution of this problem which we often hear put before us—and even by Ministers who are learned lawyers. I hope that my noble friend will be so good as to bear that in mind.
I venture to say this, and on this the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will not agree with me, but I nevertheless constructively put it forward as a solution. If the two-tier system envisaged by Clause 3 and by the first schedule were to be abolished, most of the problems both of drafting and of substance that we have encountered in our discussions of this first schedule would vanish.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I second that.
Lord Glenarthur: I have listened with care to what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend Lord Renton on the matter of the drafting of Schedule 1. I do not in any sense dodge my responsibilities because my name appears on the front of the Bill. When I said at col. 223 of Hansard—and the noble and learned Lord quoted me—that I would see what could be done but that the matter was very much in the hands of parliamentary draftsmen, in no sense did I mean to indicate, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord knows, that I was trying to dodge my own responsibilities.
I gave both the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend an assurance that the question would be looked at. I have to agree that it is incredibly complex. Everyone associated with the Bill agrees that it is incredibly complex. However, it appears to be so because it relates to many different provisions and there has not seemed up to this point any simpler way of dealing with it.
I willingly undertake to see what can be done. I would be only too delighted if the schedule could be in a simpler form now. If it has taken the noble and learned Lord with his colossal experience hours and hours to understand the schedule, he will readily appreciate that it has taken me weeks and weeks—and still I am not sure that I understand it. I cannot be drawn too readily on the question of the Keeling schedule because I shall need to be quite certain in my own mind what it involves. Certainly I shall examine what has been said.
426
I take the points that have been made. I hope that my noble friend with his experience, and with the benefit of the report for which he was largely responsible and which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, quoted, and the Committee will allow me to do precisely what I have said I will do: take this question away, look at it, and see what can be done.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Consequential amendments]:
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 6, line 12, leave out ("that effect") and insert ("the effect that that is his practice").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment merely tidies up the wording of new Section 17(4)(c) so that its meaning is absolutely clear. If the shop occupier wishes to prove that the holiday resort exemption applies in any case of contravention of Section 17, the notice that he displays under new Section 17(2) of the 1950 Act has to contain a statement to the effect that he gives all his shop assistants a holiday on full pay of not less than two weeks a year. The notice does not also have to contain a statement that the shop is situated in a holiday resort. This was a possible interpretation of new Section 17(4)(c) as it is currently worded in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 37 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
[Amendment No. 38 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I have to inform the Committee that Amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 41 should be, but are not, due to a printing error, in the names of the Lord Bishop of London, the Lord Graham of Edmonton, the Earl of Lauderdale, and the Lord Beaumont of Whitley.
[Amendments Nos. 39 to 41 not moved.]
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 9, leave out lines 45 to 47.
The noble Viscount said: This is simply a drafting amendment. Section 6(c) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1984 amends article 8 of the order set out in the schedule to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967. As the relevant part of article 8 is repealed expressly in Schedule 3, on page 9 at lines 12 to 17 above, there is no need to repeal Section 6(c). I beg to move.
Lord Renton: As this is the final amendment we are, considering, I hope that I may be allowed to say how much I admire the remarkable way in which my noble friend Lord Glenarthur has grasped, as a layman, the complexities of this Bill. Without his assistance we

427
would have been in even greater difficulties than we were. We should be most grateful to him.
Lord Glenarthur: I am most grateful to my noble friend. I am also grateful to him for the enormous help he has been in seeking to speed the progress of the Bill so far. However, we have other stages to go.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I should like a tribute to come also from the Cross-Benches. We on these Benches have appreciated enormously the industry, courtesy and thoroughness of the noble Lord. We are truly grateful.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Without any authority whatever the noble Lord has given us nothing, and we are looking forward to something at later stages. I shall be much more flattering in my praise at later stages when that happens. However, I share the expressions of thanks from the Committee. I do not take from anything that has been said other than that the Minister has genuinely tried to understand our arguments. He has been unable to accept almost all of them, but we have had the feeling on this side of the Committee that he is genuinely sincere when he says that there are things worthy of consideration at a later stage. I certainly share in the expressions of gratitude.
On Question, amendment agreed to,
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  AUSTRALIAN BICENTENARY
  AUSTRALIAN BICENTENARY
  UNESCO WITHDRAWAL: BRITISH COUNCIL ROLE
  UNESCO WITHDRAWAL: BRITISH COUNCIL ROLE
  UNESCO WITHDRAWAL: ALLOTMENT OF SAVINGS
  UNESCO WITHDRAWAL: ALLOTMENT OF SAVINGS
  KENWOOD HOUSE: AREA FOR TRANSFER
  KENWOOD HOUSE: AREA FOR TRANSFER
  DOORSTEP SELLING: EC DIRECTIVE
  DOORSTEP SELLING: EC DIRECTIVE
  COMMON LAND: UNAUTHORISED WORKS
  COMMON LAND: UNAUTHORISED WORKS