Sitting of 1 July 1986

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords]
GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 2) BILL. [Lords]
Read a Second time, and committed.
BLYTH HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second reading read.
To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Pension Books (Issue)
    Mr. Gregoryasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average length of time between the receipt of applications for state pensions and the issue of pension books; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Major): Invitations to claim retirement pension are issued four months before pension age. This period is normally sufficient to allow for any necessary inquiries to be made, for the claim to be decided and for an order book to be issued in time for payment on the due date.
    Mr. Gregory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment on the normal time. Is he aware of the anxiety that a number—admittedly, a minority—of pensioners experience if their books are not issued by that date? Will my hon. Friend investigate the reasons for any delays at Newcastle?
    Mr. Major: I am aware of that anxiety. As far as I am aware, it is not a significant problem at Newcastle. Where it does occur, there is absolute provision for a Girocheque to be issued to the beneficiary so that he does not have a delayed payment of pension.
    Mr. Rowe: Regarding the issue of Girocheques, is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety about the possibility of a change being made in the way in which people living in residential institutions receive their pensions? Can he give an assurance that no change will be to the detriment of their independence over their own money?
    Mr. Major: That matter arises on a later question today. We are still considering the results of the consultation paper that we issued. I can assure my hon. Friend that any changes will require the voluntary consent of the beneficiary.

    Mobility Allowance
    Mr. Spencerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about mobility allowances for sufferers of myasthenia gravis; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I am not aware of any recent representations specifically about suffers of myasthenia gravis.
    Mr. Spencer: Is my hon. Friend aware that myasthenia gravis is a rare neurological condition which afflicts one in 30,000 of the population, and that most of them, such as my daughter, strive to lead normal lives, but the fluctuating nature of the symptoms makes it difficult sometimes for many myasthetics to claim mobility allowance to which, for most of the time, they feel they are entitled? Can my hon. Friend assure the House that those fluctuating symptoms are fully taken into consideration by the appropriate boards?
    Mr. Newton: I can give my hon. and learned Friend the assurance for which he asked in the latter part of his question. The problem arises with a number of conditions, including multiple sclerosis, of which the medical adjudicating authorities have a good deal of experience. We must all accept that it can be a a difficult problem in the case of fluctuating conditions.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware that there is now a widespread feeling that, following the Lees case, the criteria for awarding mobility allowance has been tightened up, especially to the detriment of multiple handicap people whose ability to walk is affected by severe mental or sensory disabilities? In their interests, will he urgently consider the response that he has given to representations on that important matter?
    Mr. Newton: I am aware of the point that the right hon. Gentleman raises following the Lees case and, indeed, the Hilton case. I think he will understand that what is being sought is a clear and specific extension of the criteria for mobility allowance which raises difficult questions of resources. I have undertaken to look further at some of the points that have been made to me about particular issues.

    Resource Allocation Working Party
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about the effects of the application of the resource allocation working party formula and the current review; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): I have received a number of representations concerning various aspects of resource allocation and the review of the RAWP formula. Consultation on the review ended yesterday and I am expecting an interim report by the end of this year and then a full report.
    Mr. Chapman: As RAWP was introduced nine years ago, will my right hon. Friend say whether it has succeeded

    807
    in what it set out to do, or whether it is to be a permanent way of allocating resources in the Health Service? Whatever his answer, will the review consider the effect of RAWP applied not only between regional health authorities but by regional health authorities, because some district health authorities seem to be badly done by in the double application of the formula?
    Mr. Fowler: I give consideration to those points. The principle of RAWP is basically to put money where the people are. I think that that principle is accepted by both sides of the House. On sub-regional allocation, clearly the review's findings will be relevant not only when dealing with matters such as patient flow, but for regions in distributing money.
    Mr. Ashley: Before there are any changes in the RAWP formula, will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the crisis in north Staffordshire hospitals is infinitely worse than the problems in south-east England? Last winter there was one red alert in a London hospital, but there were continuous red alerts throughout the whole of north Staffordshire.
    Mr. Fowler: As I have just made clear, there is no question of abandoning the RAWP principle. The whole point is to try to get equal access to health care for people in equal need. We shall stand by that principle.
    Mr. McCrindle: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that, although few of us object to the transfer of resources to areas that have been ill-served in the past, there are some signs that in London and the south-east the position is becoming difficult? Without in any way suggesting that we should withdraw the extra allocation of resources to areas away from London, when my right hon. Friend has the review's report, will he consider increasing the resources to the Thames regional health authorities, which in some respects have larger waiting lists than some places far away from London?
    Mr. Fowler: We are considering that and other issues concerned with RAWP. Clearly it is important that the RAWP formula should reflect need as far as possible. That was the purpose of setting up the review.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that, when he has had time to study the RAWP review, he will consider the important report by the Faculty of Community Medicine, which was published today, about some of the bad aspects of the way in which we measure up on the league table of health in relation to other countries? Will he also assure the House that he is now fighting his departmental corner to get more money so that, when the interim and final reports are available, he can do something about the problem?
    Mr. Fowler: I shall certainly be happy to respond to the report of the Faculty of Community Medicine. We would agree with a number of its points. We agree that the prevention of disease and promotion of health are vital. However, some of the statistics used by the faculty were selective. It took life expectancy figures from the age of 45, but if life expectancy figures from birth are taken, the United Kingdom is near the top, not the bottom, of the league.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the complaints from Hope hospital in Salford down to St. Thomas's hospital in London are not so much about RAWP as about the total cuts in the Health Service?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman knows enough about this position to be aware that there have been no cuts in resources going into the Health Service. He knows perfectly well that the budget, which was 0·75 billion, has been increased to £18·75 billion. However he does the arithmetic, that cannot be regarded as a cut.
    Mr. Sims: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in times of increased costs—with the reasons for which we are both familiar — even relatively well-resourced authorities need substantial increases in funds each year simply to maintain, let alone to improve, the services that they already operate?
    Mr. Fowler: Clearly, demographic factors and medical advances have to be taken into account. My hon. Friend will acknowledge that health authorities must also use the resources at their disposal to the best effect.
    Mr. Meacher: Is not the misapplication of RAWP one major reason why the Royal College of Physicians reported yesterday that, after seven years of Tory Government, Britain is now one of the unhealthiest countries in the developed world, with low life expectancy and high rates of disease and handicap? Is not the other major reason the fact that the Government are now spending 50 per cent. less on health as a proportion of gross national product compared to the French, the Germans and the Americans? When will the Secretary of State recognise that RAWP cannot work properly while the NHS remains so grossly under-funded by the Government?
    Mr. Fowler: I wonder why the hon. Gentleman never compares it with the Labour Government. As he well knows, the Government are spending 24 per cent. more in real terms than the previous Labour Government. We are treating more patients, the capital building programme has been restored and the Health Service is developing into a better Health Service. We will stand not only on our record but on a comparison of that record with the record of the previous Labour Government.

    Supplementary Benefit
    Mr. Andrew Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will review the limit on supplementary benefit board and lodgings payments made to those in residential homes who become disabled after retirement age so as to bring it in line with the limit applicable in respect of those who are disabled before that age.
    Mr. Newton: While we have no plans to do precisely what my hon. Friend suggests, the new limits proposed from 28 July seek to assist those he has in mind by introducing a substantially increased limit for elderly people in residential care homes who are blind or who qualify for the higher rate of attendance allowance.
    Mr. Bowden: I welcome the increases in the limits, but how can my hon. Friend justify a position whereby a person who has retired one day after his birthday will receive a lower allowance if he is disabled on that day than a person who is disabled one day before reaching pensionable age? Surely urely that is not fair.
    Mr. Newton: The general position was made clear when we introduced the original limits under the regulations. There is a special position for the younger physically disabled, many of whom might he very young and perhaps

    809
    multiple handicapped. We made it clear that there is a distinction to be drawn between them and the general run of people becoming disabled by advancing years. I accept that there are some problems, but broadly it is a reasonable distinction.
    Mrs. Beckett: If I understand the Minister's answer, he is saying that those who become blind after retirement will continue to receive a different rate from those who retire when they are blind. If I understand it correctly, as 83 per cent. of those who become blind do so after retirement, the Minister is really saying, "For heaven's sake, if you are going blind, do it the day before you are 65."
    Mr. Newton: That is a rather facile point for the hon. Lady to make. She will realise that one of the difficulties we face—for example, in relation to representations about blindness — is that blindness is only one of a number of potentially disabling conditions that arise after retirement age. We have felt it right to deal generally with severely dependent elderly people.

    Students (Benefits)
    Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he now expects to bring forward his regulations on benefits to students.
    Mr. Fowler: The regulations will be debated tomorrow.
    Mr. Pike: When the Secretary of State made his statement on 18 June, he will recall that he refused repeatedly to say how many losers there would be as a result of the change that was being announced. Will he say now how many people will lose as a result of the changes? Is it not a disgrace? Is it not time that he sat down with officials at the Department of Education and Science and worked out a fair policy for all our students?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not accept any of that. As I said when I made the statement, 400,000 students are affected overall: 140,000 gain the full £36 but, because of the concessions, many fewer and smaller housing benefit losses are taking place. Students are not normally affected by losses from more than one source. In other words, they are not cumulative. It is not possible to give the exact figures that the hon. Gentleman has asked for, and that is what I said in my statement.
    Mr. Norris: As students in this country enjoy a level of public support way beyond those of all our Western competitors, does my right hon. Friend agree that the right way to proceed in this matter is, first, to consider again the principle of student loans; secondly; to consider that it is wholly inappropriate for students to be financed through a system of supplemetary benefit and housing benefit, which is essentially aimed at a completely different section of society; and, thirdly, that it is of paramount importance to co-ordinate such decisions as are made about students with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, certainly. I entirely accept my hon. Friend's points. The aim of the proposals is to return to a position where help for students is channelled through the education maintenance system. That aim was set out in the social security Green Paper and in the White Paper. Twenty years ago no students claimed in that way. Now most do so at an annual cost approaching £120 million in
    810
    the social security budget. It is wrong to have a system which encourages young people to depend on social security. That is why we are taking this action.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister explain how it is possible to calculate how much the changes will cost if he does not know how may people will still lose? How many times in the past has the Treasury come up with extra money without being told the detailed numbers involved? Is he satisfied that there is now sufficient information in local benefit offices to enable students to get their rights rather than the rights that they thought would be removed?
    Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that information is available in local offices, I will investigate the specific cases. As I have said before, there are a number of matters about which we can be certain. For example, the provision for unemployment and supplementary benefit probably affects 70,000 people. However, I must return to the point that it is impossible to give an exact figure of the kind requested by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), for the simple reason that the losses are not cumulative in the way that the hon. Member for Burnley believes.

    Commercial Surrogacy
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to introduce further legislation extending the controls over commercial surrogacy arrangements.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I am keeping the need for amending legislation to the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 under review.
    Mr. Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend condemn tine vile practice of surrogacy and womb leasing arrangements which are reported still to be occurring even with the Reproductive Freedom International Organisation run by Miss Lorrien Finley? Surely any kind of womb leasing for financial gain is contrary to the law and the spirit of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. Should not people involved in that practice be prosecuted? Is it not a privilege to have children? People should not play on the emotions of others and make financial gain, which is contrary to the Act.
    Mr. Hayhoe: The concern expressed by my hon. Friend would be held by many hon. Members. I have seen the recent reports, and I understand that there has been a police investigation into that particular case, and the Department of Public Prosecutions is considering the report.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) on accepting and recognising that there is a limit to how and where the free market should operate and that morality is more important than the policies of greed and monetarism? Will he ask his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East to accept that the same principle should apply across the board in relation to the Health Service and social services and accept that morality does comes before profit in the Health Service and the social services?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Of course morality comes before profit in the Health Service.
    No one who heard the exchanges earlier between my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Oldham, West

    811
    (Mr. Meacher) on this matter could have failed to hear my right hon. Friend make it abundantly clear that increased resources have been allocated to the National Health Service. That is a clear indication of the Government's priorities.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people absolutely loathe commercial surrogacy and expect the Government to act quickly and not simply have the matter under review?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Commercial surrogacy was dealt with in the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. The suggestion now made is that the individual concerned may be falling foul of the Act, in which case no doubt the DPP will take the necessary action. We are considering whether there is a need to amend legislation to take account of these practices, which would not be illegal under the terms of the 1985 Act.
    Mr. Dalyell: In the mouths of Ministers of all Governments the phrase "under review" has many parliamentary meanings. Can we expect any end product to this particular review?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in terms of parliamentary language. Certainly when I say that the matter is under review, I mean that it is under review.

    Waiting Lists
    Mr. Favellasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the reasons for variations of waiting lists between regional health authorities.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): There is no simple answer to my hon. Friend's question. Variations in waiting lists can be caused by a multiplicity of factors relating to the efficiency with which resources are used and to the resources available in a particular place.
    Mr. Favell: In regions where health authorities have failed to get their act together to reduce waiting lists, should not health authorities be forced to contract out medical services? Is my hon. Friend aware that in Wales two private kidney dialysis units have been introduced to help the Health Service and that in the past 12 months the number of kidney patients has increased from 30 per million per head of population to 55 per million, and lives are already being saved?
    Mr. Whitney: My hon. Friend has made an important point. Ministers have made it clear that a reduction in waiting lists is an urgent priority for the NHS and the health authorities.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister look into the problems experienced in my constituency? Due to the closure of hospitals that accommodate geriatric patients, those patients have had to be transferred to general hospitals. As a result, the number of beds available for general medical care in those hospitals has been reduced, which has created problems in the Yorkshire region. Will the Minister look into the closure of hospitals in which geriatric patients predominate?
    Mr. Whitney: The diversion of resources must be a matter for the decision of local health authorities in the
    812
    light of needs. The closure of beds has been the policy of Governments of both parties for some years. However, I am glad to say that under this Government the number of patients treated has increased remarkably.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable improvement in the facilities and nursing beds available at Grantham hospital, and will he welcome that fact? Is he further aware that there is a feeling among medical staff that, because of the shortage of medical staff and under-provision, those facilities are not being fully used? Will he inquire into those complaints to see whether there is any justice in them?
    Mr. Whitney: I am glad to hear about the situation in Grantham, and I will certainly look into that latter point.
    Mr. Corbett: Is the Minister aware that in the West Midlands regional health authority area, and in Birmingham in particular, people have to wait for up to seven years to get on the waiting list for ear, nose and throat treatment? Moreover, a consultant at the Queen Elizabeth hospital has written to kidney patients virtually telling them that unless they are at death's door, they will not get an operation. What will the Minister do about that?
    Mr. Whitney: As I said, we have made it clear that the improvement of waiting times has very high priority. That is why resources are being steadily increased. As the hon. Gentleman may know, a pilot project has been funded in the west midlands to examine the effect of referral practice by providing general practitioners with additional information about waiting times in other districts.
    Mrs. Currie: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Southern Derbyshire health authority waiting lists are generally low, which contrasts greatly with waiting lists of over 1,000 gynaecology patients, some of whom have been waiting more than four years? I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that that is totally unacceptable. Is it not time to take another look at the report of the Social Services Committee on medical education, which recommended the appointment of far more consultants? That might attract them back into the hospital service, where the problems now lie.
    Mr. Whitney: I welcome the low waiting list in south Derbyshire. The appointment of consultants is a matter for the judgment of the health authorities, and it is not subject to any control exercised from the centre.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister believe that patients themselves should be forced to shop around to find the shortest waiting list? Is he aware that one of my constituents, who needed a hip replacement operation, was told that he would have to wait several years? However, he rang about six area health authorities in England and eventually had his operation at Guy's hospital, London. Is that the sort of Health Service that the Minister believes in? Does he not think that a health authority should help patients to transfer to areas that have shorter waiting lists, so that people are not forced to wait an inordinately long time for operations?
    Mr. Whitney: As I have already made clear twice, we are determined to bring down waiting times. I am also glad to note that waiting lists have been significantly reduced during the period that this Government have been in office. I remind the House that in March 1979 waiting lists

    813
    stood at 752,000 and that at 30 September 1985 waiting lists had been reduced to 661,000. That is the latest recorded figure.
    Mr. Squire: I welcome both the reduction in waiting lists and the much greater efficiency which they has often demonstrated is now abroad within the Health Service. However, does he agree that waiting times of nine months — and years in some cases—are simply unacceptable to people who often are in great pain?
    Mr. Whitney: Yes, Sir, but I remind my hon. Friend that entry for hospital operations is virtually immediate in 50 per cent. of cases.
    Sir John Farr: As waiting lists can be a matter of life or death, is there not a strong case for linking all the different waiting lists by national computer? Will my hon. Friend look into this question and see what can be done?
    Mr. Whitney: We have financed a project in the west midlands to examine this possibility. We are awaiting the outcome of that examination.
    Dr. Marek: Despite the completely misleading figures that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends rabbit on about at every available opportunity, the public know that the National Health Service is having cuts imposed upon it by this Government and that waiting lists are unacceptably high. Is not the truth of the matter that the regional health authorities do not know where to turn to continue to provide a proper service? Is it not also true that in the last four to five years we have been suffering from an unacceptably high plateau of waiting lists? Exactly how does the Minister propose to bring them down?
    Mr. Whitney: If there are any misleading figures, they come from the Opposition Benches. I have already reminded the House that waiting lists have been reduced under this Government. If the hon. Gentleman would like further accurate figures, I remind him that in 1984 the National Health Service treated over 800,000 more inpatient cases than it treated in 1978, over one third of a million more day cases and over 3 million more our-patient cases.

    Family Credit
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received on the intended incentive effect of family credit.
    Ms. Clare Shortasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultation process is being undertaken on his proposals for family credit.
    Mr. Fowler: We have received a number of representations on the incentive effects of family credit, as well as on other matters, as part of the consultation process which began with the issue of the Green Paper last year. More recently, as part of our reconsideration of the payment mechanism for family credit, we have had further discussions with a number of organisations that are closely affected. As already announced, following that reconsideration the Government have decided that family credit will be paid direct, rather than with wages, when the new scheme is introduced in 1988.
    Mr. Marlow: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, but will he expand on it a little? If a man goes out to work
    814
    and family credit is payable, I understand from what my right hon. Friend says that it will be payable to the mother. If the woman goes out to work and the man stays behind, will family credit be payable to the husband, or do the Government take the view that the housewife is more committed to the welfare of her children than her house husband? If the Government take that sexist view, would they like to clear themselves with the European Court of Justice to save themselves future embarrassment, or do they take the view that the European Court of Justice has no status on this issue, or that, if it has any status, it should not have any such status?
    Mr. Fowler: I am glad to be able to reassure my hon. Friend that the position is the same as with family income supplement. I think my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that under the family credit proposals we are providing £200 million extra for low-income families in this country, and we estimate that that will affect about 200,000 additional families.
    Ms. Short: Does the Secretary of State admit that the real policy underlying this proposal is to try to force down wage levels by paying family credit through the employer, thereby encouraging employers, in addition to the other methods that the Government are using, to force down the wages of the low paid? Is that not what this is all about?
    Mr. Fowler: I think that that is entire rubbish. Had the hon. Lady had more time to reflect on what she was about to say, perhaps she would not have uttered it. We are directing £200 million extra to low-income families. I should have thought that was exactly what anyone of any sense anywhere in the House would want to do.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: What is my right hon. Friends latest estimate of the saving that will accrue due to the passing of the Social Security Bill?
    Mr. Fowler: I cannot give a figure of that kind at this time.
    Mr. Meacher: Now that the Government have been forced to back off from their ill-advised and unpopular proposals, not only on family credit but on SERPS, the 20 per cent. housing benefit cut, discretionary disability payments, the 2 per cent. personal pensions bribe and now social fund appeals, is it not time that the Secretary of State recognised that everywhere outside this wet House of Commons the Bill is universally detested? Now that his last three years' work has crumbled into a ragbag of disconnected cuts without logic or structure, should he not do the honourable thing and either withdraw the Bill or resign?
    Mr. Fowler: I think that the hon. Gentleman should know, and perhaps does know, enough about the House of Commons procedure to realise that some of these things will come back and some of these things may be put right. My hon. Friends, in Committee and on Report, if I may say so, having won entirely the argument with the hon. Gentleman on the Social Security Bill, I am bound to say that I think the Bill will do what it set out to do, which is to direct more help to people in real need.
    Mr. Yeo: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) says, is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a very warm welcome for the way in which the Government have allowed a change in

    815
    the intended method of payment of family credit? This is seen as an example of the Government's flexibility and sensitivity to the needs of this group.
    Mr. Fowler: I think that that is right. Had we accepted the amendment tabled on Report by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) we would have had the worst of every conceivable world. We have changed, and I make no apology for that, but what we have not done is to change in the remarkably foolish way that the hon. Gentleman proposed.

    Mentally Ill and Mentally Handicapped People
    Mr. Allan Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he envisages that a central bridging fund will be established for the development of community care services for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped.
    Mr. Hayhoe: The Government have consistently recognised that bridging finance can help to secure the successful transition from one pattern of service to another and regions have been encouraged to plan accordingly. But there has been little real demand from health authorities for a central bridging fund as such to supplement the centrally earmarked resources of joint funding and the care in the community initiatives.
    Mr. Roberts: Why does the Minister have a central bridging fund in Wales and not in England? On both sides of the House we all support the concept of the mentally ill and mentally handicapped being cared for in the community rather than in large institutions, but the Government are throwing them out of the institutions and not giving local authorities the money that they need to provide the community facilities to support these people, to house them and to look after them. With cuts in rate support grant and rate capping, the burdens are intolerable. Even Tory-controlled Sefton in my constituency has had its staffing levels turned down by the regional health authority because they are too high. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about it?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I reject the absurdly exaggerated comments of the hon. Gentleman. The arrangements in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, and the different arrangements there will he kept under close study by my right hon. Friend and myself.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister look at reports published this week in the Yorkshire Post, which reveal most disturbing circumstances in private nursing homes in Hull, Leeds, and Bradford? Will he examine those reports and make sure that such circumstances are not allowed to recur in other places?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I think that disturbing conditions in homes, whether private or public, deserve careful examination.
    Mr. Norris: Will my right hon. Friend remember that the Select Committee, which considered the principle of community care laid great store on the provision of bridging finance, bearing in mind that the cost per patient in large institutions rises as those who are transferred leave a smaller number to bear the overhead costs? Will he consult the chairmen of the health regions to ensure that there is a known mechanism for the provision of bridging finance where necessary?
    Mr. Hayhoe: These matters are considered in the normal review processes with the region. I am glad to say that more of the regions are making these arrangements. It is also essential that there should be good co-operation between the social services departments of local authorities and district and regional health authorities. Again, I am doing what I can to encourage that co-operation.
    Ms. Harman: When will the Minister recognise that the DHSS figure of 2 per cent. per year growth for social services is insufficient to maintain, let alone improve, the standard of services? Is he aware that the Government must now increase that figure, not least to meet the extra cost of community care that is not met by joint finance? Is he further aware that unless the Government do so, the care in the community policy will continue to represent a reduction rather than an increase in support for vulnerable and dependent people who are living in the community?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Yes, Sir. Of course I accept the pressures for additional funds. It is worth noting that the national joint financing allocation in 1986–87 was £111 million, an increase in real terms of over 60 per cent. in the figure for the last year of the last Labour Government.

    Specialised Operations and Treatments
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will establish an organisation to coordinate demand for specialised operations and treatments, providing for the early distribution of patients to appropriate centres; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Whitney: The Department is already funding a pilot project in the west midlands to assess the effect upon the referral practice of general practitioners of providing them with additional information about waiting times for general surgery in other districts. Any proposals for a wider-ranging system would have to await an assessment of that project.
    Mr. Greenway: Assuming the project to be successful, will my hon. Friend consider establishing a national databank containing treatments and operations available so that people who need treatment and operations can he directed immediately to areas where they are available, so reducing waiting lists and talk of non-existent cuts in the Health Service?
    Mr. Whitney: We shall consider carefully the results of that project. Quite apart from the outcome of that, as my hon. Friend knows, the reduction of waiting times is a clear priority for the Health Service.
    Mr. Pavitt: Does the Minister realise that the referral of patients by general practitioners for specialised operations, and the crisis in acute beds that exists at the moment in the whole of the home counties, means that the time he is spending on the regional survey is not enough? He should consider the way in which the distribution of patients affects the catchment areas of district health authorities and get rid of the system whereby funds are cut purely because of population statistics.
    Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman will know that the review of the RAWP formula is just being completed, as my right hon. Friend has advised the House. Part of that study will include the sorts of factors to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

    Patient Services (Costs)
    Mr. Galleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information is available to his Department about comparative unit costs for providing patient services in different health authority areas and different hospitals.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Unit costs are reported to the Department annually for each hospital in England and for other services. Summaries of these costs for the regions and for England are published. In addition, the performance indicators published by the Department include detailed information about unit costs, which health authorities can use to compare their own performance with that of other districts.
    Mr. Galley: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that unit costs for private patient services in some parts of London are 30 per cent. higher than in the regions, even taking account of the London weighting factor? Will he make more readily available in published form the comprehensive comparative information about efficiency so that we may know which are inefficient and uncaring authorities and which authorities care enough to make the best use of their resources?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Yes, I shall certainly consider the possibility of publishing these figures. In regard to the comparison between London and the rest of the country, in the large acute hospitals of over 300 beds the highest average cost per in-patient case is in the North-West Thames region, where it is £901. That compares with a figure for the Oxford region, the lowest, of £579, and for Yorkshire, the second lowest, of £602. The English average is £714. That shows the higher costs in the Thames region, which are partly explained by London weighting and the concentration of more expensive types of cases being treated in those hospitals.
    Mr. Ashton: If all those statistics are available to answer what seems to be a planted question, why is it that the Minister, when I put down written questions about my area, says that I should ask Trent regional health authority? Why is it that he can supply those statistics when he feels like it, but, every time Opposition Members ask questions about statistics and comparisons, we are referred to the regional health authorities?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The figures that I have given are published figures that can be found in the Library of the House.
    Mr. John Mark Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that costs and services in Solihull will be greatly improved by the decision to give us a district general hospital? Will he acept the appreciation of the people of Solihull for that decision?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Yes, indeed. It is important that we take note of the considerable progress being made in many areas in improving health care facilities by the application of RAWP policies.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Q.1 Mr. Hirstasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I was present at Victoria station to meet President
    818
    von Weizsacker of the Federal Republic of Germany at the start of his state visit to this country. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall attend a state banquet at Buckingham palace in honour of the President of Germany.
    Mr. Hirst: Has my right hon. Friend found time since her return from The Hague to read a major policy speech by the Secretary of State for Energy, in which he predicted that the world faces a severe energy crisis and shortage if nuclear power is discontinued? Does she agree that he iis right to stress the importance of vigorous action by the international community to secure the highest standards of safety, design and operation of nuclear power? Will she contrast his responsible lead with the foolishness of the Opposition, who believe that nuclear power may be dangerous and would take 30 years to phase it out?
    The Prime Minister: I read that most excellent speech and commend it to all who have not read it, and those who have read it to read it again. It set out an excellent basis for nuclear policy. It pointed out the importance of nuclear power, and I should have thought that right hon. and hon. Members would welcome it. It was a source of energy pioneered in this country and, rather than denigrate it, we should develop it.
    Mr. Soley: As the Prime Minister was understandably moved when she visited the memorial to the holocaust in Israel, and bearing in mind that those terrible events came about as a result of one racial group trying to dominate another, when will she stop trying to appease the South. African Government?
    The Prime Minister: The last part of the question does not follow from the first. May I make it clear that this country believes in defending its freedom, and I wish that the Labour party would do the same.
    Mr. John Mark Taylorasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend find time during her busy day to reflect on wIlether she knows of any examples of countries securing their objectives by imposing sanctions? If she cannot, does she believe that the Leader of the Opposition might be able to do so?
    The Prime Minister: I know of no country where sanctions have been effective as an instrument to bring about internal change. That is the point in this case. Sanctions have never brought about internal change.
    Mr. Beith: Could a Government Minister be in a weaker position than to know when he negotiates with a foreign Government that his Government back home have not the political will to take action when he returns empty-handed? Is that not the lesson? That was the position in which Chamberlain put himself when he went to Munich.
    The Prime Minister: The Government do not believe in general economic sanctions; the Labour Government did not believe in general economic sanctions when they were in power; the European Community does not believe in general economic sanctions; the leader of the SDP does not believe in general economic sanctions; the deputy

    819
    leader of the Labour party does not believe in general economic sanctions. The hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition are isolated if they do.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend spare a moment during her busy day to consider something that many people do believe in — the launch of community radio in Britain? Will she accept that many people are disappointed by the postponement of that launch, which is the essence of radio broadcasting success elsewhere?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made a statement about that. His decision was right and I believe that it will be generally supported.
    Mr. Kinnock: On the day on which the Royal College of Physicians has published further conclusive evidence of the strong links between poverty, illness and early death, will the Prime Minister give us an undertaking that, in order not to add further to the pressures on the poor, she will accept the defeats inflicted on her Social Security Bill in the House of Lords?
    The Prime Minister: I accept that in some cases the report on health and community medicine said that experience in Britain has not been as good as in other Western countries, although it has been a jolly sight better than it was under Labour. In other areas we are ahead. For example, the British figure for infant mortality, while not as good as a number of countries, is still better than that of Germany, the United States, Belgium and Austria, and life expectancy at birth in Britain is higher than that in France, Belgium, Germany and the United States. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will read the whole report.
    Events in the other place are matters for consideration later.
    Mr. Kinnock: That is an interesting answer, Mr. Speaker, but is the right hon. Lady aware that the number of people—old people, families and disabled people—in poverty has doubled under her Government? Does she realise that if she does not accept the changes to the Bill, 4 million people will be pushed deeper into poverty and placed under greater pressure as a result of the measures of her Government? Will she accept that if that occurs they will not only suffer greater poverty but greater risk of ill-health and early death? Is that what the family party wants?
    The Prime Minister: The record of the Government on health, pensions and supplementary benefit is excellent. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that if he defines poverty as being equal to supplementary benefit, every time that supplementary benefit is increased in real terms, which the Government have done, those in poverty increase. If we wanted technically to reduce the numbers in poverty we would put down the level of supplementary benefit to where it was under the Labour Government.
    Mr. Butterfillasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Butterfill: When my right hon. Friend meets the President of the Federal German Republic, will she express to him the horror and the sympathy of this House at the news that 12 of his compatriots were brutally murdered by East German border guards the other day? Will she
    820
    express to him our regret that the Soviet Union continues to deploy 17 divisions in East Germany, propping up a puppet regime so repugnant to its own people that they are prepared to die to get away from it?
    The Prime Minister: We have read the reports of the tragic incident to which my hon. Friend refers, but we are not in a position to confirm or deny it, for obvious reasons. It reminds us of our duty to maintain the four-power status of Berlin, and, in particular, the freedom of West Berlin— a duty which we shall honour. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing the address of the President of the Federal Republic tomorrow.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: On a day when men of 90 years of age are demonstrating in another part of the world the futility of a war that should never have taken place, will the right hon. Lady give a guarantee to the House that our presidency of the European Council will be used to ensure that peace is extended throughout Europe and the rest of the world?
    The Prime Minister: I am certain that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who will be President of the Foreign Affairs Council, will carry out the job with great distinction.
    Mr. Alexander: Will my right hon. Friend consider, in the course of the day, adding to the respect and affection in which she is widely held in the country —[Interruption]—by recommending to those with authority in these matters that the royal wedding day should be declared a public holiday?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We are acting in accordance with precedent in not declaring the day a public holiday, but I am sure that it will he a very happy day for everyone.
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wallace: I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware that over £4 billion a year is spent on housing benefit, but is she aware that some private landlords are claiming, as direct payment of housing benefit, sums in excess of what would have been adjudicated a fair rent? Does the right hon. Lady not accept that that is a fraud on the taxpayer? Does she not think that, where public money is involved, all rents should be registered?
    The Prime Minister: If excessive sums are claimed for housing benefit, or through supplementary benefit, the matter should be referred to the appropriate authorities, which will deal with it.
    Mr. Chopeasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Chope: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to give a warm welcome to the national launch of the job restart scheme, which is the most far-reaching and imaginative scheme of its kind in Europe?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The job restart scheme has been generally welcomed by all who are interested in

    821
    trying to help the long-term unemployed find a job. The pilot schemes were very successful, and the scheme has now been extended to the whole country. I believe that most people will welcome its operation and that it will help most people who have hitherto been unemployed.
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hamilton: Has the right hon. Lady taken time to study the System Three poll report that was carried out in Scotland, which states that one person in four in Scotland is bitterly opposed to the administration of the Health Service in Scotland? Is the right hon. Lady aware that one in three people have stated quite categorically that they disagree with the privatising of the ancillary services? Will she now align her Government with the people of Scotland, who are bitterly opposed to her Administration and have voted solidly against the Tory Government in Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: More is spent per person on the Health Service in Scotland than is spent south of the border. I believe that far more is spent under this Government and that there is far better patient service in Scotland, more doctors and more nurses, than under the previous Administration. I believe that in general most people in Scotland are very grateful for the Health Service.
    Mr. Lathamasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Latham: Would we need all these difficult decisions on defence spending if untold billions of pounds had not been wasted over the years by the Ministry of Defence on weapons systems on which there is hopeless overspending and which then do not work? Will my right hon. Friend read the reports of the Public Accounts Committee and ensure that the fullest possible backing is given to Mr. Peter Levene in giving the whole sleepy system a jolly good shake-up?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is aware of the enormous increases in expenditure on defence under the present Government. I agree with him that it is absolutely vital to secure effective expenditure on those resources and
    822
    in particular to have regard to competition in procurement. I will pass on my hon. Friend's excellent message.
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wigley: In view of the Prime Minister's belief that she should enter negotiations about disarmament from a position of strength, why is she willing for her Government to enter negotiations with the South African Government from a position of weakness, without any threat of sanctions whatsoever? Will the Prime Minister tell the House when she is going to stop appeasing apartheid?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is a little confused. We are not talking about a battle in defence with South Africa—[HON. MEMBERS: "We are."]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Reverting to the question of South Africa, would the Prime Minister accept that, while there is very considerable support for the Foreign Secretary on his mission, if the South African Government fail to introduce major concessions as a result of that mission we would look to Her Majesty's Government to introduce additional measures as a mark of our great disapproval of what is going on in South Africa?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is aware that we have already introduced some measures first, as a result of an earlier Community meeting and then as a result of a Commonwealth meeting. I am sure that he will join me in saying that we hope that my right hon. and learned Friend's mission as the President of the Twelve in Europe will meet with success. Then we can reconsider the position.
    Mr. Allen McKay: While the Prime Minister is talking about the record, would she like to put on record and comment on the fact that the rules of guidance delivered to social security officers have deprived miners' widows and miners who are sick and injured of £2 to £3 a week, as the concessionary coal allowance must now be considered in rent rebates?
    The Prime Minister: As I said when the matter first came up, I am not aware of any changes in the instructions that have been given by the Government to those officers. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, if there is any dispute it can be taken to an appeal tribunal, of which I am sure his constituents will avail themselves.

European Council
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the European Council of 26–27 June, which I attended together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The conclusions of the Council have been placed in the Library of the House.
The Council concentrated on five main issues: the situation in South Africa; the creation of jobs within the Community; the completion of the Common Market; the international aspects of agriculture; and concerted action in the light of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl.
On South Africa the European Council expressed its grave concern at the imposition of censorship and the reimposition of the state of emergency by the South African Government and, more generally, at the deteriorating situation in the country at large. It reaffirmed that the goal of the Twelve is the total abolition of apartheid. It also agreed on a concerted programme of financial and material assistance from the Community and member Governments to the victims of apartheid, in particular those affected by the disturbances in Crossroads, and to political prisoners, including those arrested under the recent state of emergency.
In our own case we shall be making available a further £15 million over five years, mainly for education and training of non-white South Africans, and additional help for transport projects in neighbouring states. This is in addition to the £22 million which we are already giving.
The Council called for the opening without delay of negotiations between the South African Government and leaders of the black people in South Africa. To make such a dialogue possible, it called on the South African Government unconditionally to release Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners and to lift the ban on the African National Congress and other political parties. The Council also agreed that the Community should in the next three months enter into consultations with other industrialised countries on further measures which might be needed, covering a ban on new investment, and the import of coal, iron, steel and gold coins from South Africa.
Finally, the Council asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, in his capacity as President of the Foreign Ministers of the Twelve from today, to visit southern Africa in a further effort to establish conditions in which the necessary negotiations can commence.
On job creation, the European Council welcomed the programme put forward by the United Kingdom and some other member states for creating the conditions for employment growth. This calls for the job-creating capacity of small businesses to be maximised by reducing the burden of unnecessary regulations: for improved training; and for measures to help the long-term unemployed back into work. We want to see greater attention given to those matters within the Community and priority given to them in the operation of the social fund. This will be of particular value to the United Kingdom. Our proposals were clearly reflected in the Council's conclusions. We shall concentrate of implementing them during the United Kingdom's Presidency.
824
On the Common Market, the European Council urged more rapid decisions if the timetable of completing removal of the barriers to a genuine single market in the Community by 1992 is to be achieved. This will be another priority for the United Kingdom presidency because of the contribution which completion of the Market can make to creating jobs.
The Council selected some areas for early progress which are of particular interest to the United Kingdom, such as liberalisation of transport and of capital movements. On agriculture, the European Council recognised, as had the economic summit Seven in Tokyo, the need to look at agricultural subsidies and protectionism on a worldwide basis. It agreed that the problem of agricultural trade must be dealt with in the forthcoming round of international trade negotiations; that agricultural production in the European Community should be better adjusted to the market situation so that the share of public expenditure claimed by agriculture can be reduced; and that there should be bilateral discussions with other major agricultural suppliers to try to eliminate the problems of chronic surpluses and competitive subsidies.
The Council discussed the lessons to be learned from the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. It agreed on the need for better international collaboration on nuclear safety under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency. It called for general contamination tolerance levels for the Community to be established quickly on a scientific basis. The Council recognised that nuclear power would continue to have a vital role in meeting energy needs in the Community in future.
The Council also called for rapid progress on the easing of restrictions on passenger traffic across Community frontiers; on mutual recognition of professional qualifications; and on the action programme against cancer. It welcomed the intention of the British presidency to hold a conference of Interior Ministers in the autumn to discuss ways of improving the Community's defences against terrorism, drug trafficking and illegal immigration. This European Council set useful priorities for the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Community over the next six months, particularly in the creation of jobs.
The Council adopted a positive and constructive approach to the bitterly difficult problem of South Africa. We are well aware of the magnitude of the task facing my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in the mission on which he embarks, but all who genuinely want a peaceful solution will wish him well.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I can at least endorse the Prime Minister's last sentence. We wish the Foreign Secretary well and regret that the actions of the Prime Minister herself have added hugely to the magnitude of the Foreign Secretary's task. Is it not shamefully obvious that in The Hague last week the Prime Minister was continuing her Nassau habit of first participating in an agreement at a Heads of Government conference and then using the first press conference to rat on that agreement?
Does the Prime Minister recall that the Eminent Persons Group, including her nominee, Lord Barber, gave the clear view that
"the Botha regime is not prepared to negotiate fundamental change",
has
"moved consciously away from any realistic negotiating process"

825
and has been
"moving in the opposite direction"
from lifting bans on political organisations?
Does the Prime Minister not further recognise that the members of the EPG concluded that they could not
"see merit in further discussions"
and said:
"the Government of South Africa made it impossible for us to proceed further"?
In the mere four weeks since the EPG wrote that, what has changed in South Africa other than the passing of two further Acts of tyrannical legislation, the imposition of totalitarian controls on reporting, thousands more detentions and disappearances, and at least 100 more violent deaths?
Against that background, why does the Prime Minister believe that the Foreign Secretary can succeed with pleading where so many others have signally failed over the past few years? Can she not recognise, as the EPG recognised, that the absence of sanctions measures defers change and accelerates the descent into violence? Does she not recognise that her resistance to action does not reduce violence but makes it even more certain, both inside South Africa and against South Africa's neighbouring states? Is she aware that the mission of the Foreign Secretary might be more credible if she did not have a record as the appeaser of apartheid? By her record she has ensured that she, and the Foreign Secretary are seen as nothing more than glove puppets without even the weapon of sanctions to back up the views of the EEC?
I must ask the Prime Minister a question which is in the minds of many people, of all colours, in many countries: if the atrocities of apartheid were committed by a black minority against a white majority, would she respond to that horror and injustice with obstruction and evasion as she is at present? In these matters, those who stand aside, like the Prime Minister, stand condemned.
The Prime Minister: The decision taken at The Hague last week was a decision of 12 nations of the Community. They were united on the position. Our approach remains to promote peaceful change in South Africa. The mission of my right hon. and learned Friend has that objective. It was supported by all 12 nations of the Community and it should be supported by every hon. Member.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about sanctions. The last Labour Government in power were against sanctions. The present responsible Governments of all 12 nations are also against sanctions. The deputy leader of the Labour party is against sanctions. Sanctions have never been known to bring about internal change. Sanctions in Rhodesia did not bring about internal change. The matter had to be resolved by negotiation. My right hon. and learned Friend will try to help to resolve the matter by negotiation. All people of good will will wish him well.
Sir Peter Tapsell: In view of Britain's unique position in being, simultaneously, a member of the Security Council, the General Assembly, the EEC, the Commonwealth, and the Anglo-American alliance, is it not clear that my right hon. Friend is particularly well placed to play a constructive role in advising southern Africa on her affairs, and that she is wise to continue as she has in this long historical process — to retain her room for manoeuvre and negotiation at this stage rather than to indulge in the empty posturings of some right hon. Gentlemen opposite?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Mandatory sanctions were imposed on Rhodesia for nearly 15 years. They did not bring about internal change. They have never been known to bring about internal change.
Ms. Clare Short: What did?
The Prime Minister: The matter of Rhodesia had to be resolved by negotiations. How much better it would be to try to embark on negotiations now and to bend one's efforts to persuading the South African Government that that would be the wise course.
Dr. David Owen: Does not the Prime Minister accept that there is a widespread view in the Commonwealth and in the other western industrialised countries that some sanctions need to be applied; the question is, what sanctions? Since the Prime Minister believes in negotiating from strength with the Soviet Union, why does she believe in negotiating from weakness with President Botha?
The Prime Minister: I do not believe that we are negotiating from weakness in any way. Certain measures have been taken against South Africa. Certain contingency plans outlined in the communiqué are being made. We are not negotiating from weakness. We are negotiating in a way which we believe will have the best chance of success. We do not think that threatening further sanctions immediately or automatically will help to bring about the negotiations that we desire between the South African Government and the representatives of the black South African people?
Mr. Michael Grylls: My right hon. Friend spent a lot of time, rightly, in the summit considering the question of creating new jobs in the Community and reducing unemployment. Has it occurred to her that if she had allowed the Community to take trade and industrial sanctions, they would have reduced jobs in Britain as well as jobs for moderate blacks in South Africa? That would be the arch-hypocritical position to follow. Will my right hon. Friend keep up her good work, maintain her stand, and do everything she can to encourage the South African Government to keep up the momentum of internal reform which they have already started?
The Prime Minister: We shall follow my hon. Friend's advice. If there were ever any question of going for total economic sanctions, such measures would cause much more unemployment here and in South Africa as well as other fundamental strategic problems, putting the supply of raw materials into the hands of the Soviet Union and causing strategic defence problems. It would not bring about the change which we all wish to see.
Mr. Guy Barnett: As the right hon. Lady clearly regards economic sanctions as almost totally ineffective in putting pressure on the South African regime, why does she not recommend the use of force?
The Prime Minister: I do not recommend the use of force. I recommend the use of negotiation. Is the use of force now the policy of the Labour party?
Sir Ian Lloyd: Did the Council at any stage in the Brussels discussions attempt to define precisely what it meant by the abolition of apartheid? Did it mean merely the abolition of the appalling legislation to which the

827
Leader of the Opposition referred and the legislation which has appeared on the statute book since 1948, or did the definition imply that the standard of living—social, economic and political—of 20 million people should be raised in a short time to that of 5 million people? If it was the latter, surely it is a resource-intensive problem, unprecedented in scale, which will require billions, not millions, of pounds in aid? Is the West prepared to put its money where its mouth is?
The Prime Minister: In wanting to get rid of apartheid, we wish to get rid of the appalling difficulties which the black South Africans are made to suffer by virtue of the colour of their skin. The results of negotiations on a new constitution for South Africa would, of course, be a matter for those who took part in them. We should like to see those negotiations start. We should like them to succeed against a background of keeping the economic success of South Africa which exists now.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the right hon. Lady failing or refusing to see the obvious parallels between the South African regime today and the regime in Germany in the mid-1930s, with its belief in no democracy, no free speech, a super-race, inferior citizens and police repression? Will the right hon. Lady recognise that her appeasement—that is what it is—which is using almost precisely the same excuses as were used in 1938 and 1939, will be received with the same amused contempt in Pretoria as Chamberlain's appeasement was in Germany?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that many of us find a parallel in that. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be pursuing the previous question and wanting us to embark on force against South Africa. That might be the new Labour policy; it is not ours.
Sir John Farr: Despite all the pressure which my right hon. Friend will be under in the coming weeks to apply sanctions against South Africa, will she bear in mind that sanctions not only did not work in Rhodesia but, during that time, strengthened that country's economy?
The Prime Minister: I believe that that is so. There could be no way in which economic sanctions would work in South Africa, with its enormous coastline and with considerable numbers of countries and people who would bend all their efforts to conducting trade with South Africa which other countries would forgo. We should be embarking upon the whole thing for nothing. We should have more unemployment here, only to see the jobs picked up elsewhere. It would damage the cause of black South Africans, the economy of South Africa and the prospect of a peaceful South Africa finally emerging.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: The Prime Minister has announced that the Secretary of State must make two specific demands: first, the freedom of Nelson Mandela and, secondly, the legitimisation of the African National Congress. Will that be the Foreign Secretary's remit when he goes to South Africa?
The Prime Minister: Yes, of course, in accordance with the communique which states:
"In this context the European Council calls on the South African government:
— to unconditionally release Nelson Mandela and the other political prisoners;
828
— to lift the ban on the African National Congress, the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania and other political parties.
In the meantime in the next three months the Community will enter into consultations".
That was clearly and explicitly set out in the communique. Many of us believe that that is the key to getting negotiations started, which is what most of us desire.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the criticism that is frequently levelled against her for her uncaring attitude to peoples of the world and especially people of this country, in this instance she is showing an understanding of the reality of the position in southern Africa which should be appreciated by many other countries in the world? Would she sustain her opposition to sanctions, which will help nobody in this country or in South Africa? Will she use her ability to negotiate and consult, which the Opposition so often advise Her Majesty's Government to use when dealing with the Soviet Union and other such countries, as the basis of progress in what can be achieved towards the reform that we require in the Republic of South Africa?
The Prime Minister: We shall maintain our opposition to general economic sanctions on the basis that they would not produce the changes in South Africa that we would like to see. We shall maintain our efforts to get negotiations going because we believe that they would produce the results, if they could be got going, that we too want to see in abolishing apartheid and having a strong economy in South Africa.
Mr. Tom Clarke: The Prime Minister referred to the liberalisation of capital movements. Will she tell the House what she and the Council had in mind?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that from this country we have liberalisation of capital movements. That is not so with regard to some other countries in the European Economic Community, some of which still maintain controls on their foreign exchange movements. A number of us do not and we wish to have free movement of capital throughout the Community.
Mr. John Browne: Would my right hon. Friend accept that any peaceful solution in South Africa must, in the end, be acceptable to those in power? If so, why does she support proposals that offer no protection whatsoever to the white or coloured minorities rather than proposals for a universal franchise based on cantonal power that would offer protection to the minorities, and therefore be acceptable to those in power and have at least a chance of a peaceful solution?
The Prime Minister: May I make our view clear? It was a view also accepted by the Commonwealth at Nassau. It is not for us or anyone else to say what arrangements would come out of those negotiations for the protection of minorities and what would result from a wider constitutional convention. The arrangements will not be decided until the negotiations start. We believe that we may be able to help in promoting those negotiations. That was the view the Commonwealth took. Once they are promoted, it will be for all the people of South Africa—the black South Africans, the white South Africans, the Indians and the Cape coloureds— to decide on the future constitution they would like.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Why is it that the Prime Minister answers all the questions about

829
sanctions with a condemnation of general or total sanctions without reference to specific sanctions? Is that an accidental confusion on her part or is she preserving her room for manoeuvre so that she can support specific economic sanctions if they are recommended by the Foreign Secretary on his return?
The Prime Minister: Ah—so the hon. Gentleman is against general economic sanctions as well. We are getting somewhere. The hon. Gentleman is against general economic sanctions, but he may be in favour of selective sanctions. A number of selective and particular sanctions are already in place, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, through the action of the Community. [Interruption.] I hear the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) interrupting. When the right hon. Gentleman was in the Labour Government he wanted to sell defence weapons to South Africa.
Mr. Denis Healey: No! Absolute nonsense!
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call the right hon. Gentleman at the end.
The Prime Minister: Perhaps I may finish. The Crossman diaries, in dealing with whether armaments should be sold to South Africa, which I understand the then Prime Minister was very much against, said:
"George Brown began the attack saying that though he realized it was very painful one couldn't really go on being so unrealistic about the sale of arms. He was then supported by Denis Healey, who said one must surely make a distinction between arms which could be used for suppressing insurrection … and strategic arms—That is to say, the Air Force and the Navy which are needed for our own Commonwealth interests. He said we need the Simonstown base to be kept going by Soul .h Africa in our own interest and therefore we should sell South Africa maritime arms but not arms for domestic use."
If the right hon. Member for Leeds, East denies that, I will be happy to accept his denial.
Hon. Members: Answer!
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend agree that, while we all abhor the situation in South Africa—
Ms. Clare Short: No, you do not.
Mr. McLoughlin: —in relation to apartheid in South Africa, many people in this country believe—I hope that the Council of Ministers considered this — that we should not forget the abuses of human rights in other countries, such as the Soviet Union, which has invaded Afghanistan? Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister bear that point in mind when she considers these issues abroad?
The Prime Minister: We are very much aware of the abuses of human rights and of the problems elsewhere in the Commonwealth. We still wish to be instrumental in trying to bring about the end of apartheid in South Africa and to bring about negotiations which will maintain the economic success of South Africa, to the benefit of the people there and to the rest of Southern Africa, which benefits tremendously from the success of the South African economy. That is the view which we will continue to pursue.
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: How does the Prime Minister explain the fact that the great majority of
830
the British people and almost all members of the Commonwealth believe that she is the greatest friend in the West of the barbaric Government in South Africa? How does she hope to persuade the Commonwealth in August that she is on the right course?
The Prime Minister: As I said, the mission which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs undertakes when he travels to South Africa in an attempt to establish conditions under which negotiations can be brought about, is in a way a continuation of the Nassau mission which was very nearly successful. The Eminent Persons Group made much progress and it is the wish of the:12 countries of the Community that our Foreign Secretary should go to South Africa to represent them. I would have thought that that should be a matter of pride for this country.
Mr. Julian Amery: Will my right hon. Friend agree that, while personalities and parties are significant in these matters, the dismantling of apartheid really calls for the removal of the Group Areas Act and the inclusion of representative black Africans in the political process? Will my right hon. Friend ask her right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to concentrate on those two principles rather than on personalities and parties?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend about the removal of the Group Areas Act. That is absolutely crucial. I also agree that black South Africans should take part in the process of government. My right hon. and learned Friend's task was defined in paragraph 6 of the Communiqué.
"The European Council decided to ask the UK Presidency Foreign Minister to visit southern Africa, in a further effort to establish conditions in which the necessary dialogue can commence."
That is my right hon. and learned Friend's particular role, not to specify what should happen when negotiations commence.
Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, like her hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, she personally supports one person, one vote, black majority rule in South Africa?
The Prime Minister: I have already said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes or no?"]—that what comes out of the negotiations is not for us to determine. We will attempt to bring about the negotiations which we believe will lead to a system of government in South Africa that is acceptable to all people of whatever background.
Mr. John Carlisle: Should not my right hon. Friend's brave initiative and the lifeline that she has now offered to all South African people be welcomed by Conservative Members, the public, and in particular by those in South Africa? Do they not contrast sharply with the words of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who is deliberately stirring up violence and racial hatred in South Africa through his comments? Will she advise my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to look for more positive measures and that if progress is slow, the gun should not be held at the head of the South African Government by saying that economic sanctions will be imposed at the end of the day?
The Prime Minister: I have already outlined the role of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. I agree that the Opposition are behaving disgracefully in trying to undermine his mission.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the Prime Minister not understand that Governments who wish to negotiate with their own people do not imprison every leader with whom they could talk, and do not impose public order Acts, making it impossible for anyone to speak on behalf of any section of the black community? Does she not understand that her hypocrisy is totally unacceptable to many people in this country?
The Prime Minister: The decision to which I have referred was a decision made by 12 countries of the Community. They recognised in the communiqué that a dialogue cannot take place as long as recognised leaders of the black community are detained and their organisations are proscribed. That is why the communique went on to make statements about the release of Nelson Mandela and about lifting the ban on the African National Congress as being the view of 12 Community countries. There are, of course, many black leaders in addition to those who are detained, but if a dialogue is to take place, those who are detained should also be released and could take part in the negotiations. I had hoped that the hon. Lady might think that the views of 12 countries were worthy of consideration and of following up.
Mr. Michael Alison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), use the word "hypocrisy" about my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. May I suggest that you ask her to withdraw it?
Mr. Speaker: I did not hear that, but the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is a respected parliamentarian, and if she used that word, I am sure that she would wish to withdraw it.
Mrs. Dunwoody: My respect for you, Mr. Speaker, is very great; I withdraw the word "hypocrisy" and substitute for it "a total lack of standards".
Several Hon. Members rose— —
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must bear in mind that there is another statement this afternoon, followed by a ten-minute Bill, an application under Standing Order No. 10 and an important debate. Accordingly, I shall allow questions on this statement to continue for a further eight minutes. We must then move on.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: When my right hon. Friend was in The Hague, did she have a chance to consider the recent poll of blacks in South Africa, which showed that 76 per cent. of them were against the present violence? Does she agree that the Shadow Foreign Secretary's failure to meet Chief Buthelezi, who is the representative of many millions of blacks in South Africa, was a grave omission, and indicative of his bias and narrow mindedness?
The Prime Minister: It was because we were anxious to avoid a further escalation of violence that the 12 countries wished negotiations to be entered into. That is why they asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to go. I am sure that most people in South Africa are overwhelming against violence. They want to see change brought about peacefully, with a successful
832
economy in South Africa. I agree about the importance of talking to Chief Buthelezi, who represents the largest group of black South Africans—about 7 million Zulus.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Chief Buthelezi represents a very significant section of black opinion in South Africa? If so, in the difficult weeks ahead, will she bear in mind his speech last weekend, when he said that it was not in the interests of South Africa or of black people in that country to introduce mandatory sanctions?
The Prime Minister: I believe that that is the view held by many, and probably by the majority of, South Africans, when they realise just how much poverty and hardship sanctions would cause to almost all people in South Africa. It would be a very retrograde step,that would bring hardship there and here. It is not a moral but an immoral solution.
Mr. David Winnick: Has the Prime Minister any idea how much she has disgraced and humiliated the reputation and honour of this country by her appalling behaviour over South Africa? Is it any wonder that she is held in such great respect by the South African authorities, when they know that on every occasion she can be relied on in western Europe to resist measures to upset and undermine their tyranny? Is it any wonder that some people compare her with one of her predecessors, who could always be relied on in the 1930s to do anything to comfort Nazism, and who was known as the most notorious appeaser of his time?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is trying hard, but he is uttering the sternest of strictures against Socialist Governments in Europe, who wholeheartedly agree with the conclusion that we have just reached. Socialist Governments in power, even Socialist Governments in Britain, have also come out against mandatory economic sanctions. As the deputy Leader of the Opposition said when he was in a position of responsibility—which I hope he will never be again—
"I do not believe that a policy of general economic sanctions would be in the interests either of the British people or of South Africa." —[Official Report, 7 July 1976; Vol. 914, c. 1354.]
Mr. Frank Field: When the Prime Minister is searching for effective selective sanctions, will she bear in mind an instance when such sanctions were effective? I refer to the fact that the Americans were prepared to use sanctions against Britain at the time of Suez, and that that led, within days, to a reversal of our policy.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be the first to realise that South Africa's position is totally and utterly different. South Africa has enormous internal resources of agricultural products and materials, and could go on maintaining itself. It could sell its raw materials and finished products through third countries while still maintaining quite a good bit of trade.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: As everyone knows that my right hon. Friend hates apartheid and wants to see it brought to an early end, and as everyone understands her view that economic sanctions may not prove effective, is there not an even greater duty on her and the British Government to propose positive alternative steps in order to bring that evil doctrine and detestable regime to an early end?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that we proposed positive steps to help the black South Africans. The sum of £22 million is already being disbursed in South Africa and in the front-line states in order to help black South Africans with education and to supply alternative transport routes. We are adding to that about £15 million as a positive way of helping those whom we wish to help most.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: At the Council meeting, did the Prime Minister take the opportunity to contrast her approval of the South African regime by not imposing sanctions against it, with her refusal to condemn the United States for its act of war against the people of Nicaragua? Are not the utmost double standards at work if she is prepared to support apartheid but not to do anything to prevent the democratic Government of Nicaragua from being overthrown?
The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are trying to help to bring apartheid to an end in South Africa through negotiation. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman was in favour of peaceful change and would have noticed that there have been some movements that deserve his applause. I refer, for example, to bringing to an end forced resettlements and getting rid of the morality laws. The hon. Gentleman goes on about Nicaragua, but he knows that the Nicaraguan Government have decided to implement the existing state of emergency more severely, and have just closed the main independent newspaper.—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening to the questions, not to what is going on below the Gangway.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend provide some balance and try to show that a vast number of matters other than South Africa are debated and dealt with at The Hague? Will she assure the House that, during the six months of Britain's presidency, we shall massively
834
pursue the need to attempt to establish international standards for nuclear energy safety, both by the establishment of nuclear energy plants and by the reporting of nuclear energy accidents? This is of major importance for the whole world.
The Prime Minister: We discussed the Chernobyl accident and decided to pursue our efforts to improve the safety of nuclear installations through the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the only authority that has the requisite power to deal with the safety of nuclear installations. As to the safety of those who work in nuclear installations, we shall pursue that matter through the Community, under article 3 of the Euratom treaty.
Dr. Oonagh McDonald: Will not the Prime Minister accept that, by her actions at The Hague, she has bought time for herself, not for South Africa? Will she not futher accept that, as a first step towards full economic sanctions, financial sanctions on a debtor country such as South Africa will push Pretoria to negotiate and ultimately bring about democracy in that country.
The Prime Minister: I am not at all sure what, precisely, the hon. Lady is proposing. The retaliation on the resources that belong to other countries inside South Africa that would result from the hon. Lady's proposal could give an enormous financial benefit to South Africa.
Mr. Allan Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take the points of order at the end, in the usual place.
Mr. Roberts: It will be too late then.
Mr. Speaker: Order. the hon. Gentleman will have to wait.
Mr. Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order!

Transport Council
4.11 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Moore): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the meeting of Transport Ministers which took place in Luxembourg on 30 June and which discussed road haulage and aviation. In advance of the Council I submitted to the Select Committees on European Legislation last week an explanatory memorandum about a Community standard for drive axle weights. I was most grateful to them for their speedy response, and this statement responds to the suggestion that, following the Council, I should report progress to the House.
On road haulage, the Council agreed on a Community standard of 11·5 tonnes for the drive axle of five and sixaxled vehicles, to apply from 1992. As the House may recall, a 1984 directive set agreed standards for most of the weights and dimensions for road haulage vehicles operating between Community countries. The drive axle weight for these larger vehicles was left outstanding, with a requirement that it should be agreed as a matter of urgency. This is the decision which has now been taken.
As in the case of the earlier directive, which set some overall vehicle weights which exceeded our maximum of 38 tonnes, I was able successfully to negotiate, a derogation of unspecified length for the United Kingdom, to enable us to keep our current drive axle weight maximum of 10·5 tonnes. The directive states categorically that the duration of this derogation will be decided by unanimity, which means that our agreement is needed to what is decided. As my predecessor made clear, we remain committed to the undertaking that there should be no increase in the maximum weight until Parliament agrees and our roads are suitable.
To accompany the agreement on a drive axle weight standard, we successfully obtained Council agreement on the main lines of the way forward to full international road haulage liberalisation within the Community. First, and most important, the Council agreed on a cumulative increase in the Community quota of 40 per cent. per annum between now and 1992. Community permits are valid throughout the Community, giving road haulage vehicles valuable freedom to travel in any Community country. This will therefore provide new opportunities for our hauliers to compete freely on equal terms, and will progressively liberate them from the cumbersome bureaucracy of the present bilateral permit system.
Secondly, it was agreed that, while bilateral quotas exist, they will be adjusted to meet traffic needs, including the full requirements of transit traffic. Thirdly, the Council confirmed that from the end of 1992 the bilateral permit system will disappear altogether. The detailed arrangements to implement these principles will now be worked out within the Community, and our aim will be to finalise the necessary Community instruments so far as possible by the end of our presidency.
On aviation, the meeting confirmed that there remains a wide divergence of views, but the Council agreed on two important principles. First, there needs to be a package of measures to promote increased competition, covering market entry, air fares and the capacity that airlines can operate. Secondly, these measures are elements in the process of completing the internal market by 1992.
836
As with road haulage, there will need to be a gradual movement to fully liberal arrangements, but the need to complete that process by the end of 1992 has been established.
These are useful starting points. There remains a great deal to be done, and we must not underestimate the difficulties that lie ahead. My aim in the British presidency, which starts today, will be to build on these basic principles and, if possible, to reach agreement on the content of a first stage in the process towards the 1992 target. But success in this will depend on whether member states collectively are willing to put aside the restrictive practices to which they are accustomed. I put this question to the Council but did not get a clear answer. I shall need to pursue it during the British presidency. If the answer is that, despite the principles agreed yesterday, member states are not willing to make the effort, they will have to accept that the alternative is increasing court action and other steps to seek direct application of the treaty of Rome, particularly its competition rules.
Mr. Robert Hughes: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House to make this statement.
On the question of axle weights, will he make it clear and confirm that the derogation to which he has agreed is unaffected by the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which is currently going through Parliament? Secondly, will he confirm his opposition to any increase in lorry weights above 38 tonnes and above the axle weights in the derogation, and that the phrase in his statement
"no increase in the maximum weight until Parliament agrees and our roads are suitable"
is not a precursor for a change in policy?
Is the 38-tonne limit for European vehicles coming to this country still protected under the liberalisation of road haulage? Is the Secretary of State able to say what steps he has taken, or will take, to protect United Kingdom jobs under liberalisation if unfair competition emerges, especially in the context of social conditions for those who are employed in the road haulage industry?
On the question of aviation, will the Secretary of State say precisely what he means by "fully liberal arrangements"? Is this deregulation under another name? He will know that deregulation in the United States has led to lower safety standards, bankruptcies and a chaotic situation. I am sure that the Secretary of State would not want that situation to be paralleled in this country. Therefore, will he give a categorical assurance that he will make safety of paramount importance and that he will retain licensing arrangements to control the safety provisions?
How will the impending liberalisation affect the proposed sell-off of British Airways? Would it not be much better for the Secretary of State to concede that the privatisation of British Airways is now dead and finished with? Is he able to say how his regulatory system and the wide powers that are contained in the Airports Bill, which is currently going through the House, are consistent with liberalisation? For example, will he be able to control air traffic movements to different airports? Will the Secretary of State be able to pursue a policy of that kind if air traffic is to be liberalised? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to abandon that policy, which is contained in the Airports Bill?
Has Mr. Sutherland, the EEC Minister with responsibility for competition, now withdrawn his threat

837
to sponsor court actions until some progress has been made on liberalisation, or lower fares, or however the Secretary of State finally defines it? How soon does he think it will be before progress is made in reaching a compromise solution? Sadly, many airlines believe that the current uncertainty is damaging their business prospects and their opportunity to plan for the future. Will the Secretary of State confirm and ensure that, before any arrangements or deals are concluded, either on road haulage or on aviation policy, Parliament will be fully consulted and that the matter will be fully debated so that we may, I hope, be able to influence the right hon. Gentleman in reaching his final conclusions?
Mr. Moore: I shall try to cover the points that were made, and if I do not cover every detail I shall seek to write to the hon. Gentleman.
With regard to the point that he raised on weights and whether the European Communities (Amendment) Bill now going through Parliament in any way limits the unanimity provision that I secured, the answer is that it is in no way affected. The unanimity provision that I sought was parallel to that which my predecessor sought in 1984, and that takes place in regard to article 75(3). That obviously stays, as it is outside the legislation.
As to whether this is a precursor of any change, the answer is no, the Government's policy remains precisely as it was. We obviously have to get our bridges and roads in shape. My predecessor made the position quite clear to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman will know—he is very experienced in these matters—that there is a need for a considerable process of assessment of our bridges. At present it seems that about 20 per cent. of our bridges would be adequate for the traffic, but most need considerable enhancement.
With regard to the point that the hon. Gentleman made on the 38-tonne limit, this in no way enables foreign or other juggernauts above that point to cross our frontier, and in terms of derogation this is totally protected.
As to the hon. Gentleman's point on the protection of jobs, one of the crucial features of the liberalisation of lorry permits was the way in which our hauliers and our businesses wishing to go overseas would not be inhibited by the excessive bureaucratic permit structure that exists today. To that extent I hope and trust that this will amount to increased job opportunities not only for business but for our truckers.
The hon. Gentleman made other specific points. He asked me to define what I meant by liberalisation in terms of the treaty. What I do not mean is any diminution of safety. Safety in the air is clearly a crucial precursor to anything that we may seek to do in this respect. The three — four, some might say — basic arguments behind aviation liberalisation relate to greater market access, improvements in respect of fares, and capacity, within the competition rules. Our objectives will be to seek scope for real competition on fares, covering types of fares as well as fare levels to give the consumer a better deal. That is critical to us. We shall also seek scope for airlines to mount capacity on the basis of their commercial judgment and scope for airlines to be able to enter the markets and compete on routes that are already served or to start up new routes more easily with proper application of the competition rules.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether all this is consistent with the British Airports Authority legislation that is going
838
through Parliament and with the pattern of proper regulation. I see no reason to assume otherwise, especially in relation to the other point that he made regarding British Airways. British Airways has nothing to fear—quite the contrary. There will be an enhancement of competition opportunities in the Community. This will apply to other airlines also, such as British Caledonian —as, indeed, we saw from the excellent example of the British Midland service to Amsterdam yesterday. They all have everything to gain by this. I will of course seek, as I sought before the Scrutiny Committee, the support of Parliament on these substantial issues.
Mr. Terence Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend accept that completion of the internal market is an essential feature of the EEC, to which we are fully entitled, and for which we are already paying a very high price in contributions to the common agricultural policy? Will he therefore accept that there is no need to make any further concessions to secure it?
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the line that he has taken on lorry weights and axle weights, and the derogation that he has succeeded in securing. When that package was agreed by the House, grave doubts were expressed about towbar vehicles, which are impossible to overtake on anything other than a motorway. Will he consider carefully whether restrictions rather than liberalisation should take place in that respect?
Mr. Moore: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He has great knowledge of this matter. He is, or course, right. The commitment to the completion of the internal market is absolute, and all that we can do to help we obviously must do. However, I accept his point. I saw no need for concessions in this area—quite the contrary.
With regard to aviation, with some Community and Council colleagues we were seeking to argue very much what I would regard as the right case for the consumer and for our aviation industry.
On the question of towbars, I know that my right hon. Friend has deep knowledge of this subject. There is no change in the derogations that I was able to secure. The derogation on 40-tonne lorries which took place, as I recall, in December 1984 maintained the weight load at 32.5 tonnes for towbar lorries, and there was the 38-tonne derogation for non-towbar lorries. I shall look at his point without any commitment at this time.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is it not the case in regard to aviation that the principles that the Minister has enunciated are those pursued by his predecessor without success throughout his tenure of office? How much longer will it be before the Government are prepared to take action in the European Court?
Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman's point reminds me that I had not completely answered all the points of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who asked specifically about Commissioner Sutherland. I apologise for that.
The Commission has the decision whether it institutes article 89 proceedings. To the extent that that is a matter for the Commission, I cannot comment on whether it will seek to continue that. Although we would prefer to see the Council of Ministers and the Community as a whole succeed in this area, without recourse to law, I do not see that we can argue aggressively against other actions by the Commission. I would see this as a parallel process.

839
I am not sure that I accept the underlying critical note behind the hon. Gentleman's question. There have been substantive changes. Apart from the United Kingdom's continued leadership in this area, rightly, on behalf of the consumer and of our aviation industry, we saw a major change last week in the Council of Ministers at The Hague summit, where access, fares and capacity were the three key legs on which it was agreed that competition in aviation must be pursued. For the first time we have a Commission document. It is not adequate for the United Kingdom, but it is a Commission statement that includes capacity, fares and competition in advance of Council considerations. We achieved an agreement yesterday to the three fundamentals — access, capacity and fares, along with competition. As I said in my statement, I accept that implementation will be difficult. I know that the hon. Gentleman will seek to help me and British consumers to wage the good fight.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House in simple language what the United Kingdom wants for aviation in Europe? Can he also refute categorically the suggestion that there is any hard evidence that deregulation in the United States has resulted in a lowering of safety standards? Any analysis of the accidents in the United States shows clearly that this is not so. Accidents that can be directly attributed to lack of maintenance occurred on aircraft on flights in no way connected with deregulation.
Mr. Moore: I do not think that it is my role to comment on the United States' thriving airline industry, which seeks to serve the consumer with a sense of safety. That would be the role of Members of a different Parliament.
My hon. Friend asked what we want. I thought that I had been perfectly clear. We are asking options for consumers within a proper pattern of regulated safety to allow them to move freely on the same kind of price and opportunity terms that exist in other similar aviation marketplaces. We do not have that today. This will advantage not only the consumer but, I believe, our aviation industry and the European aviation industry. Those are two clear patterns of advantage.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: In respect of his term of office, can the right hon. Gentleman, for the sake of the House, name the countries which he expects to present the greatest difficulty in obtaining liberalisation?
Mr. Moore: I feel that that would limit my international effectiveness, if not my term of office, and I would prefer to seek to persuade rather than to argue in a confrontational way at the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: I welcome the continuing activity of my right hon. Friend on aviation liberalisation. Has he turned his attention to the possibility of action that could be taken by the British Government without reference to other members of the EEC? If he were to lean on British Airways to abrogate the agreements that exist between them and their European opposite numbers, that would surely give the opportunity for fares from this country to continental destinations to be reduced, even though it may not necessarily give similar advantage to people flying from, say, Germany or France.
840
After a period, might not public opinion in those countries begin to press the authorities if people realised that we had advantages which they did not?
Mr. Moore: I know my hon. Friend's intimate knowledge of and connection with the airline industry. Therefore, he will be aware that I announced to the House on 18 June that we were reviewing the machinery and procedure needed to allow us to apply the competition rules under article 88. I made it clear at the Council of Ministers that I shall do so if it proves impossible to reach a satisfactory agreement within the Council.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Will the Minister recognise that there is a potential conflict between civil aviation deregulation and safety standards? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is certainly the case that if prices are driven down far enough there will be a reduction in safety standards. Will the Secretary of State accept that Europe has a good record in airline safety? Will he ensure that nothing detracts from that?
Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman must remember the critical importance that we all place on safety. I know that that applies to the official Opposition. Safety is within the purview of the CAA. No airline flies under our safety regulations without CAA approval. The hon. Gentleman should not assume that there is a conflict between safety and the opportunities for the consumer through competition, so long as we ensure that the CAA is responsible. I do not believe that there is a conflict.
Mr. Keith Speed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if we applied the same restrictions to German and other imports as they apply to our aircraft industry, particularly our thriving independents, there would be uproar in Europe'? May I reinforce him in everything that he is trying to do to liberalise the position, which will help consumers throughout Europe, and particularly the British aviation industry, which is the best in Europe?
Mr. Moore: I feel I ought to agree with almost everything that my hon. Friend said. Yesterday I made it clear—and I ask for the support of both sides of the House— that we need the support of the consumer to press upon Governments less liberal in their attitudes than ours the need to develop competition that will benefit not just our consumers but our independent aviation industry.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I thank the Minister for mentioning the scrutiny procedure. He will realise that the decision does not necessarily preclude debate. In respect of the axle weight derogation, he also mentioned getting bridges into shape. Does that mean that at some time in the future it is envisaged that the British Government will voluntarily cede this and that the axle weight limit will go up?
Mr. Moore: I did not actually say that. On the first point, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. I appreciate the way in which the Scrutiny Committee was able to help us secure what was in the national interest. That was helpful to me in my negotiations. What I said clearly was that we have been going through an assessment of our bridges and roads. With the present pattern of usage and present weights it is clear that they require work. It is also clear from what we have learnt in Europe that the Commission regards the technical axle weight equivalent of 40 tonnes to be 11.5 tonnes. We have agreed to no more and no less than the existing derogation. I also said clearly

841
today that we need to consult Parliament before we can go further and that we need to know whether the bridges and roads are in the right shape. I did not go further than that.
Mr. Anthony Steen: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on assuming the presidency of the Transport Council of the European Commission. I thank him for the efforts that he made in trying to get all European countries to adopt an open skies approach. Does he agree that it is appalling that after so many years only Holland has got rid of a duopoly between capital cities, in that only Holland allows airlines other than the state airline to fly from Heathrow to its capital? Surely pressure could be put on the Commission to speed up the process whereby the open skies policy applies to the whole of Europe, because that would benefit not just our consumers, but consumers of other European countries.
Mr. Moore: I ought to remind my hon. Friend that my predecessor and my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for aviation, the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), who is with me, have secured benefits for air flights not simply in regard to Holland, but in regard to Belgium, Luxembourg and Germany. I take the point that my hon. Friend made. I believe that he was in Amsterdam yesterday with my colleague on the inauguration of the new flight by British Midland. There are clear opportunities there for the consumer and for the aviation industry of this country. I take the first point that he made with a sense of discomfort. I am not sure that acquiring the presidency of the Transport Council today will be an unmixed blessing.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As he is bringing a fresh mind to the job, and as he is at the beginning of his presidency of the Transport Committee in Europe, has the Minister any constructive ideas about how many heavy loads could usefully be transferred from road to rail, not only with the coming of the Channel tunnel, but with the problems throughout Europe of bridges that are no longer as strong and as safe as they once were because of the heavy loads and the deterioration of the fabric of the bridges?
Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman has a legitimate point. When I first took over this brief only a few weeks ago I considered carefully the Channel tunnel proposal. In debates on the Channel tunnel my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) reminded us just how significant to so much of Kent was the opportunity to put off road on to rail freight that would no longer damage the fabric of the rural environment of Kent. It is an area that I am only too happy to look at with care. I do not think that this is the occasion on which to speak at length, but it is a legitimate area to consider. We have to value not only our rural fabric but our railway infrastructure as well.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of all hon. Members in this country, where the continuation of the axle weight is of greater importance probably than anywhere else? Will he bear in mind that our opponents, particularly the Liberals and the SDP, cast great doubt on the ability of the Government to maintain this? He deserves to be congratulated on being able to give that assurance. Will he pursue with the same pressure and the same success, among all the other aviation problems, lower fares for the
842
consumer? If we can get lower fares, many of the other things will probably fall into place. That should be i.he principal and primary objective.
Mr. Moore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I thought that they were about to prompt a reaction from below the Opposition Gangway. My hon. Friend is right. Those of us who have considered the experiences over the last few years in regard to the way in which consumers can fly between Holland and this country see the obvious benefits of safe, secure and decent flying, but at a considerably lower price because of competition.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Secretary of State aware that from his earlier answer it seems as though he is preparing the way for heavier lorries in future? Is he aware of the concern among many residents of towns and cities throughout the country that we already have far too many heavy lorries from Europe? As he has just become Secretary of State, will he tell the House what his attitude is towards the GLC lorry ban? Will he undertake to enforce, and indeed extend, the provisions of the lorry ban so that Londoners at least can sleep easily in their beds at night?
Mr. Moore: I hate to think what would happen if the hon. Gentleman had been representing this country at a place where the standard for most lorry axle weights, for example, in France and in Spain, averages 13 tonnes and where they wanted a common axle weight of 12 tonnes. We have secured, with the support of both sides of the House, I think, the maintenance of exactly the same pattern of derogation that we succeeded in achieving before— no more and no less—which is precisely what our national needs are. I do not think that I need repeat that again. We are precisely where we were, and I see no reason to expect to have to change that.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: In so far as my right hon. Friend's remarks apply to road haulage, will this mean less bureaucracy and less form filling? I ask that specifically on behalf of a road haulier in my constituency. As a result of a minor error that road haulier suffered a confiscatory fine by the French customs which was in excess of the value of the vehicle and all its goods. On appeal, the penalty was reduced to £60,000. All that was involved was an error of form filling of 19 rolls of fabric. Can my right hon. Friend ensure that our road hauliers are not treated in such a piratical way when they cross the Channel?
Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is an important point to illustrate, because it will benefit our hauliers and thereafter obviously help British business and British workers. At the moment Community permits allow unlimited journeys throughout the Community for the period for which they are valid. What we have done will considerably reduce the amount of bureaucracy faced by hauliers who at present, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) rightly says, often need several bilateral permits for a single journey. It will make it easier for hauliers on their return journey to pick up loads in other countries. It will not only reduce the administrative burden on hauliers but will give them the opportunity to work more competitively against their continental competitors.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Without prompting by the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), I was going to congratulate the new Secretary of State on coming back with a 10·5 tonnes maximum axle limit. However, he will be aware that there would be great resistance to a suggestion that the axle limit should be increased.
Mat I press him slightly further on two matters? First is there any proposal, during his presidency, to deal urgently with safety issues arising from road haulage throughout the European Community?
Given that there is to a package of proposals on aviation between now and 1992, including competition, regulation and deregulation, can consumers expect, in the first part of that period, a reduction in the artificially high air fares for flights around Europe?
Mr. Moore: There are no specific road haulage safety proposals, although I know the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are in European Safety Year. Obviously we are seeking other initiatives in that area.
With regard to aviation, 1992 is the end of the period for complete liberalisation. Having had a reasonable first step yesterday in achieving the principles, I shall seek to start putting some flesh on to them. Therefore, I am trying, through pressure, to achieve some success, which will essentially, quite rightly, be for the benefit of the consumer.
Mr. David Harris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of our European partners, especially West Germany—if he is afraid to mention it—seem hell-bent on doing everything that they can to maintain the scandalous cartel on air fares, which rips off the consumer right, left and centre? If no progress has been made on this subject at the end of my right hon. Friend's six-month presidency of the Council of Ministers—as I am afraid will be the case—will he take unilateral action along the lines advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and encourage our airlines to take matters into their own hands?
Mr. Moore: I am, though I am not sure that I feel naturally communautaire, the President of the European Council as from today, but I am not sure that I ought to be particular about which of my colleagues on the Council of Ministers I ought to push harder than others. Having said that, I hope that my hon. Friend heard what I said earlier—I said it carefully—about the way in which we are seeking to establish the methods and procedure of article 88 which is important.
Mr. John Watts: Following my right hon. Friend's initiative, what does he expect the main benefits to be for the road haulage industry and the consumers
844
from the agreement reached? Does he expect any beneficial impact upon any European truck manufacturers, including Ford Iveco in my constituency?
Mr. Moore: As I suggested earlier, I expect that it will reduce the form filling and some of the unnecessary bureaucratic burden on our haulage industry. To that extent the agreement will be an advantage to consumers and to businesses in Britain.
It clearly must have an advantage for British manufacturing industry, to the extent that the absence of the need for permits throughout Europe will allow British manufacturers to have an advantage. I hope that it will benefit my hon. Friend's constituents.
Mr. Tony Favell: What reason did my right hon. Friend's European counterparts give for continuing the present European aviation system, which, after all does nothing but promote inefficiency? During his six months presidency, will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to point out to his counterparts that the world's favourite airlines are cost competitive?
Mr. Moore: I do not think that my hon. Friend or the House would wish me to take many hours to debate what took place yesterday. I am a little perplexed because, in many ways, many of our continental friends suffer from a fear of the unknown and they are not as aware as we are of the benefits of competition in aviation. It is our duty and that of consumers throughout Europe to make them better aware of those advantages.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I welcome the liberalisation of the road haulage industry. I represent an east midlands constituency and I have to travel up and down the M I every week. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are far too many foreign lorries on our roads and that not enough of our lorries are able to bring back goods from foreign countries? With the liberalisation, it is very important to cut out the form filling and ensure that our lorries are full. We would therefore get a share of an extremely lucrative cake.
Mr. Moore: What we have done will clearly benefit our hauliers. To that extent my hon. Friend is right.
Sir John Farr: Will my right hon. Friend consider an important matter which is a threat to British jobs? This is the export from Belgium of road trailers which are subsidised by the Belgian Government to the extent of 20 per cent. These road trailers are already eating into our domestic market and affecting very important manufacturers in the midlands.
Mr. Moore: Although that does not fit precisely into the statement, I shall look into the matter that my hon. Friend has raised.

Points of Order
4.46 pm
Mr. David Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order is a sartorial one, which I hope you will feel well qualified to judge. I make no complaint this afternoon of the attire of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not'?"] Because I will refer the House and yourself Mr. Speaker, to the rules and conventions which appertain in the House. The other day, during this heatwave, I read that some judges had decided to remove their wigs in court. If you were to remove your wig, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether we could go on sitting; there is no rule about it, but I would feel that a convention had been broken.
Your deputies, Sir, wear an almost unsuitable rig for a hot day but this place is air-conditioned. They wear a tailcoat or a cutaway—and they do bring dignity to the Chamber, as of course do you, Mr. Speaker.
We have no rules or conventions about dress but I once asked your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, whether he could see an hon. Member who was not wearing a tie and he said that he had some difficulty in doing so. This afternoon I thought you had some difficulty in seeing the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.
Mr. Speaker: I had no difficulty in seeing the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). As to dress— —
Mr. Robert Maclennan rose——
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am dealing with the question of dress, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). As the Chamber is air-conditioned, and as it is a long-standing convention that we treat the House with respect, I think that, in tune with what goes on outside this place these days at dinner parties and so on, Members should come into the Chamber wearing a tie. I would not object if Members came in shirtsleeves in this hot weather, but I think that ties should always be worn.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before takes place, may I ask whether it has ever happened in your experience that a succession of senior Whips, junior Ministers and now the Secretary of State for Defence have signed the ballot for private Members' motions? Can we take that, if the Secretary of State wins, his motion will be one of total confidence in the conduct of the Prime Minister in relation to F111s, the Falklands and Westland?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time and he is aware that it is perfectly in order for Ministers to sign a ballot in the name of someone else. That has always been the case.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I raised a point of order on the application under Standing Order No. 10 and you rightly said that all points of view would no doubt be heard, as they were today, on the South African issue. However, this is an honourable House and some hon. Members have interests which have led to their making
846
free trips and so on. I have been to the Library and checked and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has not concealed the fact that he went to South Africa as a guest of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in South Africa. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) also went, partly sponsored by South African Airways. I am not talking about an ordinary Question Time, but when there is an important statement such as we have had today, surely it is not too much to ask that hon. Members should declare clearly that they have gone on such free trips so that the House will accordingly be able to assess how far one can accept what they say when they put forward their point of view, always in favour of the South African regime.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman well knows the conventions and rules that hon. Members should declare such trips in the Register of Interests. It has never been a rule here that they declare an interest when asking questions or supplementary questions.
Mr. James Couchman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to bring to your attention a significant abuse of the House by hon. Members representing the Liberal party. I regret that so few of them are in their places. There is only the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). As reported in yesterday's Hansard at column 368, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) had asked a written question that has been answered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, which relates specifically to the disappearance of a handgun from Gillingham police station in my constituency.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that I do not often rise on points of order—I am no whiner—but this is now the third occasion on which members of the Liberal party have asked questions which relate specifically to my constituency.
On 11 June 1986, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked a question which was generally accepted locally as relating specifically to a piece of land in my constituency — the Great Lines in Gillingham and that appeared at column 187.
On 27 November 1985, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), in an oral supplementary question, asked a question relating to Chatham dockyard, even though I was in the Chamber at the time.
That seems to me to be an abuse of the House. Those hon. Gentlemen have obviously been set up by their colleagues in my constituency to ask those questions. If that is not an abuse of the House, it is at the very least a discourtesy and against the conventions of the House, and I shall have only one recourse and that is to become very interested in the affairs of Montgomery, Orkney and Shetland and Yeovil.
Mr. Simon Hughes rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one point of order at a time. It has long been a convention that we do not take up individual cases in constituencies of other hon. Members. It is perfectly in order to ask a question of general interest in a constituency, but we should stick to the convention of the House that we do not interfere in each other's constituencies, because that would lead to chaos.
Mr. Simon Hughes: May I deal with the two points of order that have been raised? [HON. MEMBERS: "What do you mean, deal with?"]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear this.
Mr. Hughes: I hope that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) will be aware that the questions asked by my colleagues, who are not here to answer, were asked in their capacity as spokesmen for the party [Interruption.] More specifically, a question about handguns is perfectly appropriate for a spokesman on home affairs of any party to raise, no matter where it arises. I hope that the House will accept that that too is a convention which has always been accepted. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your modern and sympathetic ruling earlier on dress. When I stood in for my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) at short notice, out of courtesy to the House, I borrowed a tie from a member of my Whips Office staff so that I could be properly dressed.
Mr. Speaker: The fact that a member of a minority party happens to be a spokesman has no relation to our conventions in the House which, as a general principle, should be observed by everybody.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) mentioned me in his point of order a moment or two ago. Will you confirm that the procedure of the House is that hon. Members do not have to declare any form of interest at Question Time, but should declare an interest if they participate in a debate? Is there any difference between going to the Soviet Union, Afghanistan, Poland or Czechoslovakia and going to the Republic of South Africa, whether as a guest of the Council of Churches or the Government of the Republic of South Africa? Is there any reason why I should have declared that in my supplementary question earlier today?
Mr. Speaker: I have already answered that. It is not necessary for hon. Members to declare an interest when asking supplementary questions.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the Prime Minister's statement it will be within your recollection, and it will be recorded in the Official Report, that when the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) rose, like a bullet from a gun, to deny that he had supported the sale of arms to South Africa, whereupon the Prime Minister gave chapter and verse supporting what was common knowledge, that he had favoured the selling of arms to South Africa since 1968, you said that you would call him at the end of the statement, but you did not do so? Would you be willing to tell us why you did not do so?
Mr. Speaker: I thought that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was rising because he wished to be called at the end of the Prime Minister's statement. In the event, he did not do so.
Sir John Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you about business late at night? It says on the Order Paper at page 4096 that at ten o'clock a motion will be moved stating:
"That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to European Communities (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour."
Those of us who have grave reservations about guillotining a constitutional Bill with such severe and far-reaching implications as this thought that it was an excellent idea to have an open-ended debate later tonight on whether the guillotine should or should not be imposed and the timetable introduced. But page 4101 of the Order Paper says:
"Mr. Speaker will put any Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the above Motion not more than Three hours after their commencement, pursuant to Standing Order No. 46."
Am I right— I hope that I am not—in assuming that there is a chance that you may possibly, when three hours have elapsed after the commencement of discussion on the time-table motion tonight, put the question?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. I should make it plain to the House that the ten o'clock business motion does not affect the length of proceedings on the allocation of time order. It enables the debate on that motion to be proceeded with after ten o'clock. I have a separate duty under Standing Order No. 46 to put any Question necessary to dispose of such proceedings not more than three hours after the commencement of those proceedings. That interpretation of the Standing Orders is well precedented.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: We have an important debate. It will take up valuable time.
Mr. Marlow: We were discussing earlier on points of order the Register of Members' Interests. We all know that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) went to South Africa to posture but we did not know that he went to take photographs for The Sun. I am not saying that this is the case, but if he received any money from The Sun for taking those photographs, would it be necessary for him to declare that?
Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical question that has nothing to do with the debate that we are due to have.

Greek Cement
5 pm
Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The import of subsidised Greek cement".
I am gravely concerned that the import of subsidised Greek cement will have a most damaging effect on our home-based cement industry. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, in the House listening to my application. I appreciate his action, as will my constituents.
Following the collapse of the middle east as a major market for Greek cement, the United Kingdom has been targeted as a soft touch for the dumping of substantial quantities of cement. We have been selected as the first new target, probably because of our relatively stable market conditions and because Greece and the United Kingdom are members of the EEC.
About 10 days ago, the floating silo Sement VI arrived at Tilbury docks. It seems likely that further silos will be established at Liverpool. Avonmouth and possibly Southampton. The dumped cement may be sold at £38 per delivered tonne, which is 26 per cent. cheaper than that which is produced by the three major British manufacturers, including Rugby Portland Cement plc, which is in my constituency. Unless stopped, that cement will be on sale within the next four to six weeks.
The House should be aware of the long-term damage that will he done to the United Kingdom industry. It should be remembered that the industry is already suffering as a result of the downturn in construction. The appearance of foreign cement selling at 26 per cent. cheaper than the home-produced product will result in plant closures and substantial job losses. The cement is selling so much cheaper than the home-produced item because it enjoys a subsidy of 18 per cent. from the Greek Government. Moreover, Greece protects its home-based market by substantial tariffs. That is grossly unfair and discriminatory.
I am most worried about the British cement industry, which has a good reputation for investment and
850
productivity. It will be deeply resented, not just by my constituents but throughout Britain, if dumped Greek imports are allowed to destroy our home industry.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The import of subsidised Greek cement."
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I hope that he will find another way of raising the matter in the House. I cannot submit his application to the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 14 JULY
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Andy Stewart

Mr. Derek Spencer

Mr. Stuart Bell

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I suggest that the hon. Member who has been successful in the ballot tables a motion of confidence in the Prime Minister's conduct in relation to the Falklands, the F111 and Westland?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a decision which I can influence.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 14 JULY

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the four motions relating to Statutory Instruments.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Miscellaneous Foods) (Amendment) Order 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.
  That the draft Functions of Traffic Wardens (Amendment) Order 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.
  That the draft Road Races (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.
  That the draft Hovercraft (Civil Liability) Order 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.—[Mr. Neuberti]

Welsh Language
5.4 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Welsh Language Act 1967; and to make further provision relating to the use of the Welsh language in Wales; and for connected purposes.
Few hon. Members will be unaware of the considerable and growing interest that has been taken in the Welsh language during the past 20 years. The survival of the Welsh language is one of the miracles of modern Wales. At the last census, more than 500,000 people in Wales could speak Welsh — almost 20 per cent. of the population. Probably at least another 250,000 people have a good understanding of the language although they do not speak it. In my constituency, more than 80 per cent. of the population can speak Welsh and two out of every three constituency letters that I receive are written in Welsh.
It is the normal working language in the community, and Cyngor Dosbarth Dwyfor, one of the two district councils in my area, undertakes its work exclusively in the Welsh language. During recent years, the Welsh Schools Movement has grown to such an extent that, by now, almost one third of primary school children in areas such as Pontypridd and Caerphilly—most of whose parents do not speak Welsh—receive their education through the medium of the Welsh language.
Yet the official status of the language is far from clear. Although the Acts of 1535 and 1536 which banned he Welsh language from official use have been amended by the Welsh Courts Act 1942 and the Welsh Language Act 1967, which gives the language some new status, people still do not know what their language rights are. After centuries of having been told, or having it implied, that there is something inferior in speaking their language, it is hardly surprising that some uncertainty still exists among Welsh people.
In the early 1960s, a new interest grew in the Welsh language, especially after the historic broadcast by the late Mr. Saunders Lewis in 1962, entitled "Tynged yr laith". Soon afterwards, in 1964, the question of status was higlighted in the court case of Evans v. Thomas. The Hughes-Parry commission which reported in 1965 on the status of the language made widespread and radical recommendations. Some of those were incorporated in the Welsh Language Act 1967, which was a significant step forward. However, after 20 years of living with that Act, it is plain that there are massive shortcomings which must be put right.
A main plank of the Hughes-Parry report was the formulation of the principle of equal validity of the Welsh and English languages in Wales, whereby anything said or written in either language would be equally valid. The report made a specific recommendation. Recommendation (3) states:
"The principle of equal validity should be adopted as the basic principle governing the future use of Welsh in the administration of justice and the conduct of public administration."
However, in the 1967 Act the provisions were not so clear-cut. The Act established the equal validity of Welsh when spoken in the courts, but it did not give all written legal documents such equal validity. More importantly, it did not establish a general principle of equal validity in the
852
conduct of public business as recommended by the Hughes-Parry report and certainly not in general day-to-day life. There is a widespread misunderstanding in Wales on this matter.
During the years, those shortcomings have manifested themselves in a host of problems: solicitors being unable to present certain documents in Welsh to the court, parents unable to register the birth of their children in Welsh, people having cheques made out in Welsh refused —I had yet another letter of complaint about this only last week—prisoners being told that they cannot speak Welsh with visiting relatives, companies not being allowed to register their names in Welsh, and company accounts being refused by Companies house because they were kept in Welsh. The list in enormous, and enough to show that the spirit of the Hughes-Parry report is most certainly not working out as the authors of that report intended.
A main objective of the Bill is to clear up the unsatisfactory position which exists, and to afford the Welsh and English languages full official status, with written or oral statements having equal validity in whichever language they are made.
But the Welsh Language Act 1967 also failed to bring about conditions which would turn the excellent principle of equal validity into meaningful reality for the individual. The entire structure of the courts and administration was largely untouched by the Act and no requirement was placed on public authorities in Wales to facilitate a proper choice of the language for the individual citizen.
When confronted with an English-only form to fill in, 95 per cent. of people will fill it in in English because that is the implied requirement of the form. Four per cent. may choose to fill it in in Welsh, and 1 per cent. may ask why no Welsh form is available. To give the individual respondent a meaningful choice of language, there must be a dimension of bilingualism in the form iteself. Either it should have both languages on it, which is practical in a large proportion of cases or forms should be equally available in Welsh and English. To make equal validity a reality for the private citizen, the apparatus of public administration must be equal-handed. The Bill provides for public notices and forms to be bilingual, to give the individual the right to choose which language he or she uses for reading or for writing.
The Bill allows a defendant to choose in which language he or she wishes the court to hear the case. Nothing could be fairer than that. The Bill also aims at establishing a right in law for children and young people to be able to learn the Welsh language and have their education in the medium of Welsh within reasonable distance of their homes. This already happens in many parts of Wales, but not everywhere, and in some areas there have been bitter controversies when parents feel that they have not had a proper opportunity for their children to be educated through the medium of Welsh.
Welsh Office policy on the matter is encapsulated in a written reply that I received this week, which states that education through the medium of Welsh should be available within the constraints of available resources to all children whose parents are desirous of it. However, that definition has a prelude, to the effect that it is for individual authorities to determine the nature of the provision in their own area. That is the rub. Although some authorities have a very good track record, others have been reluctant to give all children in their area that option.

853
The Secretary of State has acknowledged that there is a need for better co-ordination in regard to the provision of instruction through the medium of Welsh. The Bill gives a framework establishing a right to such Welsh-medium education throughout Wales. It does not force Welsh-medium education on anyone. It merely provides a right in law.
The Bill would also allow employees of large companies and public authorities a certain amount of statutory time off to learn the Welsh language. That might indeed help such employees in their work, and give them an opportunity that they never had at school. Again, the provision is permissive. It does not force anyone to learn Welsh against his will.
The Bill covers a number of other matters: the standardisation of road signs; the establishment of an office of Language Commissioner for Wales, with a duty to try to conciliate and arbitrate in language disputes and to advise on the implementation of the Act; a requirement for structure plans to have regard for the Welsh language in the same way as they currently have regard to the conservation of the natural environment; rights to register births, deaths and marriages in Welsh, write cheques in Welsh and present company accounts in Welsh; and a right for prisoners to communicate in Welsh.
In various ways, the Bill addresses a host of practical problems that I have encountered in my day-to-day work as a Member of Parliament and which are faced from time to time by the Welsh-speaking community. The Bill takes nothing away from non-Welsh speakers. Throughout the Bill, the objective is to give people language rights, not to force a language on them. That being so, I am sure that it will appeal to the vast majority of people in Wales as to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The fate of the Welsh language is not a responsibility consigned to any one party. I am glad that I have the support of members of all the four parties that represent Wales in the Chamber as sponsors of the Bill.
The language is not just a matter for those of us who are Welsh speakers, often by accident of birth. The Welsh language belongs to us all, and goodwill for Welsh speakers and non-Welsh speakers alike will be needed if its revival is to gain further momentum.
However, goodwill by itself is not enough. Fortunately, there is also tremendous enthusiasm, as we have seen over the past 20 years. Thousands of young people have campaigned for the language, especially through the Welsh Language Society. Hundreds of young people who care deeply for the language have gone to prison as a result of civil disobedience in such campaigns. Perhaps they have
854
cared too much. Because we in responsibility have not taken up proposals that have commanded widespread support, perhaps our own shortcomings have contributed to the feelings of frustration and desperation that have occasionally fuelled excessive zeal.
The securing of the right environment for the survival of the language and the culture and values that go with it should not rest on the perennial battles of the younger generation against the perceived intransigence of an insensitive state. We need more than state neutrality, for that will do little to reverse the tide that has for centuries worked against the language. We need language rights firmly established in law—they have become the norm in other multilingual states—as in the case of Catalan, Basque and Galician in Spain and Flemish, French and German in Belgium. We must break out of the myopic insularity that has tended to blinker matters related to languages in these islands.
There is abundant evidence that there is a desire in Wales for an updating of the Welsh Language Act. Last year, the Colwyn bay tribunal showed the inadequacy of present legislation. Numerous councils, societies and denominational bodies have called for amendments to the Act. A working party including many distinguished members such as Lord Prys-Davies has been drawing up proposals over the past two years. A new petition is now circulating in Wales and I have no doubt that it will attract tens of thousands of signatures.
The time is ripe for change. What better time for change could there be than now, 450 years after the 1536 Act which threatened "utterly to extirp" the Welsh language? Next year will be 20 years from the passing of the previous Act, and if the Act is in force by 1988, that could be a fitting commemoration of the 400th anniversary of the translation of the Bible into Welsh by Bishop Morgan. The time is indeed appropriate for the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. D. E. Thomas, Mr. Donald Stewart, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Mr. Geraint Howells, Mr. Keith Best, Dr. Roger Thomas, Mr. Richard Livsey, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. Gordon Wilson and Mr. John Hume.

Welsh Language
  WELSH LANGUAGE
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Welsh Language Act 1967; to make further provision relating to the use of the Welsh language in Wales; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 July 1986 and to be printed. [Bill 192.]
Orders of the Day
  Defence

    SECOND DAY'S DEBATE
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [30 June]:
    That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1986, contained in Cmnd. 9763.—[Mr. Younger]
    Which amendment was to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    `believes that the plans outlined in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1986, Cmnd. 9763, and in particular the Government's plans to buy the Trident nuclear system, are leading to damaging cuts in Britain's conventional defence capabilities at home and abroad and in Britain's defence industrial base; calls upon the Government to cancel Trident and to use the money saved for more practical non-nuclear defence purposes; declares that the security and the defence of the United Kingdom will be best served in future by maintaining strong conventional defences within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and not by acquiring a new generation of nuclear weaponry of any kind; and calls upon the Government to take an active part in securing the removal of all nuclear weapons from the United Kingdom and the reduction and abolition of all nuclear weapons, and also to make plain its opposition to the production and deployment of chemical weapons by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America and any other nations', instead thereof.—[Mr. Denzil Davies.]
    Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
    Mr. Speaker: As the House well knows, we had a rather late start today, because of statements, other matters on the Order Paper and points of order. I propose to put a limit on speeches of 10 minutes between 7 and 9 o'clock, because there is a very long list of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. I hope that those called before 7 o'clock will not abuse their position, having been called early. I intend today to give some precedence to those who were conscientious in their attendance during the debate yesterday.
    5.16 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): In any democracy it is right that there should be a debate on how much of the nation's wealth is spent on defence, and how that allocated amount should be split between the various defence roles, including nuclear and conventional defence, and between the three services—or perhaps only two if certain of their Lordships in the other place have their way.
    I welcome the contributions to the debate yesterday and look forward to further speeches from right hon. and hon. Members today. I should also like to pay tribute to the contribution from the Defence Select Committee, whose weighty and constructive report was published last week.
    The Government are proud to proclaim their record on defence. The facts speak for themselves. Spending on defence has benefited from seven years of real growth since 1979 and the total budget for 1986–87 is some £18·5 billion. Of this, some £8·3 billion—or 45 per cent.—is to be spent on equipment for the armed forces, or virtually £1 million every hour.
    We are buying a vast quantity of new equipment for the services and sustaining substantial employment in this country through our procurement spend. Nevertheless, as
    856
    my right hon. Friend acknowledged to the Defence Select Committee, there are some difficult decisions ahead as the defence budget moves to a period of slight real decline. However, there is no question of having to withdraw from any major commitment or significant part thereof.
    United Kingdom procurement spending now takes up 45 per cent. of the budget — the highest figure in the NATO Alliance. It has risen from a modest figure of 34 per cent. in 1975–76. Unlike the previous Labour Government, who increased the equipment percentage of the budget at the expense of service men's pay packets, the present Government have increased defence spending, paid our soldiers, sailors and airmen a realistic rate of pay and also, since 1979, increased spending on procurement in real terms by one third or £2 billion. As my right hon. and hon. Friends said yesterday, the quality of our service men is more important even than their equipment; they are our greatest asset. I join my right hon. and hon. Friends in paying tribute to their professionalism.
    I should also like to pay tribute to Ministry of Defence civil servants in Whitehall, the research and development establishments—which have a world-wide reputation for expertise — and others. Indeed, one of the annual engagements that I fulfil, which gives me great pleasure, is to officiate at the award ceremony of British Empire Medals to long-serving and meritorious employees.
    The Government are firmly committed to the maintenance of the strongest defences for the United Kingdom. We are committed to the maintenance of an independent strategic nuclear deterrent—earlier this year we ordered the first Trident submarine, HMS Vanguard — and to improving and increasing the quality and quantity of conventional equipment for the armed forces.
    We often hear arguments about Trident being the cuckoo in the nest of conventional defence improvements. That is simply not the case. The reality is that our existing expenditure on the strategic nuclear force is only some 3·5 per cent. of the budget. While expenditure on Trident is substantial, it has to be seen in context. Over the 20-year period of Trident's introduction into service, the procurement cost of just under £9·9 billion compares with expenditure on British forces Germany over a comparable period at current levels of £46 billion, or nearly five times the total Trident spend. Put another way, Trident's total spend over its 20-year life is about half the total defence budget in any one year.
    Too often employment implications of defence spending are overlooked. Some 1·2 million people in the United Kingdom derive their jobs directly or indirectly from defence. It is time Left wingers in the official Opposition party realised the extent of jobs sustained. Indeed, individually many hon. Members opposite do just that when they come to see me, almost on a daily basis, leading delegations to lobby me and other Ministers on orders. Too often it is a case of one voice for the corridors of Whitehall and another for the Labour party conference.
    Any attempts by the Labour party to reduce defence spending, if it ever came to power, would unquestionably impact on employment. Moreover, 90 to 95 per cent. of the equipment budget is spent in the United Kingdom, either on national programmes or on the United Kingdom's work share of collaborative programmes.
    Indeed, it is interesting to observe that United Kingdom defence industries with a combination of substantial home spend and a demanding customer in the form of our armed services, spurred on by Warsaw pact

    857
    technolgical progress, have produced products of a quality and sophistication to equal any in the world. Contrast that with our dismal performance in the consumer field, and perhaps there are lessons to be learned. It just shows what can be done.
    I should now like to turn to the main theme of my speech — the increased value for money in defence procurement. I shall come later to the equipment orders that the Government have placed and the main programmes of the three services.
    Major credit for increased value for money in defence procurement must go to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who initiated many lasting changes in the way MOD thinks. In addition, my right hon. Friend was responsible for appointing Mr. Peter Levene, the Chief of Defence Procurement, to whom I pay tribute for his excellent work in tightening MOD's procurement and for making the Procurement Executive a more discerning, commercially minded, hard-nosed customer. I am only glad that we pay Mr. Levene a fixed salary, rather than a percentage of the savings he has brought about.
    Mr. Dick Douglas: While the Minister is lauding the activities of the Procurement Executive, will he explain why yesterday, a few weeks before the contemplated order for frigates, the Secretary of State could not tell us the number of frigates that he is likely to order, far less the yards in which the orders will be placed?
    Mr. Lee: I shall deal with the question of frigates later.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is fully committed to our continuing efforts to get greater efficiency into our procurement spend.
    I summarise the broad thrust of our initiatives under the acronym CCCPR — not the Soviet threat, but competition, collaboration, con tractorisation, privatisation, and rationalisation. I will deal with each in turn.
    First, I shall deal with competition and our drive to achieve the best value for money. The percentage by value of contracts placed following competition or in a competitive environment has increased considerably over the past three years. In 1983–84 it was 38 per cent.; in 1984–85, 46 per cent.; in 1985–86, 64 per cent. That is an increase of about two thirds over three years, which the Public Accounts Committee and the Defence Select Committee have specifically praised. Competition has achieved demonstrable and highly significant savings. We estimate that competition savings produced about £100 million on the Warrior APC, £60 million on the basic trainer for the Royal Air Force and £20 million, including batch order savings, on three SSK diesel electric submarines.
    On a more prosaic level, we ran a competition for the supply of bread and bread rolls. The best customer discount following the competition—the yeast expensive — was 42 per cent. lower than the retail price which previously formed the basis of the price.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: I was going to say that I would rise to the occasion. My hon. Friend talks about competitive tendering and the success of his programme. Does he accept that there is concern in some circles that when competitive tendering involves foreign countries tendering for equipment in the United Kingdom in order to reduce the price and make the deal more
    858
    potentially competitive, it can nevertheless have a detrimental effect on home-based industries which must provide their specifications for the tenders? Regarding royal ordnance factories in particular, in which I declare an interest, my hon. Friend will know that there is considerable concern about Belgium, West Germany and France competing for tenders in the United Kingdom in a way which royal ordnance factories cannot compete abroad.
    Mr. Lee: I shall come to royal ordnance factories later, but I take my hon. Friend's point. I repeat that 90 to 95 per cent. of our procurement spend is spent in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Will the Minister explain why competition was not applied to the refitting contract for the royal yacht Britannia?
    Mr. Lee: In taking decisions on refits for the royal yacht Britannia and others, we must strike some sort of balance between the core programme for the royal dockyards and the amount that we can give to the private sector and make available through competition. The trade unions in Devonport entered into a virtual no-strike agreement with us and made it particularly attractive to put Britannia into Devonport.
    We are also maximising competition at the subcontract level, and taking steps to make firms more aware of contracting opportunities, including, shortly, a fortnightly publication listing major invitations to tender and MOD contracts.
    Over the past 10 years a regime of generous interim payments has ensured that in many cases firms have continued to receive reimbursement of costs and profit from MOD, even if projects have fallen behind and deliveries have been delayed. In the past we have made interim payments of up to 100 per cent. of costs incurred by a contractor, even including interim payment of profit. We intend to reduce these payments, and interim payment of profit will normally be discontinued. The essence of our new approach is to ensure that our contractors have a strong incentive to supply and perform on time. We demand a more direct relationship between defence spending and contractors' achievement. There have been no major awards of such contracts for two years, and they now account for less than 10 per cent. by value of MOD contracts.
    I now turn to collaboration, which many hon. Members discussed yesterday, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) who would like to be present this afternoon but is chairing a Select Committee.
    Collaboration helps to increase the standardisation and interoperability of equipment in service with NATO's forces; enables us and our allies to make better collective use of the same resources available to us for defence; enhances the technological capabilities of our industries; and demonstrates the political will of Alliance nations to work together for our common defence. That is the background to the initiative taken by the European Defence Ministers in the Independent European Programme Group.
    Before leaving collaboration, it would be wrong to ignore the European fighter aircraft. Project definition is proceeding satisfactorily on the basis of the aircraft

    859
    characteristics agreed last summer in Turin to a planned conclusion later this year, when decisions on the way ahead will be taken.
    Mr. John McWilliam: I hope that the Minister will not leave collaboration without telling the House whether he is satisfied that our artillery forces do not have FH70 shells because the Germans, with whom he is trying to collaborate, cannot make them.
    Mr. Lee: I shall deal with the SP70 later in my speech when I discuss the Army programme.
    I am pleased that the Select Committee on Defence in its report on the SDE86 welcomed the progress achieved on the collaborative front, but rightly noted that it would take some years for the savings from recent initiatives to accrue to the defence budget.
    Thirdly, I should like to deal with contractorisation. It is our policy not to retain in the public sector any defence support activity unless this is operationally essential or unless there are demonstrable savings in such a course. We start from a position of asking why the Government are doing this. Examples of contractorisation in the Ministry of Defence are cleaning, laundering and some aircraft servicing. As the House will be aware, we are also embarking on the introduction of commercial management for the royal dockyards.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: I should like to ask my hon. Friend a question about the privatisation of MOD services. Is he aware that a number of Ministry of Defence workers in my constituency and elsewhere feel that they are not being kept fully in the picture by the Ministry of Defence about the way in which contractorisation is being implemented? As they are not told until very late in the day about how their jobs will be affected, they feel that they cannot plan their future. Will my hon. Friend do his best to try to inform them more fully about the future of contractorisation?
    Mr. Lee: We try our best, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) will tell me the name of the establishment, I will look into the matter to see what I can do to speed the flow of information.
    The Dockyard Services Bill is currently progressing through another place, and the level of commercial interest in managing the dockyards remains satisfactory. We await responses to our invitation to tender from potential bidders at the end of this month. We expect to be able to announce the outcome by November and to have the new system up and running by April next year.
    Mr. Douglas: How many?
    Mr. Lee: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), from a sedentary position, shouts, "How many?" He has a specific interest in Rosyth. I can tell him that we expect to have interest and specific tenders from three groups — Babcock Weir, Balfour Beatty Thorn-EMI and Press Offshore.
    Fourthly, I shall deal with privatisation. There has been much debate recently on the future of Royal Ordnance plc, and the situation is still somewhat fluid. There is little I can add to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 18 June. He said:
    "It remains my intention to privatise Royal Ordnance, and I am giving further consideration to the means of achieving this."—[Official Report, 18 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 1034.]
    860
    In the meantime a lot is being done to make Royal Ordnance plc more efficient. Its range of products on display last week at the British Army equipment exhibition was very impressive, and I pay tribute to the firm's vigorous pursuit of export opportunities. That has the full support of my Department.
    Dr. Keith Hampson: As my hon. Friend knows, there is great anxiety in Leeds. There has been much distress in the company. In view of that, can my hon. Friend explain what took place? On what basis was the change decided, because clearly the privatisation approved by the House will not proceed in the way that it was agreed? Is it because of the Challenger tank order, or are we definitely going ahead with Challenger?
    Mr. Lee: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the position clear. A number of factors were taken into account, and it was decided that the time was not appropriate for the flotation that we originally hoped for.
    Finally, I shall deal with rationalisation. As part of efficiency drives, we look to ensure that the individual services do not duplicate facilities that could sensibly be undertaken on a unified basis. Successes in this area include catering training, parts of defence medical services and even the defence staffs of the Ministry of Defence itself. I should like to take this opportunity to announce that, having reviewed the proposed move of textile and clothing contracts work from Leeds to Glasgow in the light of comments from several right hon. and hon. Members and the Public Accounts Committee, I have decided that the work will remain in Leeds.
    Mr. Spencer Batiste: Will my hon. Friend accept the thanks of many people in Leeds for the sound judgment that he, as a textile MP, has shown? It is sensible to leave the textile and clothing branch in Leeds and not to pursue the senseless moving of jobs from one part of Britain to another. I hope that as an engineering MP my hon. Friend will show the same good judgment when he considers the future of the royal ordnance factory at Barnbow and the seventh regiment of Challenger tanks.
    Mr. Lee: I am grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) on the retention of the clothing operations in Leeds. There is nothing useful that I can add about the royal ordnance plants in Leeds, but obviously we will take all factors into account.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: The Minister is not normally a devious character, but he was a lot less than frank with his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). If privatisation proceeds, will not Barnbow have to compete in open tender against companies like Vickers at Scotswood on Tyne? That is causing more than a flutter in the dovecotes.
    Mr. Lee: We are taking all factors into account in considering the future of tank orders. At this time I have no more to say about that subject. It is my intention that the planned economies and the improved efficiency offered by the move from Leeds to Glasgow shall become priority targets for the Leeds staff.
    Hon. Members may be forgiven for overlooking the small box on page 51 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" on energy efficiency. However, the Select Committee on Defence published a memorandum on this subject in its recent report, and I am grateful for this.

    861
    The MOD is playing a full part in the Department of Energy's campaign this year. The MOD is a major user and its non-operational energy bill runs at over £240 million a year. It is clearly sensible for the MOD to make the most of potential savings. We have already reduced our consumption by 30 per cent. since the oil crisis of the early 1970s, and, to give further impetus to improvements on energy efficiency, I have recently set up a steering group of senior officers to oversee implementation of an energy efficiency programme with a target of a further 25 per cent. reduction in the MOD's energy bill over the next five years.
    I should like to say a few words about MOD support for defence exports. This is understandably an area where commercial confidentiality and the secrecy requirements of customers limit what can be said, but, as I said earlier, defence exports sustain 120,000 jobs in the United Kingdom and this figure is set to rise following the increase of 17 per cent. in real terms in sales last year to £2·9 billion. This is around 9 per cent. of the world market. I pay tribute to the work of our defence export services organisation and to our defence attaches overseas for assisting British industry to this achievement. These figures do not include the outstanding Saudi aerospace deal concluded last year.
    I am sure that the House will welcome today's announcement that the Australian army has selected Land Rover to fulfil a £50 million order for a 2,900-vehicle requirement. That order was won in the face of stiff international competition.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: The Minister will be aware of much speculation in the press about the soundness of the Saudi order because of the fall in the price of oil. Can he give a categorical assurance that there is no question of that contract not going ahead?
    Mr. Lee: I am not in the business of giving categorical assurances. The Saudi contract is not being renegotiated, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) at Question Time yesterday. The fall in the price of oil has affected the payments for the contract, and an element of discusson is taking place about that.
    Mr. McNamara: The Minister says that discussion is taking place on the question of payments. Will he confirm that there is no question of the deal falling through?
    Mr. Lee: I have nothing to add to what I have said. With respect to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), we are talking about an extremely serious and major contract.
    Mr. McNamara: That is right.
    Mr. Lee: Defence Ministers and other members of the Government travel extensively in support of United Kingdom defence exports. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a vigorous and effective supporter of these efforts and played a key role in the Saudi order. In the nearly three years that I have been in post I have visited many contries in support of United Kingdom defence exporters. I have been to Brazil, Ecuador, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, Thailand, Yugoslavia and Zimbabwe, and, of course I have visited a number of NATO countries. [HON.
    862
    MEMBERS: "Ha, ha!"] My travel is exceeded only by that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins).
    Ministers also support extensively the defence equipment exhibitions. This year has seen the highly successful British Army equipment exhibition, opened last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. During my visit, I unveiled two new armoured vehicles for the export market, and saw many exciting new British products, as did a number of right hon. and hon. Members.
    I am sure that we are all looking forward to the best Farnborough air show for many years this September, with, hopefully, three new British aircraft making their flying debuts — the British Aerospace ATP, the Hawk 200, and the EAP.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: As my hon. Friend knows, the EAP is the first British fighter for 30 years. Will he do his best, and ask his right hon. Friend to do his best, to ensure that, as with the Hanover air show where the Gennan Chancellor is present and the French exhibition where the French President is present, the Prime Minister will go to Farnborough to witness the flying of the EAP in competition with the Rafale, which is the French version, in order to give the seal of approval to a superb aeroplane which will be the follow-on to the European fighter?
    Mr. Lee: I shall endeavour to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend's sensible suggestion.
    Mr. Alfred Dubs: The hon. Gentleman referred to the British Army equipment exhibition. Cart he say a little about the nature of those sales, because some equipment appears to be going to countries that are using the equipment not to equip their armies, navies, and so on, but for internal repression? Some of the world's most oppressive regimes send their buyers to such exhibitions. Does that bother the hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Lee: We are extremely careful. We endeavour to play cricket and to be fair. Sometimes, we are criticised for that. All items of defence equipment that come up for export need to be licensed. Obviously, we take into account the individual circumstances of the countries which endeavour to purchase. If it is our view that the regime is questionable and that the arms would be used for internal repressive purposes, we do not grant an export licence.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when he plays cricket regarding such exports, he will play better cricket than the English team is doing at the moment?
    Mr. Lee: I turn to the re-equipment programmes of the three services.
    Since 1979, this Government have ordered 52 warships for the Royal Navy to a total value at today's prices of some £4·5 billion. These include nine frigates— as we have said before, it is our intention to announce further orders for type 23 frigates before the House rises—five nuclear-powered fleet submarines, four diesel-electric submarines, 21 mine counter-measure vessels and, of course, HMS Vanguard, the first Trident submarine. Seven of these vessels have been ordered since last year's White Paper including two further first-of-class vessels —HMS Sandown—a single-role minehunter—and RFA

    863
    Fort Victoria — an auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced yesterday that tenders will be sought for up to four more fleet minesweepers.
    Aside from the type 23 frigate orders I mentioned, I am happy to confirm to the House that it is our intention to make an announcement on future amphibious capability later this year. I acknowledge the importance attached to this capability by the Defence Select Committee and can confirm that the concept of an aviation support ship is included in our studies. I look forward to spending 24 hours at sea aboard HMS Intrepid later this month to see at first hand the work of the amphibious forces. Fearless and Intrepid are, of course, planned to continue in service until the mid-1990s.
    We have not neglected new equipment for the Navy. The Sting Ray lightweight torpedo is now in service, and earlier this year we announced an order with Marconi Underwater Systems Ltd. for more than 2,000 Sting Rays, and development of the Spearfish heavyweight torpedo is continuing. Our existing heavyweight torpedo — the Tigerfish—has demonstrated a notable improvement in performance.
    Mr. Peter Griffiths: The sinking of the Lowestoft by Tigerfish was followed by an extremely successful series of sea trials off the coast of Florida. Does my hon. Friend agree that that makes Tigerfish an extremely valuable contender for the contract for the United States navy for a conventional heavyweight torpedo, and that it would be desirable if all efforts, not only of the Marconi company but of our defence sales staff abroad, were made to assist in our gaining what would be a valuable break into the American arms market?
    Mr. Lee: I am happy to do what my hon. Friend asks. We wish it well. We expect it to be an effective weapon. It deserves serious consideration by the United States navy. It will have the full support of our Department and our defence export services organisation.
    Mr. Keith Speed: Is it not a fact that to maintain a frigate force of 50–I hope that it is 50 and not "about 50" —it is essential to order at least three new frigates a year, unless we are to have a Navy composed of aging Leanders and type 12s which are expensive in terms of fuel and personnel? Therefore, if three type 23 frigates were not ordered this year, all hon. Members and the public would regard with grave suspicion the maintenance of those 50 frigates.
    Mr. Lee: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have nothing further to add in terms of orders, except to say that the figure is not 50—I know that my hon. Friend will be sad about that—but is about 50. It is a question of both new orders and the length of time that we decide to run on ships, as my hon. Friend knows.
    Our underwater navy — which currently comprises four Polaris SSBNs, 14 nuclear-powered fleet submarines, to be augmented by HMS Torbay around the turn of the year, and 15 diesel-electric submarines—is unquestionably the most powerful outside the two super-powers.
    The last year has also seen developments in air defence for the fleet. We have ordered a further seven Phalanx and nine Dutch Goalkeeper close-in weapons systems for
    864
    fitting to Her Majesty's ships — bringing the total of these systems ordered to 30 Phalanx and 15 Goalkeeper. We have also ordered a further quantity of Sea Dart area air defence missiles.
    The Royal Air Force is now deriving the benefit in front-line service of a major re-equipment programme. Already, nearly 500 RAF aircraft have been ordered since 1979. The centrepiece of this modernisation is the collaborative Tornado aircraft, the strike-attack variant of which—the Tornado GR1 — now equips nine RAF squadrons, three in the United Kingdom and six in Germany.
    The Tornado GR1 is capable of the highest levels of performance, as was reflected very satisfactorily for the second year running by Tornado crews from 27 Squadron carrying off the prizes at the USAF strategic air command bombing competition. I give all credit to those involved.
    The Tornado GR1's all-weather low-level performance will enable it to penetrate Warsaw pact air defences, should the need arise, and deliver its weapons with great accuracy.
    This year has seen the acceptance into service of the prime weapon for the Tornado GR1—the JP233 airfield denial weapon. Also accepted into service this year was the improved version of the BL755 anti-armour cluster bomb —primarily for the Harrier force, but also portable on the Tornado. Studies into a next generation of anti-armour missile are under way.
    The first two prototype Harrier GR5 aircraft were delivered to the RAF during the course of last year to commence trials. Production aircraft from the first batch of 60 aircraft currently on order will start delivery next year and a quantity of long lead items for a second batch have recently been ordered. The size of the second batch aircraft order will be decided towards the end of the year. We are also working closely with our American collaborative partners on the GR5 on jointly developing a night attack system for the aircraft.
    In the maritime role, the British Aerospace anti-surface ship missile Sea Eagle was accepted into service last year by the RAF's Buccaneer force. The aircraft themselves are being given an avionic update to exploit the full capabilities of this effective missile.
    I should like to turn now to air defence. I have mentioned already the successful progress of the collaborative EFA programme. For United Kingdom air defence, deliveries of the Tornado ADV fighter have commenced to the operational conversion unit at RAF Coningsby. The first of seven Tornado fighter squadrons will form next year, and we will be increasing the number of fighters available to the United Kingdom air defence by running on two Phantom squadrons even after all Tornado squadrons are formed. Recently 74 Squadron, with its Phantom F4J aircraft— bought from the USA to compensate for aircraft deployed to the Falklands—became operational. The conversion of Hawk aircraft to carry Sidewinder missiles and a gun to augment air defence assets in war was completed last month by British Aerospace—four months ahead of schedule.
    On the ground, the programme to replace completely United Kingdom air defence radars and communications links is well advanced. There is significant financial support from NATO for this. Last year a number of new radars were accepted into service.
    Back in the air, the extensive enhancement of air-to-air refuelling capability continues with the completion of

    865
    deliveries to the first squadron of VC10 three-point tankers and the delivery of the first three of the first batch of six TriStar strategic tankers. A further three TriStars have been bought and competitions will be held in due course for the conversion of these aircraft and more VC10s to tankers.
    However, our greatest concern in air defence is airborne early warning. The House is well aware of the difficulties with the Nimrod AEW programme. The present position is that we have received proposals for AEW systems from six contractors, including GEC Avionics, Boeing, Grumman and Lockheed. Contractors have been asked to submit firm price bids by the beginning of next week, 7 July. There is nothing that I can usefully add at this stage.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: I do not want to pre-empt the decision which my hon. Friend must begin to consider on 7 July. However, in view of the reported comments of the Commander-in-Chief, Strike Command, that AEW is "unequivocally", to use his words, -a crucial part of air defence", will my hon. Friend, in considering the choice between the E3, Hawkeye, Orion, Nimrod and Cirumman, assure the House at least that he will be guided solely by the RAF's own criteria of cost, time scale and, above all, performance?
    Mr. Lee: I am happy to say that the operational considerations are paramount. We must get the system that is necessary for the defence of this country. Obviously, cost comes into it, but the operational aspects must come first.
    Mr. James Couchman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind in making his decision, which we all recognise is crucial, that if the Nimrod system is cancelled per se 2,500 jobs will be at risk, Britain will be excluded from AEW technology for perhaps 30 years and from the potential for exports worth perhaps £2 billion or more and the British taxpayer wil be faced with the cost of a write-off of perhaps £900 million?
    Mr. Lee: Of course I understand my hon. Friend's constituency interest, and I say that in the nicest way. I make it clear that we are running a real competition.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend remember that, in every instance in which the RAF has had foisted on it a political choice of aircraft or equipment, in time the choice has been found never to have worked and always to have been costly to maintain and operate? We must not make the same mistake again.
    Mr. Lee: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I well remember his comments on our decision to purchase the RAF trainer, the Shorts Tucano.
    Turning now to the Army equipment programme, I am pleased to be able to report steady progress in improving and updating the Army's equipment, particularly its armoured vehicles, artillery, air defence, small arms and communications.
    Starting with the most important piece of equipment, the mark 1 infantryman, we are equipping him with a new rifle—the SA80 — of which 175.000 were ordered last year and for which further tenders have just been sought from United Kingdom prime contractors. After some problems with setting up large-scale production, the weapon will, we hope, enter service in quantity early next year. In the meantime, weapons are being delivered to our training organisation.
    866
    Without wishing to give the impression of favouritism, it nevertheless seems clear to me that the gunners did rather well last year from Army orders. I recently announced the order for three regiments of the multiple-launch rocket system — a very effective depth -fire weapon that will give BAOR a major capability improvement over existing M107 guns. I am very pleased that most of the European offtake, including the United Kingdom's main production order, from this multinational programme will be made in Europe, bringing a total of £250 million of work to the United Kingdom alone. The MLRS programme represents a considerable success for European collaboration and transatlantic co-operation. It is a model for other programmes.
    The gunners will benefit also from the battlefield artillery target engagement system—BATES—a kind of clearing house for potential targets, made by Marconi Space and Defence Systems, which was ordered last year. To gather information for BATES and other systems, we also ordered the Phoenix remotely piloted vehicle.
    While on the Royal Artillery, I must mention also the SP70 self-propelled gun, whose name, sadly, is increasingly inappropriate and revealing as we go into 1986. The House will wish to be aware that the national armaments directors of the trilateral participating nations are currently reviewing the whole troubled programme and will shortly be putting recommendations to Ministers on the way ahead. From the United Kingdom point of view, we are looking for an effective system to enter service as soon as possible.
    We have ordered also, since the previous defence debate, bomblet shells for the artillery which will offer a marked improvement in lethality and coverage over the present high explosive shell, in certain circumstances.
    In the anti-tank role, the Challenger main battle tank, with much improved mobility and protection over Chieftain, is now entering service with BAOR in quantity. Six regiments have so far been ordered, and we are considering a seventh. Collaborative studies into the next generation main battle tank are at an early stage. For Challengers that get bogged down, we have ordered — after successful competition last year — a quantity of ARRVs. We hope shortly to place orders for the LAW 80 and collaborative development of the Milan successor., known as TRIGAT, in which, it is hoped, will involve eight European nations. That is expected to be launched at the end of the year. We expect to mount a variant of TRIGAT on the light attack helicopter, on which we hope shortly to sign an agreement to proceed with project definition based on the Al29 helicopter, with the Italians, Dutch and Spanish. In the meantime, more Lynx helicopters fitted with TOW missiles will be entering service during the next 12 months to enhance firepower in the central region.
    While on helicopters, I should like to say that our studies of battlefield mobility requirements are being pressed ahead with dispatch, but I am advised by our military experts that a clear way ahead will not emerge before the end of year. For the Royal Corps of Transport, we hope soon to place orders for the DROPS logistic system. The signallers will also be pleased with the entry into service this year of the Plessey Ptarmigan trunk communications system for BAOR. Command and control will be further improved with the Plessey Wavell ADP system, which also entered service last year. As my

    867
    right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirmed yesterday the production order with Marconi for the full width attack mine fuse for Barmine is being placed.
    Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: The hon. Gentleman went so fast that I did not realise he had covered helicopters. Is he suggesting that the AST404 has now gone out of the window? Is he aware that he paid tribute to the previous secretary of State for Defence—the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—who took a certain view on Westland? That view does not seem to accord with the one that the hon. Gentleman has presented to us. Does he realise that more than 15 months ago hon. Members on both sides of the House came to see him about the difficulties faced by Westland? Those difficulties still exist. Will the hon. Gentleman please bear in mind that Rolls-Royce has an interest in this and that the RTM322 engine is involved? There has been a very long delay on helicopers.
    Mr. Lee: We are fully cognisant of the position at Westland. I was there within the past few weeks to commission the simulator for the EH101 helicopter. I can say nothing further at this juncture about helicopters.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Lee: Well, I give way.
    Mr. Ashdown: I am sure that the House appreciates fully the hon. Gentleman's generosity in giving way so much. Will he be able to announce in the near future at least the order for the 15 Sea Kings, which has been in the pipeline for so long? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the order is eagerly awaited. I am sure that he must be able to say when the announcement will be made.
    Mr. Lee: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because I appreciate his deep and genuine constituency interest in this matter. No decision has been taken on the size and timing of a future Sea King order.
    Rounding off my remarks about the Army, I return to the mark 1 infantryman. To lighten his load, we have ordered 23 battalions worth of a combination of the GKN Warrior tracked APC which, with its Rarden cannon in the turret makes a major enhancement to infantry firepower together with the Saxon wheeled APC. All regular infantry units in BAOR will he mechanised with Warrior 4 which accords with the new mobile concept of BAOR defensive operations described in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates".
    Also lightening the infantryman's load—in another sense — is the new mark 6 composite-material helmet now in service with units in Northern Ireland and which will gradually replace the unpopular old steel helmet in all three services and the Territorial Army. I am told that our troops are very pleased with the lighter and more comfortable new helmet, which also affords greater protection.
    Our forces and the taxpayer are entitled to expect the most efficient and sensible use of our substantial budget. In the past I think it is fair to say that, as a generalisation, our defence industries have had a pretty good innings. We certainly want a prosperous and profitable defence
    868
    contracting sector from which to penetrate overseas markets, but the days of cost-plus contracts and bloated progress payments are gone.
    A massive advance has been made by this Government on all fronts to tighten our management, our controls and the numbers we employ. Our task is not finished, but our three services and our nation should be proud of what we have achieved.
    6 pm
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: It would be inappropriate if we did not start today by noting that it is the 70th anniversary of the battle of the Somme. On the first day of that offensive, we suffered 60,000 casualties, 20,000 of them dead. The occasion is a fine one for us to remember that war is too important to be left to generals and it is also important for us to remember the degree of responsibility that we have to our service men when we are conducting this type of debate. Therefore, I believe that the approach taken by both sides of the House is that, when we are looking at this matter, we are looking at what is rationally the best way of defending our country and protecting the lives of our service men.
    During that battle, which was to last four and a half months, there were numerous uses of chemical weapons. They were either sprayed across the battlefield or fired by shells, and the results were always horrifying. As Wilfred Owen said:
    "If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud".
    It is for that reason that I refer to the last sentence of our amendment which states that we will not, under any circumstances, accept binary chemical weapons in this country, we will not be party to their manufacture and, we will not agree to their being used, in so far as we are able to control it, by members of NATO.
    Mr. Churchill rose——
    Mr. McNamara: I will give way to those people who were here for the debate yesterday. Time is limited. I have specifically reduced the amount I was going to say on chemical warfare because other hon. Members will want to make their point. I am merely establishing the principle of where we stand. I will give way to people who were here yesterday but otherwise I will get on with the debate.
    Mr. Viggers rose——
    Mr. McNamara: I will not give way to that hon. Gentleman until he publicly apologises to me, as he did in private.
    Yesterday, the Under-Secretary referred to the conduct and quality of the armed forces and the help being given to them. Yesterday he paid proper attention to the help that has been given with regard to low wages and said that a review has been established to look into the pay and allowances. The Opposition welcome that review. Whatever the excuses, ideas or rationale behind it, for service men in Germany the cut in the overseas allowance was a cut in their wages. It was a cut in the basis on which they had budgeted for themselves and their families and it was a real cut, no matter how much we may rationalise it in the House. Therefore, ways of trying to meet that sort of problem for our service men in Germany have to be examined carefully.
    The Under-Secretary did not mention a matter which has been to the forefront in the press over the past three

    869
    or four weeks—allegations of colour discrimination in the armed forces, in their promotion policies and in their recruitment policies. Reading the replies we got from the Under-Secretary, one almost felt that one was in a "Catch-22" situation. The House will remember the background of "Catch-22" and the American airmen who felt that they had flown too many missions:
    "Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was to ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."
    That is the same Catch-22 we have had from the Ministry in reply to the questions on racial discrimination. According to the Race Relations Act 1976, all recruitment and promotion is based solely on merit. However, ethnic minorities are hardly ever promoted. There is no discrimination in the armed forces because the Ministry of Defence is an equal opportunities employer, even though no ethnic minorities were represented in the trooping of the colour and none will take part in ceremonial duties outside Buckingham palace, except the Regiment of Ghurkas. Very few are senior NCOs and career officers within the armed forces.
    If any discrimination did occur, we are told, the individual could have his case investigated under the redress of grievances procedure. Since no cases have been brought under the redress of grievances procedure, obviously there is no discrimination. As there is no discrimination, there is no need for this type of ethnic monitoring system to ensure equality. That was the rationale and reasoning behind the replies of the Ministry of Defence. However, it was the Prime Minister who put the bomb below the Ministry's position because she said in reply to me:
    "The possibility of introducing ethnic monitoring to the armed forces is being considered as part of their routine duties by those in the Ministry of Defence who are responsible for service personnel, policies and practices."—[Official Report. Friday 20 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 659.]
    If there is no discrimination or complaint, why should the Prime Minister think it is necessary to have a routine inquiry into it? Evidently, there is discrimination in the armed forces, so a deadlock is introduced.
    It seems to the Opposition that a system must be set up to look seriously into ethnic recruitment within the armed forces, not on the basis of positive discrimination to ensure that people who are not capable or able to do the job are promoted, but to ensure that those who are capable and able are promoted. The argument that the Ministry puts forward—that all promotion is on merit—is insulting to the ethnic minorities in this country, because it suggests that they have no merit and are not worthy of being considered as senior NCOs and commissioned ranks. The Observer said that it is no longer enough for organisations such as the Ministry of Defence to say blandly that they do not discriminate, without providing monitoring evidence to support the assertion.
    It is interesting that nearly 100 flag and field officers in the United States armed forces are black and Major-General Blunt, a black officer in the United States armed forces, said:
    "Until the leadership of the British Army make the decision to open up the higher ranks of the Army to Blacks, there will he racial problems in the British Army."
    I would go so far as to say that there will be racial problems within the United Kingdom. If we regard the
    870
    armed forces as the first strength and first organisation to protect our country and our people, if blacks and Asians can be in that force it shows that they have been accepted as responsible citizens within our society. That is more fundamental perhaps than any of the other positive policies that are being considered in the United Kingdom.
    The Under-Secretary made an interesting statement about the aviation support: vessel. It is an interesting concept. I do not want to pursue it too much now, but perhaps his right hon. Friend the Minister will address it when he replies. Is it merely a helicopter support ship? Is it the Arapaho proposal taken and examined or is it a mini-carrier? What exactly does it refer to?
    In listening to the Under-Secretary I was also interested to hear what he had to say about the future of the European fighter aircraft. That point was interesting because, in the wording of page 7 of the report of the Select Committee on Defence, there is a query over the European fighter aircraft's future. In reply to a question from the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) the Secretary of State said:
    "None of us would regard ourselves as fully committed or firmly committed at all to the next stages. That will have to be taken when it arises. But it is the case that in the next three years ahead there is a small amount of expenditure on development, experimental work, etc.".
    In discussions on this matter the Under-Secretary of State said that, when the Ministry comes to the end of project definition at the beginning of the autumn, it will then consider which course should be taken.
    As I understand it, there has already been slippage in this matter. I was originally under the impression that the decision was to be taken at the beginning of the year and that we would then talk about firm orders and manufacturing capability. Now, because of slippage, I understand that the contracted parties are not likely to take a decision until the middle of next year at the earliest. Is that correct? What does that mean in terms of programme slippage? Does it mean, as the Opposition suspect, that there will be no firm orders until after 1988? If that is the case, that will represent yet another Government cut.
    I was also interested to read about Skynet in the Estimates and the White Paper. As a result of the accidents involving Challenger and Aria ne, there has been a setback in our hopes for our satellites. It is important that we should have an independent defence capability. I would therefore like to raise the issue of HOTOL as a possible replacement for the two systems to which I have already referred.
    Why has the Ministry of Defence not taken a more positive interest in the HOTOL development? If HOTOL is to have a future, the project must be important to our defence, as it will be able to get our satellites—which are necessary for defence — quickly, efficiently and cheaply into the sky.
    We have been told that the Americans at NASA have decided to take on board the same concept and are pouring vast funds into the air orient express. We would like to think that the Ministry of Defence is as active in seeking European support for HOTOL as the French are in seeking interest in their Hermes project. HOTOL appears to be far more interesting and to hold out greater hope for our defence and for satellite communications than Hermes. It would also be a great step forward for the Ministry of Defence.

    871
    The Secretary of State was remarkably coy yesterday about star wars. That is understandable, as the whole scene has changed since the former Secretary of State for Defence trumpeted that we would have $1·5 billion-worth of orders for SDI coming to British industry. The retiring British ambassador to the United States was quoted in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday as saying:
    "He rates Anglo-American negotiations over President Reagan's 'Star Wars' project one of the major achievements of the past four years, with Britain taking part 'not just as a contractor but a partner'."
    Great! Star wars will involve some $26 billion, which is an astronomical sum of money, and we will be involved as a partner.
    However, it turns out that we are to be a limited partner, a partner limited to such an extent that the contracts that we have received arising from the secret memorandum of understanding are less than I per cent. or 0·5 per cent. of the $1·5 billion that was recently announced. In fact, the programme has been so disastrous that the Ministry has been forced to bring into the Department from outside industry Mr. Jim Powell of British Aerospace to rescue the British component of SDI as envisaged by the Ministry. Understandably, the Secretary of State was coy on this matter, and understandably, there was little discussion of it from the Under-Secretary of State when he considered its progress.
    Frankly, the Opposition believe that British industry is correct to take a caustic and suspicious view of SDI. It is seen by British industry as little more than a confidence trick to drain away our technology and, perhaps more importantly, our technologists. It has been sold by President Reagan as a non-nuclear defence system. That is its logic. Yet it can only work, according to the Americans, if there are nuclear explosions in space to generate the necessary X-rays and laser beams.
    The whole world now knows that SDI is dangerous and expensive nonsense. It is dangerous for world peace because it accelerates the arms race, and is dangerous for British industry because it can seduce away our technicians and technology. I am pleased that British industry is regarding it very carefully.
    Sir Humphrey Atkins: If highly skilled people in this country want to take part in this kind of research and development and our firms do not take part, will these people not go to America anyway?
    Mr. McNamara: They may indeed do that. Unlike the Russians, we do not have any prohibition on the free transfer of our citizens. If they wish to go to America, that is a matter for them. If they want to be seduced by the almighty dollar, there is nothing we can do about it, any more than we can do anything about the departure of our surgeons or physicians. However, there are compensations other than the size of one's bank balance for living in this country; otherwise, why would the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) and other hon. Members be here? We look forward to the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) is Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) is Secretary of State for Defence.
    The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State were very coy about Nimrod and the future of the early warning system, yet it is of the utmost importance to this
    872
    country. The Under-Secretary said that the tenders would be received by 7 July. Will they be the final tenders? How and when will the decision be reached? As I understand it, the Ministry of Defence is sending a team to Long Island in the second and third week of this month to consider what Grumman is doing at Bethpage. If the Ministry is doing that, how quickly will we get a decision? Will a decision be made this month as was originally envisaged?
    Mr. Lee indicated dissent.
    Mr. McNamara: The Under-Secretary of State shakes his head, so it appears that the decision will not be taken this month. The Under-Secretary gave an under taking—
    Mr. Lee: I hope that we will be able to announce a decision by the autumn.
    Mr. McNamara: That is the kind of slippage that I welcome. I am grateful for the Under-Secretary's remarks and for the undertaking which he gave during the previous defence Question Time that the decision will be announced in the House. He gave that undertaking to me and I am grateful for it.
    Mr. Lee: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman is not correct. I gave an undertaking to draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I said that would be normal practice to make such an announcement in the House. However, I did not give a categorical assurance.
    Mr. McNamara: So something will be slipped out in the summer or in the early autumn when the House is in recess and there will be no announcement in the House.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: The hon. Member should not be cantankerous.
    Mr. McNamara: I like to see Government Whips sitting on the Front Bench telling people not to be cantankerous, when all they do is mutter away, either criticising their own party for letting them down or criticising the Opposition for putting them in their place. Really, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) should not speak in that way.
    Nimrod is a very important matter for this country. It is important because there is a continuing gap in our defences which must be filled. It is important because the amounts of money dependent on the decisions made could affect defence expenditure in other important areas. The situation has not been helped by the Government moving the goal posts, just as they did over the PC9, the RAF trainer. Thus, I hope that the goal posts will not be moved again.
    The Under-Secretary of State spoke about the various options, but if the order does not go to GEC, it will be a major blow for British industry. Indeed, the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), who has part of GEC avionics in his constituency, spoke about that in his intervention to the Under-Secretary of State. If the order does not go to GEC, important investments made partly by the Government and partly by the company will be written off. It will mean that two companies effectively in the United States only will be recognised as being able to produce that type of radar. Europe will be out of the running for a long time. It will also mean that the heavy investment made in RAF Waddington will have been

    873
    wasted, even though the equipment has already been delivered and is in use. It has even been suggested that the future of RAF Waddington may be in question.
    In order to meet the minimum RAF requirement, I understand that £250 million is required now for GEC, and a further £150 million is required to meet the original air staff requirement. That must be considered against a possible cost of £1·5 billion if we go for an American system. We are talking about 2,000 jobs and about leaving the field clear for the Americans. Europe would be contracting out of one of the most important areas of development in terms of defence and electronics generally.
    Mr. Lee: Where does the £1·5 billion cost of purchasing an American system come from? What authority does the hon. Gentleman have for making that statement?
    Mr. McNamara: That is a good question. The figure is based on the information that we could get. Indeed, I shall come to that point in a few moments. It is all a question of the amount of information available to the House, which in turn affects the level and quality of our debates. Indeed, I shall make the point now. The House lacks any proper informed discussion before decisions are made. We discuss issues after the Government have made decisions and have placed contracts. But the House and its Committees do not look at the on-line costs of major schemes. We have no outside way of monitoring the schemes. We have no way of looking at the way in which defence decisions are made. That point must be considered.
    Mr. Lee: That may well be a subject for wider discussion another time, but I specifically asked the hon. Gentleman where he got the figure of £1·5 billion from. Is it just a figure that he has plucked from the air?
    Mr. McNamara: That figure was authoritatively given to me by one of the groups interested in this matter.
    Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is saying— —
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. With respect, the Under-Secretary of State made a long speech. Many hon. Members are waiting to take part in the debate. I wonder whether some of those points could be left until the Minister replies to the debate.
    Mr. McNamara: I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    I turn to the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State about defence cuts. He told us that he would be realistic. Yet everything that he said, in effect, cut our ability in conventional defence in favour of Trident. In the statement on the Defence Estimates, we are told that the Warsaw pact has 16,600 main battle tanks to NATO's 7,800. That is a ratio of more than 2:1 in favour of the Warsaw pact. Yesterday, the cancellation of the LAW mine was announced, together with a reduction in provision for future mine systems which could help to defeat a conventional attack. But if we do not have such conventional defences, the possibility of nuclear retaliation as a result of a flexible response is increased.
    The Government have cut our conventional forces and our conventional capability in order to maintain Trident. The Defence Estimates claim that the Warsaw pact has a 2:1 advantage in terms of tactical fixed-wing aircraft. Yet yesterday, we were told that the second Harrier batch is
    874
    likely to be postponed. We already know that the provision of the Tornado for the RAF is being considerably postponed in order to meet the Saudi order.
    We are talking about cuts in our conventional forces and in our ability to meet a conventional attack, merely in order to fund Trident. The White Paper says that the Soviets have a 2·3: I advantage because of submarines. Yet yesterday, we were told that the type 22 frigates will not have the new advanced sonar ray system. The Minister cannot tell us when we shall get the frigates that we need. We are told that the Navy will have "about 50" frigates instead of the 50 that we were promised. What does "about 50" mean? Does it mean forty-seven, forty-eight or forty-nine? We know that the Government are reneging yet again.
    Indeed, the Government are reneging on the commitment to conventional defences and are thus increasing the possibility of a nuclear war. They are lowering the nuclear threshold in order to pursue the ephemeral idea that Trident is somehow important to this country's defence. They somehow think that a weapon of suicide is necessary.
    The pivot of Labour's collective defence policy is membership of NATO. That membership will be continued and strengthened under a Labour Government, while we pursue our policy of maintaining and strengthening our conventional forces, and of unilateral nuclear disarmament. We shall negotiate with our American allies the removal of their nuclear weapons systems from the United Kingdom. The Labour party recognises and accepts that facilities in the United Kingdom that are given to the United States are for the joint collective defence of western Europe. American bases in the United Kingdom are here for NATO purposes. Labour is quite happy to see them maintained for NATO purposes and for uses originally envisaged by the Alliance, provided that all nuclear weaponry is withdrawn.
    However, the use of United Kingdom bases for United States out-of-area purposes— that is, out of the NATO treaty area—are ventures that were not envisaged in the original exchange of notes establishing United States bases in the United Kingdom. The Labour party therefore believes that, given our non-nuclear defence policy and the fact that the use of bases for non-NATO purposes is contrary to the original spirit of establishing them in the United Kingdom, there will have to be a more formal discussion with the United States and the establishment of an open treaty outlining the limits and the extent to which the United States bases in the United Kingdom can be used within the role originally assigned to them, particularly in the light of the Libyan adventure.
    We say "particularly in the light of the Libyan adventure", because out-of-area activities by NATO were specifically drawn in by the United States when NATO was being considered. At the time, the United States did not want to be drawn into colonial wars as Britain, France, Holland and Belgium divested themselves of their empires. Equally, we do not want to be drawn into what many people regard as the United States' colonial and misjudged wars.
    We are not in favour of the United States supporting terrorism in Nicaragua. We think that the votes for that were wrong and will only destroy those very ideals so nobly called for in the Declaration of Independence.
    Mr. Couchman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have requested us to be brief. I have already given way once——
    Mr. Couchman rose——
    Mr. McNamara: I understand that the hon. Gentleman spoke yesterday, so I shall not give way; I want people to understand the position of the Labour party.
    Yesterday, many hon. Members said that the United States would, in a fit of pique, remove all its weapons and go home if we asked it to take away its nuclear weapons. but I have a higher regard for that country than to think it would act in that way.
    Other things in the United Kingdom are more important to the United States than even its nuclear bases and the F111 s. One of them is Cheltenham. The United States ability to use our facilities in Cyprus is also more important to it than its nuclear bases. The Americans are hard-headed enough when negotiating to know that these matters are far more important. We can think and talk about them, because we are allies, but we are determined that eventually United States nuclear weapons will go, as ours will go.
    The United States belongs to NATO for the same reason as the United Kingdom belongs to NATO. The United States regards it as being in its national interest to belong to NATO. When the United States decides that it is no longer in its national interest to remain a part of NATO, it will probably pick up its baseball bats and go home. It would be improper for the United States to be engaged in an alliance that it did not feel was in the strategic and economic interests of its people. We understand that. That is what alliances are made for. When the United States reaches that decision, whether it has nuclear bases in this country will matter not one jot. Should the population of the United States drift towards the Pacific coast and believe that its future is tied up with the Pacific basin, even the possession by the United States of a million nuclear bases in this country would not affect that decision.
    Mr. Couchman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. McNamara: No, I shall not give way.
    Mr. Couchman rose—
    Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have requested us to be brief. I have already given way once— —
    Mr. Couchman rose——
    Mr. McNamara: The Labour party will have nothing to do with binary chemical weapons. A Labour Government will negotiate with our United States allies the withdrawal of its nuclear weapons from this country. If the United States wants this country to provide other facilities for it, we shall try to reach an open agreement with it. But the House and the people will know about that agreement. It will not be secret. Furthermore, the decisions that are taken will not be secret.
    I had intended to say to the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)—who cannot be here, unfortunately, for very proper reasons, and who has made his apologies to both sides of the House—that one of the reasons for the failure of acceptance of Chevaline and other nuclear weapons in this country was that the British people did not know what was being decided on their behalf. Had the right hon. Gentleman been here, I should have said to him that, whatever side he took in the argument over Chevaline, it is certain that the decision that he reached in secret with some of my right hon. Friends was one of the reasons for the Labour party
    876
    debacle which forced him to leave the party. The decision was taken in secret because my right hon. Friends knew how the Labour party felt about the matter. Nevertheless, that decision was taken.
    We cannot support the White Paper. The Estimates are based upon the fallacy that the Government will be able to retain their conventional commitments but still push through Trident. We do not believe that that can be done, nor do we believe that this country can go forward in that way. The Opposition believe that until this country abandons the strange idea that it is still in the super-power class and stops hankering for the maintenance of its own nuclear deterrent, it will never come to terms with its proper role and place in the world. We shall be unable to face the real challenges because we shall still be hankering after past glories that we can no longer achieve. That is what the policy of the Secretary of State for Defence is all about—glories that we shall never be able to achieve. Thereby, the real defence of our country is put at risk.
    6.33 pm
    Mr. Julian Amery: Well, now we know. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I must express gratitude to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for the very clear way in which he has laid the policy of the Labour party on the table — no British nuclear weapons, unilateral cancellation and the removal of American nuclear facilities from this country. However, we would remain a member of NATO and rely upon American protection in NATO.
    NATO's strategy is dependent upon American nuclear power, whether exercised on the continent or from the United States. I am not sure, therefore, what is meant by the Labour party's commitment to the removal of American nuclear facilities from this country. We would lose the goodwill of the United States, which regards us as a valid member of the Alliance. If I were considering the matter from the point of view of the Pentagon, I might think that that rather wiser Socialist leader, Felipe Gonzalez, would be a better bet than the Labour party. The Americans might therefore move their nuclear facilities to Spain. This is the most inconsequential strategy that has ever been propounded on the Floor of the House of Commons since somebody suggested at the time of Tobruk that the Duke of Gloucester should be made commander-in-chief.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, referred not once, but three or four times, to the "nonsense" of the strategic defence initiative. When the most powerful country in the world decides to pledge billions of dollars to the strategic defence initiative, surely a little more humility would be in order before reaching a judgment about whether this project is nonsense.
    When this country is considering arms control and defence, one is worried about what is happening at Geneva and about the arms race. We have to ask ourselves what is behind the arms race and what caused it. I shall illustrate briefly what I believe to be the cause of the arms race.
    I visited Romania in 1972 with my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), where we talked to the Vice-President of Romania, a hardened Communist leader. He attached great importance to developing trade relations with the West. He said, "If you really want detente, you must always be a bit stronger than the Warsaw pact." He explained this in simple terms. He said that the dominant force in the Soviet Union is the military

    877
    and industrial complex, though not for ideological reasons. It is a praetorian guard that defends the regime, and the generals, field marshals, colonels, scientists, managers and others have more access to privilege and perquisites than anybody else in Soviet countries. Therefore they have to justify their existence, and wherever there is a chance for them to expand they will take it. So he said, "Do not give them the chance. Always be just a little bit stronger than they are."
    This was in the period of the Nixon-Kissinger detente. There was a rough balance between the two sides. When that period passed, we entered into what I might call loosely the Carter era, when the United States, Britain —under a Labour Government—and other countries in NATO lowered their guard, while the Soviets did nothing of the kind. We opened a window of opportunity to the Soviets, which they were quick to exploit and of which they were quick to take advantage.
    There was a daring Soviet operation in Angola. The Soviets married up 20,000 Cuban troops with a huge load of Soviet weaponry — at great risk to themselves but successfully. They consolidated their base at Aden. They took a grip on Ethiopia and waged a successful war, again with surrogates, against Somalia. They established a base in Cam Ranh in Vietnam and encouraged the Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchea, but what shook us most was their invasion of Afghanistan with Red Army forces. Not content with all that, they went on to put a lot of arms and money through surrogates into Nicaragua.
    Afghanistan woke up the West at last when the United States began to rearm, and so did we in western Europe, and President Reagan—all credit to him—set about restoring a balance of power in military terms in the world, a balance of what I think is called in Marxist circles the correlation of forces—not just in hardware, although that was most important, but in active support for the national liberation movements in Angola, in Afghanistan, in Nicaragua and, I hope, shortly in Ethiopia, where the resettlement policy, encouraged by the Marxist Government, has killed as many people as the famine did last year.
    I hope that we will give all the help that we can to the generous initiatives of the United States to help people defend themselves against the Communist tyrannies imposed on them from the outside. Our SAS has very good experience of the technologies that should be used in this direction. It is worth noting that the Chinese take a similar view, at any rate on Kampuchea and Afghanistan.
    I think that we ought to look at arms control and regional problems together. Of course we want to see the burden of the arms race diminished, but I think that we also want to see comparable concessions from the Soviet side in what I call the regional conflicts that have destroyed the limited detente that existed in the early part of the last decade. So far, I see no sign of that.
    The Soviets have reinforced Angola for the latest offensive against UNITA, they have sent more troops into Afghanistan than ever before and they have tightened their grip on Ethiopia. I think that this is a situation that we cannot accept. It goes to the heart of the problem of arms control.
    Mr. Gorbachev faces a crucial dilemma. He faces immense economic difficulties at home, exacerbated by the fall in the price of oil, which has diminished by about 30 per cent. the Soviets' capacity to earn hard currency. There is no way in which he can compete in an arms race—
    878
    unless, of course, he abandons any attempt to reform his own economy, and we have no particular interest in seeing him reform his economy while he remains in the position in which he is.
    Arms control and regional solutions should go hand in hand. We want to see the Soviets out of Angola, out of Ethiopia, out of Afghanistan, and out of Kampuchea. I am sure that the Americans will look after Nicaragua themselves. The correlation of forces at the present time is increasingly favourable to the position that we are in. One notes the rather interesting speech that Mr. Gorbachev made in Warsaw, I think, the day before yesterday. He said that he was not acting under pressure —he went out of his way to stress that. The truth is that he is acting under pressure, and it is because the correlation of forces is favourable to the West in a way that it was not in President Carter's time that he is prepared to begin to talk and to discuss. It is for that reason that he has not run out of the Geneva talks, in spite of all the threats. It is for that reason that he has not abandoned the summit.
    Mr. Dubs: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Nicaragua and said, if I heard him correctly, that the Americans will look after Nicaragua. Is he saying that Nicaragua, a free and independent country, is somehow to have its affairs looked after by another power? Surely he does not mean that. Surely peace in the world depends upon countries being able to develop on their own without outside interference or the threat of outside attack.
    Mr. Amery: I was saying just that, because I do not think that Nicaragua is a free and independent country. It is being subverted from outside. There is a strong Cuban and east European presence in there which has built up an army and the beginnings of an air force on really quite a threatening scale. When we begin to talk about intervening in the affairs of other countries, I do not know what the hon. Member's position is about South Africa, but it seems to me that everyone is quite prepared to play at that game at the momemt.
    What worries me about this debate is the pressure under which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State finds himself to cut back on defence. He says that this is realistic. The same thing is happening in the United States. Congress is trying to cut back on the defence budget, and elections are coming along in the United States — and they are not all that far away here. If we relax, one can be sure that the Soviets will consolidate the gains that they have made and use them as springboards for the next advance. Where will it be — in Iran, in the Sudan, in Thailand? I do not know.
    My right hon. Friend is beset by powerful adversaries. On the one hand there are those who want to cut taxation, and on the other there are those who want to increase expenditure on social services. They do not agree with each other, but they are absolutely agreed on one thing, and that is to cut back on defence, alas, yet the first priority is to maintain the security of our country. We should heed the advice given to me by the late Vice-President of Romania, "If you want detente, you must keep an edge over the Soviet Union."
    6.46 pm
    Mr. Jack Ashley: The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said

    879
    that he would like to broaden the scope of the debate a little. I should like to do the opposite and narrow the scope of it a little. It is a great strength of the House that we can discuss a wide range of issues, as the right hon. Gentleman has just done, and simultaneously listen to one specific aspect of the problems confronting us.
    I want to ask the House to listen to a short speech on abolishing section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, because this prevents service personnel who have been disabled by negligence from suing for damages. I am speaking of those who are on non-combatant duties. When service men are in battle, it is an acceptable doctrine that they should not be able to sue for negligence. That is very difficult to do. I am speaking of service personnel on non-combatant duties, who are deprived of their rights. I believe that it is wrong to do this when they are engaged in day-to-day duties.
    The consequence of section 10 is that they receive grossly inadequate compensation. The Ministry of Defence argues that the pensions provided are adequate and are a substitute for compensation, but of course this is nonsense. My constituent, Mr. Martin Ketterick, who has been gravely disabled by alleged negligence, is receiving by way of pension only one third of what he would receive if he were able to sue for negligence. Other public servants, notably police and firemen, receive a pension and are able to sue for negligence.
    A further consequence of section 10 is that disabled service men, disabled ex-service men or the relatives of those who are killed by negligence are denied information, and some of them are treated with disdain and arrogance by senior officers. I have abundant evidence to prove that point.
    The arguments by the Ministry of Defence for preserving section 10 are ludicrous. It says, first, that there is no reasonable dividing line between military action and other duties; secondly, that to abolish section 10 would endanger discipline; thirdly, that its abolition would create anomalies; and fourthly, that service men may not be able to prove negligence. The first point is nonsense— any service man could tell the difference. Secondly, discipline has nothing to do with legal redress. Thirdly, the Ministry blithely disregards the anomalies that exist when a service man cannot sue, whereas other public servants can. Fourthly, whether a service man can prove his case is a matter for a court of law to decide, as happens with other public servants.
    It is interesting that the Ministry of Defence has been reviewing section 10 since October 1983 — for nearly three years. Since then I have tabled parliamentary questions, I have initiated a parliamentary debate and I have tabled early-day motions. I have also taken a deputation to see the Secretary of State. None of those actions has produced one word from the Ministry. When the deputation met the Secretary of State on 20 February this year he listened attentively and we thought that we had had a good hearing, but since then we have had nothing positive from the Department. In a parliamentary answer on 17 June the Under-Secretary said that the review was well advanced, but the Ministry was unable to give a date for its completion. The delay by the Ministry is a condemnation of its ability to make decisions. There is no point in the Ministry saying that this is a complex issue. Most issues are complex.
    880
    To take three years to decide on such an issue is preposterous. It raises the question of what the Ministry of Defence has to hide. I can disclose tonight that the Ministry of Defence has taken action, but it is surreptitious and deplorable. It has put a blackout on public information.
    Two weeks ago, on 17 June, I went to No. 10 Downing street with representatives of the Section Ten Abolition Group, which I helped to establish in the House of Commons with disabled ex-service men and relatives of others who have been killed, to present a petition. After the petition was presented, I was told that recruiting officers in the Ministry of Defence had been instructed by the Ministry not to be drawn by recruits or their parents on section 10. They had been instructed to stonewall and to say that section 10 was under review. In other words, on an issue which could have profound effects upon the future of recruits, recruiting officers have strict instructions to say nothing. I invite the Minister to confirm, or deny, that story, now or when he replies to the debate.
    What is even worse is that a disabled ex-service man who has suffered because of section 10 has been threatened by the Ministry of Defence. He has been ordered to keep quiet. Mr. John Meredith works as a civil servant in the Royal Artillery school. He has given devoted service to the armed forces. He enlisted as a boy in 1941 and was discharged in 1971, after 30 years service to the Army. He was registered disabled in 1972. He feels very bitter about section 10. which prevents him from suing for negligence. He feels equally bitter about the effort to gag him. The day before he came to see me and to present that petition to the Prime Minister, Mr. Meredith was threatened by a senior official that he must not say anything detrimental to the Crown. He was warned that if he did so he would lose his service pension, his disability pension and his job. He was ordered to put into writing what he was doing the following day when he came to London to discuss the issue.
    The Ministry of Defence is behaving like a bully because it knows that, as the implications of section 10 become more well known, it will be widely condemned in the House and outside.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have much sympathy with the case that the right hon. Gentleman is advancing. Can he tell the House why Mr. Meredith, to whom he has referred at length, is contesting his position and the amount of disability allowance that he should receive from the Ministry of Defence? If the right hon. Gentleman did so——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Briefly.
    Mr. Winterton—it would enable the House to come to a more considered opinion of the case.
    Mr. Ashley: I appreciate the question. The point is that Mr. Meredith was severely disabled and under section 10 has been denied the right to sue. I cannot give exact figures, because he is not my constituent, but I have been associated with him and he has no doubt that if he were able to sue he would get far more than he is getting from the Ministry now. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when I referred to Martin Ketterick, but he can get only one third of what he might

    881
    have expected had he been able to sue. That was worked out by an actuary. I hope that that answers the question satisfactorily, even though I cannot give figures.
    The Ministry is behaving abominably in trying to gag Mr. Meredith. The Ministry will not frighten him, because he is determined to speak out. The Minister should look into my allegation and give an answer this evening. The issue will be pursued.
    The Section Ten Abolition Group is doing the job that should be done by the Ministry of Defence. The Ministry has a duty to inform all service personnel of the implications of section 10, so that they know their rights. STAG is putting advertisements in local newspapers telling service men and potential recruits of the implications of section 10. Some hon. Members and the Ministry of Defence do not like those advertisements, but they are simply stating the facts. To conceal the truth is to mislead. Therefore STAG is right to make the facts known. It is immoral to try to hide the truth, as the Ministry is trying to do, by showing its displeasure at the whole affair.
    When he replies to the debate, the Minister should tell the House whether the Ministry is prepared to issue pamphlets or to indicate in some way to service personnel or to recruits exactly what section 10 means. The Minister has tried to put the case to me, but he should explain to all these people exactly what is happening.
    Finally — I am sorry if I have taken longer than intended— the removal of section 10 will enable those who are entitled to compensation to receive it. I think that that would mark the end of the carelessness, arrogance and secrecy that we have seen. If I had time I could horrify the House with some of the letters from senior officers who have written, with disdain, to the widows of men who have been killed, stating that they had no right to information on how their husband was killed. That is appalling arrogance, and senior officers have no right to speak like that. There is a callousness in the services because senior officers are protected by section 10.
    I hope that the Ministry of Defence will stop living in the past, complete the necessary reviews and give service men their rights. I want these rights in peace time, for noncombatant duties and not when people are at war. In peace time, they are as entitled to those rights as are other public servants.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that the ten minutes rule on the length of speeches became effective at 7 o'clock.
    7 pm
    Mr. David Crouch: The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is perfectly correct, in a debate on the Defence Estimates, although we are talking about matters concerning £18 billion, Trident, Tornado, and type 23 frigates, to raise the issue of disabled persons. It is right that the cases of individuals in the armed services should be mentioned if there is a case to be heard.
    This evening I shall observe your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and speak for no more than 10 minutes. Indeed, I have not prepared myself to speak for longer. We are discussing the Defence Estimates. It is one thing to consider expenditure figures, as we are doing, but another to see that we get value for money.
    I spent last week in the Falkland Islands. I was invited, together with other hon. Members from both sides of the
    882
    House, by the Secretary of State for Defence to see something of what is done by the Falklands defence force. It was a remarkable experience. It was remarkable to see how the three services in the Falklands worked together, completely harmonised and in a state of high readiness, great alertness and war preparedness. None of us could have failed to be impressed by what we saw. We were impressed by the sophistication of the equipment and the skill of those who operate that equipment. There are not many people there—either men nor women—but the quality of those in the defence force is outstanding.
    The maintenance of this force is of course expensive, because a modern integrated defence system is expensive. That expense is added to by the 8,000 miles that separates Britain from the Falklands. It is therefore especially expensive to maintain that defence force, but I argue that it could be much more expensive if the force was less sophisticated, less efficient or less well integrated and harmonised.
    The cost of defending the Falklands could also be less expensive if we were able to achieve better, more normal relations with Argentina — the potential enemy which lies across the water. Until those better relations are achieved, the cost of defending the Falklands will be a burden — a necessary burden — that will figure in our Defence Estimates.
    It can be levelled as a criticism of the islanders that they require such an expensive operation to safeguard their shores, but it is not just to safeguard those islanders. The force is there to safeguard a British independent territory. I hope that we can improve our relations with Argentina and so reduce the tension, the threat and therefore the need to maintain our forces at such a high state of readiness. Equally, Argentina should recognise that the defence of the Falklands is an established fact made necessary by its invasion of the islands four years ago. The Argentine Government and people should also recognise that there is no question of our discussing the sovereignty of the islands. We should talk to them about re-establishing good relations.
    I have talked of the military operation in the Falklands, and I wanted its reality, its effectiveness and its necessity to be heard of in this country, where questions are being asked about whether we should spend the money on it. I wanted its reality, effectiveness and necessity to be heard of in the Argentine, where a sense of unreality about the Falklands Islands still persists. I wanted to report my impressions of the armed forces—the men, women and the equipment. In my view they are outstanding and more than a match for the threat that they face.
    I believe that we should seek to strive to reduce that threat. I told the Falkland Islanders whom I met—the councillors and members of the Falkland Islands Committee — that in my part of England Kent and Sussex —we once built a series of forts to defend our Channel shores against the threat of invasion by Napoleon. Today those forts — Martello towers — are empty and our relations with France are friendly. The threat has gone. That is an exaggerated example, but it is an example, nevertheless. We are even building a tunnel for even better and closer relations with the French, although it is not improving my relations with the people of Kent.
    I wish to make two points about our impressions. One concerns the state of morale of our forces, who are 8.000 miles away from home. The post service is vital, and hat

    883
    was stressed to us all the time. If it is so much as one day late, morale goes down very fast—the commander told us that. At present, delays are cut to a minimum and it takes about five days for mail to get there. That is accepted as pretty good. There is no delay once the mail gets there, despite the island's size. It is approximately the size of Wales and there are many outposts to which mail must be delivered. The mail service must be kept regular, efficient and fast.
    The second matter that I wish to raise is that of Falklands Islands pay. I know that it is called theatre pay and that it is not much liked by the Ministry or by the serving officers. It is not paid for the first four-month tour of duty—that is the tour of duty on the Falklands—but only on the second tour of duty, provided that that second tour occurs within 18 months. If it is so much as one day over that limit, service men or women do not get service Falklands pay. There is a rumble of criticism about it. Some cases of unfairness can be found and some chaps have just missed out by two or three days. This situation needs to be studied by the Ministry, together with service personnel, to see what can be done to relieve that small criticism.
    Finally, a little more entertainment would be appreciated by the forces on the Falklands. I was told that videos of the World Cup take seven weeks to get out there. That really is a bit too long. Wives and girlfriends can and have illegally taped those matches, even between England and Argentina, and have got them out there to their service husbands or boyfriends. If they can do that, the Ministry of Defence could probably get them out there more efficiently.
    Sir Harry Secombe has been to the Falklands and was much appreciated. The type of entertainment that is required is what I would call a night club type of entertainment—[Interruptioni] When I was there it was pretty well night all the time— that is, when it was not blowing a force 11 gale. Perhaps another description, to please hon. Members, would be a northern club type of entertainment. It needs someone who can work a club in an intimate style, because that is the only space that there is to work.
    Those are my impressions—impressions involving a little politics and a lot of praise.
    7.10 pm
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I shall make some reference to the Royal Navy, in particular, to the 50-ship navy, or, as we now call it, the "about 50-ship navy," more or less. Less, we all suspect.
    As the House knows, four shipyards are tendering for the future type 23s. With the considerable economies of scale that accrue to the Ministry of Defence in placing more than one order with the same yard, it is obvious that someone would be disappointed. It is equally obvious that Members of Parliament, such as myself, with substantial constituency interests in the shipbuilding industry, will fight hard to ensure that there is fair play in these matters.
    I want to raise two issues in that context, the first relating to lead yard status, and the second to the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel order. It is possible, although I do not think it is intended by the Government, that current
    884
    Ministry of Defence procurement policies could effectively prevent follow-on builders from bidding successfully against the first of class lead shipbuilder.
    The lead shipbuilder holds a monopoly over the supply of information relating to the follow-on ship. If that monopoly position is not adequately controlled by the Ministry of Defence, it can be exploited effectively to drive follow-on yards out of the market, resulting in lead builders having a monopoly on construction as well.
    What is being done to ensure that follow-on yards can compete on a fair and equitable basis with the lead builder? That is particularly important because, in the case of the type 23 frigate, the single role minehunter and all submarines, the lead builder has won the first of class contracts with no competition at all. All that will make complete nonsense of the principle of second source bidding which is already so much a feature of the Pentagon's procurement policy and which is the direction in which the Government claim to be moving.
    The other point that I want to make is about fair play. The whole of Tyneside feels cheated over the placement of the AOR at Harland and Wolff. Those who believe that there has been foul play—time, of course, will tell—will find further evidence in something that I discovered this weekend.
    Reading the second report of the Select Committee on Defence as a background document for this debate, I picked up the evidence to the Committee given by Mr. Levene, whose role in defence procurement is, of course, substantial. Mr. Levene has seriously misled the Committee over the AOR 2. In the course of so doing he has raised an important new doubt over the placement of the AOR 1. I find it hard to understand how that misleading of the Committee could have been accidental.
    On 15 May at question 402 of the Select Committee's report, Mr. Levene, when questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who is present today, said:
    "As I understand it, Chairman — because this is an answer to questions when the Secretary of State made the announcement — Swans can make a bid for the second AOR and have 'a preferential position', but they have to meet *** million?"
    The asterisk means that the figure is stated, but not printed. Mr. Levene confirmed:"*** million." That is, he gave a definite figure to the Select Committee.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert), to make sure that the position was clear and could not be open to any misunderstanding, asked:
    "Do they know what they have to meet?"
    Mr. Levene said "Yes." The truthful answer would have been no. It is as straightforward as that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East went on to ask:
    "What was their reaction on that?"
    Mr. Levene replied:
    "They are still considering it."
    That is completely untrue. Swan Hunter has nothing to consider. Yet Mr. Levene left the Select Committee with the impression that Swan Hunter was considering its response to a definite price. I was assured by the managing director of Swan Hunter, when I put the point to him over the weekend, that that is not the case at all. There is nothing to consider.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West at question 404, asked:
    "They have the advantage now that they did not have before, of knowing an exact price they have to meet, and being able to acquire, I think, either through Harlands or through

    885
    Yarrows, the design capability or the design drawings—may be not the detailed design drawings, but certainly the major design drawings?"
    Mr. Levene said, "That is quite right." An honest answer to that question would have been, "That is wholly wrong." It is not a fact that Swan Hunter has the advantage of knowing the exact price to meet. It does not have that knowledge. Swan Hunter does not have the major designs for the AOR 1, and it certainly does not have the detailed designs that a shipbuilder would need to make a costed bid.
    That is a serious misleading of the Select Committee. It goes to the heart of Swan Hunter's ability to compete for the AOR 2 and in turn goes to the very heart of Swan Hunter surving at all. I, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown), who is present today, know what effect that would have on employment in Tyneside.
    Serious questions are raised. Where are the drawings? I am talking not about the detailed design drawings, but the major design drawings. Why are they not available to Swan Hunter, as Mr. Levene says, quite wrongly, that they are? That leads one to ask: are they not ready? One is entitled to ask: who has seen them? How could Ministers tell the house, and, incidentally, let the Prime Minister say from the Dispatch Box, that Harland and Wolff's design was preferred if that design was not even ready? Even more serious is the doubt that all this places over Harland and Wolff's bid for the AOR 1, a bid that was only marginally below Swan Hunter's. Without finished designs that bid could not have been properly costed, only priced.
    Is the wretched truth about this matter that Harland and Wolff, with the connivance of the Northern Ireland Office, has taken a gamble on the lead vessel — a dangerous gamble that will do no good for Northern Ireland or the Royal Navy, and which has, of course, already led to major redundancies on Tyneside? How could the Government let that happen, and why?
    The issue will not go away. The AOR placement may yet turn out to be a bigger scandal than the Westland affair.
    7.18 pm
    Mr. Churchill: I share the real concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) about the application of section 10, especially in peacetime. Section 10 unfairly discriminates against service employees of the Government in a way that would not apply to civilian employees. It is inappropriate that that should be used in peacetime to deny service personnel, or their dependants in the case of fatalities, the benefits and remuneration to which they would be entitled were they civilians.
    The Government have a proud record in defence, with a 20 per cent. increase in defence expenditure in real terms to their credit. By shifting the balance even more in favour of defence equipment, they are getting as much as they possibly could out of existing defence resources. It is only fair to point out that under the Government—although one would not know it from the statements made by Labour Members—health, social security and education have all done significantly better than defence. But we must view with anxiety the decision to cut defence expenditure by 4·5 per cent. during the next three years. That is being done, as the Secretary of State conceded, not in response to any slackening of the pace of the Soviet
    886
    military build-up, which continues to outbuild Britain's entire order of battle in terms of Navy, Army, Air Force and strategic weapons by four times each year, but rather in consequence of Treasury pressure. That inevitably means cuts in the defence equipment programme at a time when industry and the economy badly need such orders.
    The Royal Navy's frigate programme has already slipped badly. The Royal Air Force's Tornado GRI reconnaissance programme has now slipped to the right, and part of the Harrier GR5 order has been lost. The Army's LAW mine programme has been shelved and war stocks, while inevitably clouded in a smokescreen of mystery, are clearly being run down. Those are serious matters which will lead to greater pressure for the scrapping of the Trident missile. Trident remains the most potent and cost-effective system of Polaris replacement available. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) knows that, although for professional reasons, as a party leader, he cannot be caught publicly jumping into the Prime Minister's clothes. He knows that the European missile which he proposes will be more expensive and less effective, with an unacceptable time scale.
    The resources that are earmarked for the procurement of Trident could provide approximately one armoured division in addition to the four that we have in Germany. In the face of more than 200 Soviet divisions, that is hardly likely to be a factor calculated to have a deterrent effect on the Soviet Union, by comparison with Trident whose potency would be enormous. Even its opponents are prepared to concede that.
    I have a high regard for the United States Administration and the remarkable steps that they have taken in recent years to strengthen the Western defence. But talk of scrapping SALT 2 is a grave mistake if the United States still has serious hopes of achieving a strategic arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union during the coming months. By all means let us spell out clearly the ways in which the Soviets have undoubtedly cheated on some of the arms control agreements, including deploying two new strategic systems when the treaty provides for only one. Let us stick to those agreements until it is clear whether we can achieve a more effective agreement in the present round of negotiations.
    Another threat to arms control and to peace comes neither from Mr. Gorbachev nor from Mr. Reagan, but from an unexpected source—the British Labour party. That is why the leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), has sought to engage the Reagan Administration in what would appear to be a conspiracy of silence. The right hon. Gentleman has sought an undertaking that the lips of United Slates spokesmen will be sealed on the consequences for the future of NATO if Labour's defence policies were implemented. Why is the right hon. Gentleman so unaccustomedly modest about that aspect of Labour policies? What does he have to hide'?
    The Leader of the Labour party knows full well that his party's anti-defence and anti-nuclear policies are not only the ones most calculated to appease the Labour Left wing, but most likely to deliver to Moscow the prize for which it has relentlessly striven over the years—the break-up of the NATO Alliance. Nothing is more certain to cause the break-up of NATO than the election of a Labour Government committed not only to abandon the British

    887
    deterrent but to boot the Americans out of their nuclear bases in Britain. Labour's defence policies trample into the dust the bipartisan basis of British defence policy.
    Mr. Tony Banks: About time, too.
    Mr. Churchill: That has guided the two main parties in Britain during the past 40 years, and Labour Governments have patriotically upheld it. It places the British Labour party—no doubt the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will cheer this — to the left of the Italian and French Communist parties, which respectively support NATO and the nuclear deterrent.
    Does the Leader of the Opposition seriously believe that he could dictate to our United States ally with what weapons it is to be allowed the privilege of defending Britain, yet count on it remaining? If he does, he is making a major error of judgment. I suspect that he knows the truth and that he has been told that the present or any future American Administration faced with such a diktat would be most likely to withdraw not only from Britain but from Europe. Anyone who doubts that need only examine the reaction of the British and United States Governments faced with the attempt of the Socialist Government in New Zealand to dictate what categories of warship should be allowed to visit that country. Our categorical answer has been to break off all intended visits by Royal Navy or United States vessels to New Zealand.
    I give the right hon. Gentleman credit for being no one's fool. He knows that there is every danger that that would be the American reaction. Is that not why he is so desperate to obtain American vows of secrecy on that subject? He knows that if it became public knowledge that a Labour victory would mean US withdrawal and a consequent end to NATO, which has been the foundation and cornerstone of 40 years of peace in Europe, the British electorate would give him short shrift and he could wave goodbye to any prospect of getting to No. 10.
    I urge the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Labour party to consider the possibility that on the issue of British nuclear deterrence and United States bases in the United Kingdom, he may be mistaken and that the Governments of Attlee, Wilson and Callaghan were right. It is not too late for Labour to rethink its policy and to come up with a defence policy that will underpin, rather than undermine, peace.
    7.28 pm
    Mr Lewis Carter-Jones: I shall commence with a quotation that explains part of the dilemma that we face in the debate. It is the foreward written by the Secretary of State for Defence to the booklet that we have all been sent. It states:
    "Within NATO, the United Kingdom's contribution is unique. We are the only country both to contribute strategic nuclear, threatre nuclear and conventional forces to the Alliance and to commit forces to each of the three major NATO Commands."
    When one has said that, one has explained the reason for the cuts. We are trying to spread the jam far too thinly.
    So far, no one has said anything against frigates and no one has said anything against fighter aircraft. There is almost unanimity in the House on that, although we have not quite agreed on the definition of 50 frigates. We have
    888
    heard the words "about 50", "maybe" and "could be", but no firm figure. In my day, five times 10 was 50. I am afraid that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, who is no longer in his place, had some difficulty in agreeing that figure.
    I am delighted that we have made progress with the European fighter aircraft. I have no interest to declare either in the aircraft industry or in building frigates. We do not build them in Eccles. However, I share a canal with the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill).
    We have made decisions on the fighter aircraft, but we have done so rather late. This is a theme that I have hammered over the years in the House. In the 1940s we had Spitfires and Hurricanes, but the trouble was we did not have enough of them. My own aircraft, the Mosquito, was coming along quite nicely at the time. With reference to the decision on the new fighter aircraft, we are talking about a date round about 1995. However, I have no doubt that the House and the country will accept that the country needs fighter aircraft and frigates.
    Everyone has paid tribute to the Tornado. No doubt it is a superb aircraft, but if we are to have the aircraft in sufficient numbers, we must look very carefully at orders from Saudi Arabia and Oman for this aircraft. We have the prize problem of reconciling the balance of payments with supplying an excellent aircraft to the Royal Air Force.
    The Ministry has a great reputation for being dilatory —I would almost go so far as to say indolent—with regard to the Lysander. I said "Lysander", because I was going to refer to Westland. In my old days, Westland built the Lysander. I did not realise that Westland built helicopters until I came to the House. However, decisions have not been made with regard to helicopters, which could be a disaster for the British helicopter industry and could put an extremely good Rolls-Royce component engine, the RTM 322, at risk. The Minister should pay close attention to that.
    When a decision is finalised on an engine for the European fighter, we should take into account the fact that an aircraft has three elements — the airframe, avionics and the power plant. We are quite capable of building the power plant in this country, and Rolls-Royce must certainly have a part to play. I am concerned with preserving British technology and British jobs. The ordering programme is important in maintaining British technology at top level and in preserving British technology in this country.
    I am worried about the SDI programme. It seems attractive, and it seems to offer employment prospects, but what worries me is that the Americans will pick up that at which we are best.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Absolutely.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: They will pick up that at which we are superb. They will seem to pay an attractive price, but if what they are buying is intelligence and knowledge, it may turn out that they have bought it very cheaply.
    In 1944, towards the end of the war, I was using what was probably the most advanced airborne avionics in the world at that time — the mark 10 air interceptor equipment. We had a tremendous lead at that time, but somehow or other that lead was lost and that know-how went to another country. We should try, to the best of our ability, to preserve leads in that field.

    889
    The Minister should not be too worried about the fact that the Americans refer to the financing of the airbus and say that they do not do things like that. Last month, in the presence of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), I saw the new engine for the Boeing 7J7, which is to be a prop jet, fitted to a Boeing 727, starboard side. This is the new generation engine. The letters NASA, in big print, spell National Aeronautics and Space Administration to me. No one will convince me that NASA is an example of private enterprise. It is not. If there is ever a chance to put defence money into British research, the Minister should do so willingly and openly.
    The horizontal take-off and landing launcher —HOTOL —is supposed eventually to take us to Australia in 45 minutes. I cannot think of anyone who would wish to get there that quickly.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Rupert Murdoch?
    Mr. Carter-Jones: No, Mr. Murdoch now lives in America. I do not think that it is designed to fly to America yet.
    HOTOL has a use because of its low-level orbit, which might make it suitable for searching and scanning the sky. Logically, that brings me to the plea advanced by the leader of the SDP. For reasons that I can understand, he was not in agreement with the spokesman for the Liberal party. Last night the right hon. Gentleman pushed the concept of the cruise missile. There is no doubt that with low-level fast approach work one can often avoid the radar of the opposing country. Ground returns were always a problem for radar from 1940 onwards. The right hon. Gentleman talked in terms of cruise becoming supersonic. Let us remember the troubles associated with Nimrod, GEC and the early warning system. I am trying to think of the avionic complications of keeping cruise at supersonic speeds at about 50 ft above the ground. To use an old cliché, cruise is a "shoot yourself in the foot" weapon. It is an own-goal weapon. If own-goal weapons have nuclear warheads, they can be devastating not only to enemies, but to one's friends and indeed to oneself. In my view, cruise is a non-starter.
    I hope the Minister will acknowledge that the country is prepared to accept frigates, fighters and the conventional weapons that we need. In the other place, Lord Hill-Norton said:
    "First, I congratulate the Ministers, the editors and the authors on an extremely well-presented, well-written and generally informative document."
    The noble Lord qualified his praise. He said "generally".
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: I crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for another two sentences.
    "It has been criticised in some knowledgeable quarters as being a bit glib, and so I suppose it is in the sense that most of the really difficult problems before the Government in the defence ministry are glossed over a bit easily".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 June 1986, Vol. 477, c. 302.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to reproach the hon. Gentleman on another count as well. He is out of order in quoting from the record of the other place other than from a Minister in the current Session.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    7.39 pm
    Mr. Julian Critchley: Yesterday, we listened to a remarkable speech from the Secretary of State. It was all about money and the theme of the speech was that the party was over. Since 1979, the Government have spent one third more in real terms on defence, but certain decisions have been taken which add up to the end of this particular party.
    The 3 per cent. increase in real terms is to be no more and, more important, it appears that over the next three years we shall be £800 million short in the defence budget. What are the implications of so remarkable and frank announcement by the Secretary of State? Clearly, between now and the general election, the Secretary of State must postpone much, cancel a little, shuffle his cards where necessary, and go in for fudge. The only pleasure that he might derive in the next 18 months is that he may have a little fun at the expense of the Opposition parties.
    What then is the choice that faces the simple elector when it comes to defence? It appears that the Labour party will abandon our nuclear weapons but stay within NATO. It will do so, despite the growth of American nationalism and the growth on this side of the Atlantic of anti-Americanism. It is arguable that by ridding ourselves of our nuclear weapons, at least Britain and Europe would become more dependent than ever before on the strategic nuclear guarantee of the United States.
    A further factor relates to the United States air force bases in the United Kingdom. They and their nuclear weapons are to be given notice to quit. Presumably, that would be a matter for negotiation, but it could not fail to aggravate to some extent Anglo-American relations and, at the same time, put a big question mark over NATO strategy which as every defence expert knows, still depends on the first use of allied nuclear weapons against a Soviet conventional strike. For the Labour party to appear to be anti-American and to move the country into an ex-nuclear status would perhaps achieve the worst of both worlds.
    The SDP-Liberal alliance speaks not with one voice but with two. Clearly, the SDP wants a successor system to Polaris and the Libs want out of the nuclear business. So my simple elector will presumably go to the two conferences at Harrogate and Eastbourne in September this year in search of a compromise of sorts. But a compromise between virginity and virility is hard to achieve. On balance, I suspect that the elector will be disappointed. It could be that the SDP would keep the rockets while the Liberals would fill the warheads with muesli.
    Before the chairman of our great party rushes into print to rubbish his enemies, let him beware. What do we offer? The same package as before? More conventional weapons? A larger nuclear capability in the Trident programme? The truth is that were we to be re-elected, we could not afford to purchase a three-piece suit of such quality. We would have to cut our cloth. Is there anybody who can deny that the first duty of the new Conservative Secretary of State, given our re-election, is to set in course the most fundamental of fundamental defence reviews?
    What would have to give under the circumstances? Would it be the Trident programme? I suspect that we would be too far down the road to make any appreciable savings under those circumstances. Would the argument so beloved by editors of The Times, that the Rhine Array be withdrawn and brought back to Aldershot to save

    891
    money, become more attractive in 18 months' time? Would the Royal Air Force be further reduced in number and a question mark placed over the European fighter aircraft? Or does the next Conservative Government look to the spirit of Sir John Nott to shrink the surface fleet? This is where we all came in in 1982.
    We must expect no help from the Soviet Union because I think that we shall enter into a long period of calm and tranquillity in foreign affairs. We all have our ideas about what should happen eventually when we have a fundamental defence review because the implications for defence and foreign policy are remarkably important. But we shall not find out until 365 days after polling day.
    In conclusion, the Labour party would save some money at the expense of the NATO Alliance. The SDP-Liberal alliance has not yet got its act together. We in the Conservative party will discuss all aspects of defence between now and the general election except for the aspects of defence that really matter. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Dick Douglas: It is always interesting to hear the analysis of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), who is an interesting commentator. I suspect that not only he but others have been rehearsing the speeches that they make during the general election campaign. I hope I shall be forgiven for turning to a matter which the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) suggested was amiss, a local issue which affects my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)—the Rosyth dockyard.
    I shall not follow the Minister in talking about the contractual relationships which may be pursued at present with those who may be bidding for the Rosyth and or Devonport dockyards. What details of information are likely to be forthcoming to my constituents, who are worried about the proposed development of the Rosyth base to facilitate the twin dock for nuclear submarines in the not-too-distant future? My constituents, especially those at Limekilns and Rosyth, need reassurances because they are likely to be faced with two nuclear-powered submarines of a different type and of a different dimension in terms of pressurised water reactor. They need specific assurances about the safety precautions that are likely to be taken should something go amiss with those boats.
    The Secretary of State said that he would be fairly forthcoming to my constituents, and they have already had some meetings in the area. I hope that I can press the Minister to be even more forthcoming. While I accept that it is unlikely that the development of nuclear refitting facilities can take place anywhere other than at the Rosyth dockyard, my constituents need their fears allayed.
    One aspect of the Dockyard Services Bill causes me anxiety. We should be able to assure many of the young people who are serving their apprenticeship in the dockyard that they should be able to complete their apprenticeship without fear of dismissal when it is completed. I press the Minister on that point, because it is extremely unfair to cry out for additional skills in Scotland and elsewhere, and simultaneously see those skills eroded and put on the scrap heap at the end of the apprenticeship period.
    892
    We have heard a lot of talk about frigates and frigate orders. The revelations by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) must be answered, and I hope I have the Minister's attention about this. They are revelations in relation to the searching questions that I put during the examination of Mr. Levene, who was not evasive. He gave answers that seem to be contradicted by the views put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East.
    The House would appreciate some answers about the ordering of frigates. Many hon. Members have put that point and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) pressed his Government to take a decision. The orders are likely to be announced within a few weeks and I hope that they will be announced in the House and not as part of a written answer, so that we can question the background and the views put to the Minister. We cannot get information about the numbers, far less about the yards that are likely to receive these orders.
    In his speech yesterday the Secretary of State used a phrase which suggested that his defence policy ought to be one of stability and continuity. That is not the case in terms of Secretaries of State because we have seen the managerial man, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) succeeded by the perjink politician, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). He is a subtle and smooth politician and is likely to evade the decisions that the hon. Member for Aldershot pressed him to consider, albeit in the future.
    I do not agree with the view that we should consider all four options. Something has to go, and if the Government were wise they would get rid of Trident. I put the following point to hon. Members who might challenge me on that. I cannot conceive of any situation in which British so-called independent nuclear deterrent, which is presently Polaris, or the French so-called independent nuclear deterrent could be used without the support and the agreement of the Americans. These deterrents add nothing to the NATO Alliance.
    In the Defence Estimates there are some sleights of hand about making the necessary savings. In the Estimates, the Secretary of State looks at European collaboration, which of course is attractive until one examines it in detail. We admire the work undertaken by the right hon. Member for Henley in upgrading the growth of the independent European programme. But if we examine the shining light of European collaboration, the Tornado, it will be seen that it was a costly project and did not necessarily bring outstanding benefits in cost savings to the United Kingdom. That is not the way out. Modern defence equipment is capital intensive and extremely costly, especially in research and development.
    Finally, I should like to turn to the important matter of the strategic defence initiative. The Defence Estimates show a high proportion of expenditure on research and development. I have consistently argued that that is too high a proportion of our total research and development programme locked up in defence.
    In the Select Committee we examined the Government Chief Scientist. He clearly indicated that the Americans are not interested in us because they love our bonnie blue or brown eyes, but that they are interested in the high quality of our research and development, and especially that which has been undertaken by many of our scientific institutions. The Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) was

    893
    quite right when he said that, if we did not collaborate, much of our intellectual manpower, if I can put it that way, could easily be bid away. That is a distortion of our effort that damages our industrial base. We ought not to be sanguine about the way in which the Americans have trawled our research institutions and universities in order to bribe people away for the strategic defence initiative which, however one describes it, is extremely dubious in terms of total defence.
    President Reagan in a speech in March 1983 took a certain view about how he could overcome difficulties that faced him about defending the United States. We ought to be careful about this type of collaboration. This is an interesting debate, and in his reply the Minister of State should give us certain assurances about naval orders that are important for the people of Scotland and especially for the people of Clydeside.
    7.55 pm
    Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn): Within the next two or three years there will have to be a major re-examination of the size of Britain's military commitments. Some short-term economies and the momentum built up over the last six years of spending growth may mean that awkward decisions can be postponed, but shortly we shall have to consider the priority attached to each commitment and decide whether the United Kingdom can continue to afford them all.
    Personnel costs, if anything, are likely to rise. Consequently, it is the equipment budget that is likely to suffer the biggest reductions in funding and on one view this will fall by around 10 per cent. in real terms by 1988–89. Those who feel that a cancellation of Trident would provide the answer and ease the pressure on conventional weapons expenditure, need to be disabused. Certainly, if a Conservative Government cancelled Trident no doubt the saving would remain within the defence budget, although we would have lost one of the most significant elements in deterrence — namely, a second centre of decision making in Europe with a credible nuclear deterrent.
    Although all the major Opposition parties are united in a commitment to abandon Trident, an SDP-dominated Government would have to use most, if not all, the savings from Trident in order to pay for an alternative replacement for Polaris, and it has become quite clear that a Labour or Liberal-dominated Government would channel any savings into other areas of Government expenditure and not into defence equipment. As it is unlikely that a Conservative Government will cancel Trident, the squeeze is on defence equipment, whether Trident is cancelled in the future or not.
    We should remember that the United Kingdom wins wars because of the spirit and efficiency of British service personnel. We in Parliament have a duty to provide them with the best reasonably obtainable equipment. Financial consideration may mean that such equipment has to be increasingly multi-purpose rather than dedicated to specific tasks unless we are to curtail dramatically the various theatres in which we expect our service men to operate. That is why the Prime Minister is to be congratulated on looking again at the Royal Navy's decision for the new frigate. I appreciate that the type 23 was designed specifically to carry out highly specialised anti-submarine warfare in the eastern Atlantic. There could be no better ship than the type 23 for this purpose,
    894
    but if a more general purpose vessel were to be considered, then the S90, the short fat hull, should merit greater attention. The S90 is cheaper and has greater natural stability than the long slim hull of the type 23 as well as providing a better weapons platform and a larger radar horizon.
    The marine technology board of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council conducted trials of the two types and concluded that the S90 design failed to reach Ministry of Defence standards. It is uncertain by how much the standards were not reached and whether such shortcomings could be remedied fairly easily. If we are to maintain an adequate size of surface fleet at a cheaper cost then a multipurpose S90 frigate may well be the next generation that we should be looking towards after the type 23. We should build a prototype S90 so that it can be properly evaluated.
    The greatest flexibility that we have and the element which we should ensure remains both credible and able to operate in a variety of different situations is our amphibious force. It is the only fully flexible aggressive force that we have that can be deployed out of, as well as within, the NATO area. It has the freedom to advance, withdraw, concentrate or disperse without violating frontiers or abandoning ground.
    There are many circumstances in which such forces could be necessary other than in wartime. Top of the list comes the rescue or evacuation of one's own friendly nationals from a threat in a foreign country. I can attest to the efficiency of our amphibious forces in achieving that objective, having just come from serving on a large NATO naval exercise off the north coast of Scotland, which is continuing without my presence, in which that was practised. Secondly, there may be an invitation from a country with which a treaty commitment or similar agreement exists, such as Belize. There is the need to maintain freedom of passage through international waters when such freedom is threatened. Thirdly, there may be a threat to the security of access to vital raw materials.
    The principal role of our amphibious forces within NATO will remain the defence of the northern flank. Equipment and capabilities must be provided with that in mind. That is against a background of the Soviet Union's growing use of amphibious forces which, by the 1990s, may be able to land in divisional strength to seize airfields in north Norway and perhaps in corps strength on the Baltic coasts with some 400 close air support aircraft.
    Our amphibious forces must not only be well protected in their passage to Norway with ships that are properly designed for damage control but continue to have the ability to insert and withdraw forces by sea which the terrain of northern Norway makes impossible by land. We could expect the five air heads in northern Norway to be rendered inoperative by enemy action. In any event, an airlift would be impracticable as it would require 500 C130 Hercules loads and extend over several days with heavy equipment having to follow by sea. Only an amphibious force properly equipped and with dedicated transport can maintain complete independence and flexibility of operation.
    To fulfil those many tasks, the decision must be taken now to replace or renovate Fearless and Intrepid, as well as the landing ships logistic, which will come to the end of their useful life in the mid-1990s. There is unanimity among service chiefs about the need for that. I know that matters are well advanced, but I hope that the two

    895
    replacements will maintain the same credibility by having extensive damage control facility and the doubling up of systems to ensure their survivability. I hope that Fearless and Intrepid will not necessarily be mothballed, but, taking a leaf out of the book of practice of the United States and the Soviet Union, will be renovated and their lives extended as far as practicably possible within existing hulls.
    Beyond that, the most pressing need is a lift capability. Since the demise of the Commando ship, such as Bulwark, on which I had the privilege to serve, we have no dedicated large deck for multi-slot helicopter operations. On Bulwark in 1976 in the West Indies I was able to observe a Commando embarked for three months with a helicopter squadron with the ability to lift the whole Commando and its supporting arms to a deployment within two hours.
    We need to carry at least two thirds of the amphibious forces in specialised ships which should also be able to transport and operate the helicopters and landing craft needed for ship-to-ship movement and subsequent resupply. We cannot afford the expensive and dangerous practice of cross-decking troops, equipment and vehicles to match them to the means of getting them ashore. There are obvious advantages in the force being able to deploy to the objective area already grouped together so that training, briefing and rehearsals can be conducted together.
    In the view of Lieutenant-General Sir Steuart Pringle, the lesson of the Falklands was not that commercial ships can do the task but that without a corps of specialist ships, it could not have been embarked upon. We should have sufficient helicopters on specialised Commando shipping to be able to launch a simultaneous lift of two company groups—some 300 men with their associated equipment and support weapons — which means 24 Sea King equivalents. To deliver that number of aircraft simultaneously, a total of at least 12 operating spots is needed. For our amphibious forces to retain credibility and the ability to fulfil their multi-purpose role, we must ensure that we have at least one Commando carrier with the requisite number of helicopters.
    It is reported that senior Royal Navy and Royal Marine staff officers have pressed for converted transports called aviation support ships since 1984. We now have no Commando carrier. I understand that the Government are giving serious thought to appointing British Aerospace Ship Systems as the prime contractor for conversion of the ro-ro merchant ship Contender Argent into a Hermes replacement for £100 million.
    It is reported that Mr. John Thornton, the sales manager, told a conference that his company had completed a study for a more comprehensive conversion which would make it even more capable than the carrier Invincible with at least 12 Sea Harriers and the facilities to support 12 helicopters, six operating simultaneously, as well as a complete Commando as embarked force.
    Those ships would have to be protected adequately. Understandably, there is genuine doubt about the ability of converted merchant vessels to withstand battle damage, as was demonstrated by the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor in the Falklands. We cannot afford to give our amphibious forces second best. They will bear the brunt of any conflict outside general war, as has been demonstrated by the only conflict in which this country has been involved in my
    896
    memory. Such a programme should cost no more than £600 million. It is a small price to pay for what was described by Liddell Hart:
    "amphibious flexibility is the greatest strategic asset that a sea-based power possesses. It creates a distraction to a continental enemy's concentration that is most advantageously disproportionate to the resources employed."
    For our future security, the Government must take the correct decision. Many people will scrutinise it most carefully.
    8.5 pm
    Mr. Alfred Dubs: Any organisation that is accused of racial discrimination tends to answer by saying, "We do not discriminate. We treat all people equally." When that organisation is then asked for the evidence that it does not discriminate, the organisation tends to say, "We do not need to monitor or collect evidence because it is our policy not to discriminate." That is precisely how the armed services, especially the Army, have responded to the well-documented evidence that racial discrimination takes place in the British Army. That discrimination takes place in recruitment and promotion for those who join.
    In inner-city areas, both in north America and now in Britain, joining the Army has been the way in which disadvantaged young men and women, especially men, from ethnic minorities have found their way to getting jobs, further training and opportunities. If the Army does not provide equality of opportunity for people in that position, the Army is that much the poorer for it. Indeed, the country must be concerned that one important area of job opportunity directly under public control discriminates in a society where discrimination should not take place.
    The discrimination varies from regiment to regiment. Some regiments appear not to take any black or Asian people at all. Other regiments appear to set quotas to keep numbers down. Other regiments have an open-door policy and attract young men of Afro-Caribbean or Asian origin. For some time, perhaps not today, the physical training corps did not take black people. For some time, perhaps not today, the military police did not take black people.
    More importantly—it is still true—it is the regiments concerned with ceremonial duties which seem to have set their backs on having black people among their numbers. One only had to watch the Trooping of the Colour to see that not a single black face was present. The discrimination appears to apply to the Guards Regiment, the Life Guards and the Household Cavalry —ceremonial regiments which deal especially with duties outside Buckingham Palace and elsewhere when the royal family are present. That is of double concern because the Queen is head of a multiracial Commonwealth. It has been reported that the Prince of Wales expressed concern about the events and the features which I have described.
    The Army says, "There is a traditional policy of recruitment. We tend to take people whose fathers served in regiments." That is bound to be disciminatory. In any area of employment in a society which is as multiracial as Britain's, the policy of giving people job opportunities only because their fathers had jobs there is bound to be discriminatory.
    I do not refer just to recruitment. I refer also to the conditions within certain regiments and the opportunities for promotion. Life in the Army is tough. Nobody denies that. The Army is not for squeamish people. New recruits

    897
    suffer abuse. They suffer what I would call a certain amount of aggro. I am satisfied — I have spoken to black people who have served in the Army—that, over and beyond the normal toughness and rugged approach, especially towards new recruits, life is much tougher for black people in the Army than for white people. It is unnecessarily harsh because they suffer racial abuse and sometimes physical violence.
    It is clear that the chances of promotion for black people are significantly less than for white people. The other day, in the Palace of Westminster I met one of my constituents who had served for 12 years in the Army. He had tried to become a lance-corporal. He reached that stage but then, as he said, he was "busted". He is a man of great intelligence, skill and aptitude and I am certain from what he said that he was a good—indeed, a first-class — soldier. Nevertheless, he got nowhere. It may interest the House to know that he has set up his own business and is now the managing director of a successful company. The Army thought that he was not good enough even to have one stripe.
    There are a couple of black colonels in the Army—in, I believe, the medical corps and dental corps respectively—but how many black officers are there in the ordinary Army regiments? Perhaps one, perhaps none. Yes, at Sandhurst many black people are officer cadets, but they are all receiving training for the services in overseas countries, not for the British Army.
    It need not be like that. I am not saying that everything about the American army is wonderful. I am old enough to remember when the American army came to this country in 1942. It had all-black regiments with white officers, and the only black officers were padres. The American army has changed. Recently, I saw a book on the future for black people in the American army which contained pages of photographs of one, two, three and four-star generals. I am told that at a recent gathering in New York there were 76 black generals and admirals. The American army has demonstrated that, without discriminating, it can still be effective. I criticise it in other respects but in this there are lessons to be learned from it.
    This issue is a challenge. We cannot allow this discrimination to continue. It is bad for the Army and for the country. We need a clear statement of policy from the Minister that discrimination should not take place in the Army, in terms of recruitment or promotion, and that it should not take place in any regiment or any aspect of the British armed services. The Government's policy must be that discrimination should not and will not take place.
    The Government should at last start monitoring—this has been under consideration for some time —applications for jobs and promotions in the armed services to ascertain whether racial discrimination, which should be done away with, continues to take place. Unless we monitor this process, and know exactly what is happening, there is still the possibility that discrimination will take place somewhere along the line. If the Army is all-white, most, if not all, promotion decisions will be made by white men. There is always a tendency, even if one does not discriminate deliberately, to select for jobs people in one's own image. In a country in which most decent jobs are decided by white interviewers, it is not surprising that most of the best jobs go to white men. The Army must be careful. Monitoring is one sanction which must apply.
    It is necessary to give better advice to recruiting officers. Of course, young black men whose families have no
    898
    tradition of service in the British Army will not know how best to apply and to proceed with an army career. It is up to the recruiting officers to give better advice and encouragement to those who apply.
    If we do not get rid of discrimination in the armed forces, young black men will no longer apply to join. The Army will be the worse for that and it will block yet another avenue of job opportunity and career development for black people in our inner cities. Heaven knows, there are too few such avenues open to them. It is vital that, in a country which is supposed to believe that racial discrimination does not take place, we demonstrate in the very service that is under public control that such discrimination does not exist. This is a challenge to the Government, and I hope that they rise to it.
    8.14 pm
    Mr. Spencer Batiste: I must be brief, and I therefore apologise to those hon. Members who have made interesting points if I cannot take them up, but I want to deal with a problem of vital interest to many of my constituents who work at the royal ordnance factory at Barnbow in building the Challenger tank.
    Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Slate spoke about the orders placed last year for Challenger and about the increase in competition in procurement generally. I want to put both statements in the context of my right hon. Friend's statement two weeks ago on the review of the privatisation of Royal Ordnance plc and his withholding of the further order for the 7th Regiment: of Challenger tanks from R0F Barnbow.
    I am an enthusiast for the privatisation of industrial operations. There are many reasons, but the main one is that those companies do better in the private sector for all concerned with them. The spectacular success record of those companies which have been privatised speaks for itself. The privatisation which has been achieved so far has involved either employee buy-outs or flotation, with employees taking up shares in their own companies. That is a vital ingredient in success.
    Royal Ordnance plc had my full support during the passage of the enabling Bill, primarily because of the assurances by the then Secretary of State that privatisation would be by way of flotation of the group as a whole. In my view, and in the view of those who are familiar with Royal Ordnance plc, that group will be well suited to prosper in the private sector, because it is a strong, integrated group with many unique skills and resources.
    Royal Ordnance plc went well down the route to flotation, when there was a public intervention by Vickers in the order for the 7th Regiment of Challenger. I do not blame Vickers for doing what would come naturally to anyone in competition, but the action of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in appearing to respond to that intervention by withholding the order that he was about to place and by announcing a review of future arrangements for the flotation of Royal Ordnance plc has caused widespread concern, especially in Leeds.
    I fully accept that it may be that the timetable for flotation is too tight. Many uniquely complicated factors are involved in the flotation and it is important that they are put right before the company is placed on the market. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will soon announce a new timetable for the flotation as planned in form and content, I shall have no complaint. However, I shall point to the several years of indecision and doubt

    899
    which the employees have faced as a good example of why they would he better off in the private sector than under public control. But if the rumours of a planned break-up of the royal ordnance factories and the sale of ROF Barnbow to Vickers proves to be justified, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have a fight on his hands.
    In my view and, I believe, that of many, asset stripping is not an acceptable form of privatisation. The only basis on which Vickers would be interested in Barnbow would be in closing it down, removing its specialist plant and tooling and finishing off its only United Kingdom competitor for tanks. That would not increase the competition to which my right hon. Friend so proudly refers in the White Paper. The sale of Barnbow to Vickers wold be contrary to any sensible competition policy. Indeed, it would go much further than that, because it would cast a blight on the Government's good intentions on future privatisation proposals.
    Royal Ordnance plc is a well-integrated group with much cross-supplying between its component companies. Almost all the companies in the group contribute to Challenger or to its ammunition and spares. It is the total package that is critical in the commercial context. The carve-up of Barnbow would only foreshadow the break-up of the group as whole and I for one would fight that every inch of the way.
    This leads me to the order for the 7th Regiment, which is vital to Barnbow's survival. As I understand it, the pen of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was hovering over the paper of the contract for signature when he drew back. We need to know whether the order is being cut or postponed, and whether it will be placed in the near future. If it is to be placed, it should be borne in mind that Barnbow is already tooled up, has already made some 300 Challenger tanks and has wide experience in manufacturing them, whereas Vickers is neither tooled up nor has any experience in making them.
    Vickers is still in the tank business today only because of the injection of regional aid by the Government into the north-east. Many of us believe that it is vital that regional aid must not become a cloak for job stealing from areas which need the jobs they already have.
    Given those facts, there is no way in which Vickers could undercut Barnbow for the Challenger unless it is given an edge in addition to the regional aid it has already received, such as extra funds for tooling and setting up. Where would be the saving to the Government in that? In any event, the Select Committee has shown in its report how difficult it is to quantify savings from competition, especially with complex products with long lead times.
    Why the hesitancy in placing the order with Barnbow as was intended? The very fact of delay is costing jobs in Barnbow and is making it more difficult for the group to find orders overseas because of the fear that there will be a lack of continuity in what the group can supply. Why cause further doubts and anxieties on top of those that have been caused by the delays of the past two years? Why put at risk the future of the best tank in the world by breaking up the team that make it?
    When the Bill to set up Royal Ordnance plc went through the House, the then Secretary of State gave assurances that, after examining all the facts, the group would be floated as a whole. Today, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has shown excellent judgment in
    900
    announcing the retention of the clothing and textile depot in Leeds instead of moving it, as was originally proposed, to Glasgow. I said in an intervention that the moving of jobs from one area to another made no economic sense. I am glad that the Under-Secretary showed such good judgment in that respect.
    I am now asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to show similar good judgment in confirming quickly a new programme and timetable for the flotation of Royal Ordnance plc in its present form and for a quick decision on the order for the 7th Regiment of the Challenger tank.
    Royal Ordnance plc as a group can be a strong and vital force in the private sector defence industry if we give it its chance, and if we give a chance to those who work in it to prove what they can do.
    8.23 pm
    Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) has posed some pertinent questions about the future of the Royal Ordnance factory in which many of his constituents work and future orders for the Challenger tank.
    I also immediately associate myself with the plea made by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) for the repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 in respect of non-combatant service personnel. The right hon. Gentleman raised many points and I look forward to the Minister's response to them.
    The theme running through many of the speeches this evening and yesterday was the budgetary crisis which the Secretary of State faces as he tries to match a declining level of resources in real terms with our defence needs and commitments. I make no apology for returning to that theme.
    The "Statement on the Defence Estimates" admits that some difficult decisions will have to be taken, which is at least some movement and a more realistic assessment of the situation than that adopted by the Secretary of State's predecessor. However, I am still not convinced that the present Secretary of State or his Ministers have fully appreciated the scale of the problem—not least, in the reduction of the non-Trident equipment budget. If they have appreciated it, they are certainly not admitting to it.
    In his reply last night, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), admitted what everyone has known all along — that as a result of expenditure on Trident, which will be reaching its peak in the next few years, spending on non-Trident equipment will decrease. However, he omitted to quantify that decrease. Perhaps when the Minister replies this evening he will put some figures on that. He may also wish to comment on the accuracy of the calculations contained in a paper prepared by the Defence Information Group which, having made assumptions about spending on spares, repairs, and maintenance, estimates that spending on non-Trident new equipment will fall from £4·6 billion in 1984·85 to £3·5 billion in 1988–89. That is a reduction of 24 per cent. in real terms. If that is the scale of the cut, difficult decisions will indeed have to be made.
    Last night the Minister, and this afternoon the Under-Secretary, tried to put in a plea of mitigation by assuring us that the cuts in expenditure would not really be cuts at all and that it was all a question of getting value for money. Few would dispute that there has been a strong argument over recent years that the Ministry of Defence should take tighter control over defence contracts. However, it is naive

    901
    to believe that greater efficiency in procurement, competition policy, or even joint procurement projects with our European allies, however admirable and desirable, will make up the shortfall as a result of declining defence expenditure.
    IF time had permitted I would have said a few more words about competition policy. The only point I would make is that taking competition policy perhaps too far could result in a number of companies and shipyards no longer being viable, as for example was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr. Brown) when he questioned the future of the Swan Hunter yard. We might then find that no other shipyards were available to provide competition. If we reach that position, then the whole point of any competitive tendering policy could well be lost.
    It has been quite obvious, not only from this debate but from many defence debates in recent months, that defence procurement policy and especially the delays in placing orders and, in some cases, the non-placing of orders, have been having grave effects on employment prospects in many parts of the country. On a number of occasions the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) has raised the issue of the royal ordnance factory in his constituency which has been manufacturing ammunition. My hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) have on many occasions expressed concern about future employment prospects at Westland because of delays in decisions on helicopter procurement. There have been cries for help from the north-east where the future of the Swan Hunter yard is critical, and we have had cries from the Clyde shipyards and those who represent Clydeside constituencies. I am sure that when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Scotland he was well aware of the need for defence orders to go to yards such as Scott Lithgow on the lower Clyde.
    The social and economic consequences of a procurement policy cannot be ignored. If it is felt, understandably, that the defence budget should not be carrying the burden of what, in many respects, would be a social policy and a burden which should more appropriately be borne by the social security budget — surely our accounting systems are not so inflexible as to fail to allow for some reallocation of resources to take into account decisions which might be influenced more by social and economic
    I have mentioned some of the difficult procurement decisions or non-decisions which have caused anxiety. The Select Committee, in its valuable report, in paragraph 15, states:
    "merely 'managing' the defence budget in the way endorsed in"—
    the 1985 Estimate—
    "could result in a defence review by stealth."
    I do not believe that it will be a defence review by stealth because stealth implies that some thought and deliberation has been given to it. I suspect that it will be a defence review by ad hockery. As each decision comes up, it will be either deferred or shelved, and in the next few years we will stumble from one crisis to another. That is why, over a number of months, my right hon. and hon. Friends have pressed for a proper defence review so that we can make a proper assessment of our commitments in relation to our resources.
    902
    We have heard again today about the latest instalment of what the future size of the frigate fleet will be. The Under-Secretary, opening the debate, said that it would be about 50. Perhaps the Minister, when he replies, will tell us when "about 50" will become "about 45." That seems to be fudge on a grand scale. I think that those ad hoc decisions are an ingredient of the most unpalatable brand of fudge served up by the present Administration.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) indicated that we identify Trident expenditure as the cuckoo in the nest — that item of expenditure which is leading to a major squeeze on other items of new defence equipment. He delivered an effective critique of the Trident programme and why it should be cancelled on the grounds of cost and escalation in our nuclear capacity. I believe that by proceeding with the Trident programme we are losing twice over. We are losing not only on the cost we must face in terms of conventional defence but also because of the stumbling block which Trident represents at a time when deep cuts are being sought in arms negotiation talks.
    Let us consider, for example, the proposals put forward by Mr. Gorbachev on intermediate nuclear weapons which suggested that United States and Soviet intermediate nuclear weapons should be eliminated from Europe. Mr. Gorbachev did not ask as a condition for the scrapping of the United Kingdom or French nuclear weapon programmes, only that our forces should not be increased — in other words, that we should not escalate from Polaris to Trident. However, the Prime Minister on more than one occasion has refused to give even that commitment. That possible avenue for exploration and negotiation has been effectively blocked by the Government's obsession to keep the Trident programme alive.
    I would now like to consider the progress which the alliance would like to see made towards the negotiation of a comprehensive test ban treaty. We have been told regularly by Ministers at the Dispatch Box, and it appears in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates," that the major problem in negotiating such a treaty is verification. That flies in the face of the views of an increasing number of scientists who believe that there are no longer any real technical obstacles to the negotiation of a verifiable comprehensive test ban treaty.
    Last week in Nevada we saw the real reason why we have not taken any initiative over the test ban treaty. A nuclear device was exploded. No doubt that was part of the Trident programme. Again Trident is an obstacle to an initiative which we were well placed to take.
    We should have responded more positively to the Gorbachev moratorium on nuclear testing. If we dismiss every overture and initiative as simple propaganda, nothing will be achieved. It is worth remembering that in the aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis it was President Kennedy who announced a unilateral moratorium on atmospheric testing. That was the first step on the way towards a partial test ban treaty. As one of the signatories to that treaty, Britain is well placed to take the initiative to have comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations started again.
    Many nations which do not have nuclear weapons attach great importance to a nuclear test ban treaty. They see it as evidence of our good faith which we are obliged to show under the non-proliferation treaty. Since the debate on the Estimates last year, there has been a review

    903
    conference on the non-proliferation treaty. Exceptional disquiet was expressed by many nations over the lack of progress made in arms talks and the fact that, while they kept to their side of the bargain — there has been no proliferation and the treaty has been more successful than many people thought it would be when first signed—they still have to look to us to show good faith as we are obliged under the treaty.
    I believe that not enough attention has been paid to common security, which was one of the main themes of the alliance's joint commission report. The improvement that we seek in international relations goes hand in hand with specific agreements on arms control, and there are many specific proposals to that end in our defence commission report.
    I will cut my remarks short and conclude by saying that the alliance commission's proposals should be read. They contain a common thread of consistency and they will have a great appeal to the electorate when they are studied in detail before the next election.
    8.32 pm
    Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I should like to support and underpin the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) about our visit last week to the Falkland Islands. I, too, pay tribute to the professionalism of the three arms of our services and to the integration of those three arms. I should like the Secretary of State to note the services' attitude to their mail, and also the comments on the oddities of that special pay.
    Not until I was in the Falklands did the nonsense of distance strike home—not the distance from here to the Falklands, but the distance in the south Atlantic area from Argentina to Stanley, from Stanley to South Georgia, and from South Georgia to the South Sandwich Islands. I reexamined the atlas in the Library today, and it appears that the islands are almost halfway between Buenos Aires and Cape Town. The mind boggles at the comments that might come from the Opposition Benches if South Africa used the distance argument in a sovereignty debate. There is no logic in that argument. We might as well say that Cyprus is 40 miles from Turkey, but 400 miles from Greece. I know that my brother-in-law's mother is Jersey French. Distance clearly has nothing to do with the argument. The point is, we must defend what is right.
    I do not share the view of those Opposition Members who have stated —I shall have to paraphrase, as I do not have the pamphlet with me—that they will negotiate away the "albatross" of the Falklands. I do not share that simplistic view. Frankly, I criticise the role played in this matter by the Commonwealth and that of the United Nations, who, above all else, should defend the right of any nation, however small its population, to have self-determination.
    I should like to consider the main points of difference between the parties in this debate on defence. There is no point in defence unless that defence has the capability of matching, on its own or with a credible and secure alliance, a foreseeable threat to our country and its people. There is no point in having all the hardware unless that foreseeable threat perceives our will to use it. That was the great long-term benefit for peace that arose from the Falklands conflict.
    Mr. Bob Clay: Oh, come on.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Member may scoff at this but no one can argue that he wants a defence policy unless he has the will to say that if he had to use it he would.
    Mr. Tony Banks: That is what worries us.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: If that is so, the hon. Gentleman must make his decisions.
    That is why a conventional army without a nuclear capability in a nuclear world would be a pointless waste of resources. However large that conventional arm, a threat from whatever source of a nuclear reaction would render our conventional arm utterly useless. The Conservative party has the only credible and believable defence policy.
    8.36 pm
    Mr. Tony Banks: There is an awful sense of detachedness about defence debates in this place. I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State's opening speech yesterday. To hear someone quietly and dispassionately talking about vast resources being devoted to weapons of death and destruction was unnerving, unreal and, at times, downright obscene. It was also supremely irrelevant to the real problems of this country and the rest of the world.
    We are surrounded by poverty, famine and disease in the world, yet countless billions of dollars are spent on arms in this country and elsewhere. I should like to make a quick contrast. Yesterday, the Faculty of Community Medicine—part of the Royal College of Physicians—published a report which showed that Britain now has one of the worst health records among developed countries, after being a leader a generation ago.
    Britain now devotes a smaller percentage of resources to health than any other European country, with the exception of Greece. Chapter 5 of the Estimates boasts that in 1986–87 the United Kingdom will spend more on defence in absolute terms than any other European country in NATO, second only to the United States. As a percentage of national output, we spend more on defence than any other NATO country, apart from Greece. That is not a matter for self-congratulation as we hear from the Government Benches. To be statistically portrayed as a nation of disease-ridden warmongers is not an attractive image and not one which even the Prime Minister would wish to foster. That merely demonstrates how perverted the values of our country have become since 1979.
    I should like to raise two specific points in my short speech, and I hope that the Minister will answer them when he replies. They echo the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). I hope the Minister read the article that appeared in The Observer on 8 June. It claimed:
    "The seven regiments of the Household Division. … operate an unofficial colour bar."
    Apparently when it comes to Trooping the Colour one can have any colour one likes, as long as it is not black.
    The Ministry of Defence has hotly denied that there is a colour bar. Of course, one would expect that. However, I hope that the Minister will call in some of the evidence. I shall quote from the article in The Observer. It says:

    905
    "One serving senior Guards NCO told us: 'There are no blacks in the Guards. There have never been and never will be. People do not want to see a black face under a bearskin. Blacks are generally persuaded to go elsewhere'."
    There was also a letter in the Sunday Telegraph of 22 June. A regimental medical officer said that he saw a black recruit in the Brigade of Guards and was
    "summoned to the CO's office to he told that he had just seen a black Grenadier on parade and what could I do about his medical discharge?"
    The medical officer said that he could do nothing, because the man was A1 fit. Apparently, the education officer was contacted and the black Guardsman was given an aptitude IQ test. It was discovered that the recruit was too intelligent for life as a guardsman, so he was transferred to the RASC for training in motor vehicle maintenance.
    In a way, those are just anecdotes. However, given the evidence in the Observer article and the statements that have been made by my hon. Friends, I hope that the Minister will take the matter seriously. I also hope that he will ensure that an inquiry is immediately launched into the colour bar that is allegedly being operated within the Household Division. There is clearly concern among Opposition Members on this issue.
    Indeed, given the degree of concern, it is strange that the Minister should refuse point blank to have ethnic monitoring. That is not good enough. If the Minister is to be credible when denying such allegations, he must be able to produce the evidence to refute them. Without ethnic monitoring, he clearly cannot do so. The Army needs a policy of equal opportunities throughout. We also need ethnic monitoring, and we must have that inquiry into the allegations of a colour bar being operated in the Household Division.
    My second point relates to the activities of the military attaches from the South African embassy in London.
    Mr. McNamara: I take it that my hon. Friend does not just limit the operation of the colour bar to the Household Division, as other regiments and corps are involved.
    Mr. Banks: Of course I should like the inquiry to be extended, but discrimination seems to be particularly bad in the Household Division. That is where the the colour bar seems to operate most rigidly. I therefore ask the Minister to pay serious attention to the concern expressed and to ensure that an inquiry is launched.
    I asked the Minister a question about the activities of the South African military attaches, and he replied:
    "During the past three years, South African attaches, as part of organised groups of attaches from other Foreign and Commonwealth countries, have made some 30 visits to defence establishments and attended six defence-related social or ceremonial functions."—[Official Report, 16 June 1986, Vol. 99, c. 471.]
    I hope that the Minister will hold discussions with the Foreign Secretary about expelling those South African military attaches from the United Kingdom. If he is not prepared to go that far, will he at least stop inviting them to defence establishments, where they are wined and dined at the expense of British taxpayers? When considering this, the Minister should bear in mind the role of the South African armed forces and the way in which they have invaded and occupied surrounding black states. He should also bear in mind the way in which they repress their own domestic population. I am sorry if the Minister finds that amusing, because it is not meant to be an amusing matter.
    Those are the two matters to which I should like the Minister to respond.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Bill Walker: In the short time available, I shall confine my remarks to RAF matters. In doing so, I must declare an interest as a serving RAFVR officer.
    I remind the Government that the EFA programme is very much welcomed by the RAF, along with the developments that are being made. We also welcome the fact that the demonstrator aircraft is now flying. Indeed, I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends that the F16 was originally built as a demonstrator and is now the most effective air superiority aircraft in the world. Therefore, there is hope that our demonstrator aircraft may spawn something worth while. We also welcome the Tornado programme and the Hawk air defence capability that has now been introduced.
    I turn to an area that is causing concern — the airborne early warning task—but before doing so, I believe that the House would wish me to place on record our congratulations to all those who operate and maintain the elderly Shackleton aircraft fleet. There is no doubt that they have done a splendid job for many years. There must be no question of that vital area of RAF operations being required to accept aircraft or equipment that cannot fully meet the task requirements of the 1990s and the early part of the next century.
    I remind the House that Soviet aircraft and sea-skimming Contour missiles will have the technology to confuse the present generation of radar. The need is for state of the art technology and for software. Anything less will not do. Decisions in that area can have a dramatic impact on the RAF's limited air defence capability.
    Unless we can get the Tornado aircraft and the surface-to-air missiles locked on to targets at an early stage in the penetration of the United Kingdom's defence area, the massive investment that the nation has made in Tornado and other defence weapons systems will be substantially diminished in both value and effectiveness. That aspect of the United Kingdom's air defence needs must not be required to accept second best. Second best will not do. If GEC cannot meet the RAF's requirements, an alternative must be decided upon. That will be difficult, but it must be so. If that happens, other factors will also have to be considered, including the value of offset arrangements, the involvement of United Kingdom research and development, and the manufacturing and export order potential for anything that is bought.
    It will not surprise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if I now turn to the basic trainer. What is the current situation? Is the programme on time? When will the RAF at Boscombe Down receive an aircraft for in-depth evaluation? When can the flying training units expect to receive their first production aircraft? Who will pay if modifications are required to bring the aircraft up to the air staff target requirement, or for any delays in the aircraft's introduction into service? By that I mean the cost of the revenue implications of running on the Jet Provost fleet.
    I shall not delay the House with my concern over the helicopter needs of the Army and the RAF, as I believe that the matter was dealt with adequately in yesterday's debate. Suffice it to say, however, that I wish to add my name to the list of those who believe that an early decision is required, and I am glad that there will be a decision some time this year.

    907
    The Bulldog and Chipmunk aircraft are both due for substantial modification and re-equipment programmes. Before embarking on those programmes, perhaps consideration should be given to replacing both aircraft. After all, the Chipmunk is a 1948 design. I suggest that one or two of the British flight trainers that are available will suit the job. The Trago Mills or the Slingsby aircraft could be effective.
    I come to a subject dear to me, which involves the air cadets and the splendid job done by their gliding schools and by the central gliding school establishment. I welcome the comments made yesterday at the end of the debate, and I draw attention to the need to maintain adequate airfield capacity. In particular, I wish to mention the problems in the north-east of England, in central Scotland—in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has an interest — and in southern England.
    The problems that I wish to draw attention to involve the reactivating of No. 641 gliding school. The problems are not new. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be aware that many years ago—more than I care to mention—I was the last commanding officer of that school when it was active at RAF Dishforth, and before that at RAF Ouston which had been the base of the school for more than 20 years.
    I believe that there is a real prospect of reactivating the school at what used to be RAF Ouston, which is now an army unit. To do so will require the agreement of the air traffic authorities at Newcastle airport. I do not wish to understate the difficulties that there may be in reaching an agreement. However, I believe that the radio equipment in the new air cadet training sail planes makes proper air control over operations at Ouston a viable proposition that should be pursued with considerable vigour.
    The problems facing 662 gliding school at the army base at Kirknewton near Edinburgh are a different matter. They are more related to which of the services is the landlord and to the use of the aircraft hangars. The arrangements for air cadet gliding schools to operate from airfields that are run by one of the other services has, in the main, worked well. The best example that I can give is the marine base at Condor Arbroath where 662 gliding school has been based for almost 30 years, first with the Fleet Air Arm, with which I served as a chief flying instructor over 30 years ago, and later with the Marines. I wish only that the experience of 662 gliding school was the norm.
    Sadly, there have been times when army units have not been as co-operative as the Royal Navy and the Marines. I hope that any members of the Army who read the debate will take note of the example set by the Marines and the Royal Navy. Because of this, and because airfields are not always suitable for conventional gliders, air cadets have been required to make use of their fleet of motor gliders, or self-launching gliders as they are sometimes called. The flexibility offered by this type of equipment cannot be overstated. If cadets in every part of the United Kingdom are to have access to gliding, a few more motor gliders will need to be purchased. In particular, I would recommend the purchase of the Grobb 109, which is the most cost-effective, off-the-shelf purchase.
    A few extra motor gliders could help to solve the problem of operations from airfields that are unsuitable for conventional gliders. That is particularly the case in
    908
    southern England. That may be of particular interest to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces who is to wind up the debate, because it affects West Mailing which is in his constituency. It may make all the difference between gliding or no gliding for many hundreds, or possibly thousands, of cadets.
    May I also ask what is the up-to-date situation with regard to the replacement of Land Rovers and the new winches for the gliding fleet at the conventional gliding schools. Finally, may I say how much the volunteer officers and instructors appreciated the remarks of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement in winding up last night. It is always appreciated when this House recognises the service that is given by these volunteers, for which they receive no recompense. The air cadet organisation has depended for many decades upon volunteers who give their time for nothing. May I thank my right hon. Friend— —
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I apologise for having to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he has run out of time.
    8.52 pm
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: We all say things in this House that we live to regret. Yesterday, the Secretary of State said:
    "The House may agree with me that the actions of today's Opposition make the Luddites of old like wizards of high technology by comparison." — [Official Report, 30 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 717.]
    That was said in relation to the strategic defence initiative. I was present at Ye Olde Cheddar Cheese in Fleet street when the Leader of the Opposition made his statement on SDI. That statement was gone through with many toothcombs by people who really know about these matters and it must be fully answered—as, indeed, must the Edinburgh meeting on 19 June between officials of the Secretary of State for Defence and scientists from Edinburgh university. I asked for that meeting on 9 December, to which the Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) agreed —and all credit to the right hon. Gentleman.
    The Edinburgh scientists argued:
    "The design of the SDI system and its computing basis would be necessarily flawed."
    Their detailed arguments are known to the Ministry of Defence, and they have to be answered.
    The Edinburgh scientists also argued:
    "The implementation of that design in computer hardware and software would introduce further mistakes."
    Professor Milner and his colleagues have to be answered. They also argued:
    "The system could not be adequately tested to uncover the resulting problems"
    and:
    "Artificial Intelligence offers no magic solutions."
    The people who say this are not only the European but probably the world leaders in artificial intelligence.
    They argued:
    "Once deployed, there would be failures that the system could not detect, which could be catastrophic"
    and:
    "British computing research would be diverted from more socially and industrially relevant work by SDI participation."
    They also argued:
    "The research community would be divided and weakened by security requirements"
    and:

    909
    "The impact on the British economy of SDI participation would be negative."
    In particular, they said:
    "The SDI Battle Management System, if it were to be built, would be the largest and most complex real-time computer system ever. It would be composed of land, air- and space-based computers networked together, and its task would be to continuously monitor a vast array of sensors, determine when a hostile missile attack had occurred, determine the trajectories of the missiles, allocate first-layer weapons to missiles, direct their firing, assess the results and try again at the next layer."
    This adds up to a game of celestial snooker.
    Can we design such a computer system? And given such a design, could we construct it in a way that realised the design correctly? And having constructed it, could we trust it to do what we want it to do? The answer to all these questions, the experts say, is no.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): As this is a research programme to find the answers to exactly that sort of question, is not the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument that his friends who hold these strong views should join the research programme and prove their case, if that is what they want to do?
    Mr. Dalyell: The difficulty, they say, is that in the absence of a spare planet, which the Ministry of Defence does not have, there is no way of testing SDI, but if the Ministry of Defence is saying that all the Edinburgh questions will be answered, I shall regard that as an achievement of my speech.
    What chances, Dr. Henry Thompson says, are there of anyone surviving the doubtless automatic response to that very real assault to examine the programme and correct the flaw? How, for instance, does the Secretary of State for Defence answer Jane Hesketh, who says:
    "Although the system may be hierarchically defined, none of the above can be avoided, indeed they apply at all levels. Higher levels of the system must plan to cope with all the kinds of signals which may be manifested by lower levels, for whatever reason — correct operation, operator error, mechanical failure, component failure, power failure, enemy action etc."
    Leaving Edinburgh, is it not a fact that the Prime Minister agreed to SDI in December 1984 on the basis of four conditions? One was that the United States would not try to achieve superiority; two,that deployment would be negotiated with the Soviet Union and would not violate the ABM treaty; three, that it would enhance, not undermine, deterrence; and four, that it would achieve security through East-West negotiations with reduced offensive weapons on both sides. I attended an all-day conference at Kensington town hall organised by Richard Ennals and Paul Walton on Wednesday last week, and my understanding is that three at least out of these four conditions have not been adhered to.
    It is not simply a question of Luddites who are critical. The Institute of Strategic Studies is critical. The Senate Armed Services Committee in America has reduced the budget from $5·4 billion to $3·9 billion. There is undoubtedly great pressure from thousands of Washington lobbyists. Can we imagine an American situation where the Senate funds firms that are in competition with American firms? All right, as my hon. Friends have said, they may skim off the best of research at Heriot-Watt and elsewhere on optical physics and optical lasers, but when it comes to lucrative hardware, Seven hundred members of the US Academy of Sciences and 54 Nobel prize winners have come out
    910
    against it. Eighty Oxford academics in related subjects such as metallurgy and physics have come out against SDI. Many Scottish universities, reeling, as Glasgow as Edinburgh are, from financial cuts, have members who have come out against it.
    I just ask, will the Secretary of State possibly interrupt me and say that he is prepared to answer point by point the continuing dialogue that the Edinburgh computer scientists are engaged in with his Department? Will he give the assurance that they will get a proper sustained hearing?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity. I will always do my best to answer any questions that he asks of me, of course, but if it is a question that his friends have strong views about the SDI programme, it is, I emphasise, a research programme and it is trying to find the answers which nobody knows to many of these problems. If he feels strongly about it. he should join in it and tell them the answers.
    Mr. Dalyell: I have had my share of time.
    9 pm
    Mr. Conal Gregory: In this important debate on the Defence Estimates, I wish to raise two key points: first, the aspect of NATO purchasing of defence equipment, and, secondly, the issue of chemical weapons.
    On the first point, a market place does not exist. The economic laws of nature do not apply. The civil commercial world does not exist. Indeed, the state is the consumer. Since we are discussing the survival of the protected, it is vital that our citizens have that security in both conventional and nuclear armaments, and that we ensure value for money. NATO has a collective military strategy but no collective approach towards providing the means to fulfil it. Surely we need some NATO structure for pooling resources. Too many NATO statements are of the motherhood variety such as, "We must safeguard the free world." Why is there not common funding for defence research? Although I understand that there are seven collaborative projects among NATO states, there is far too much duplication. In fact, a former Secretary of State for Defence has adequately explained this in some detail in speeches. Rather than my going through all the cases in the limited time available, I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of those and may allude to them in winding up.
    Rather than have a fight between states that will develop a project, the Defence Ministers of NATO could spread out procurement among member states. I appreciate that there is an agreement on sharing technology such as between the United Kingdom and Spain and the valuable work of the Independent European Programme Group. This could be the embryo for a full-blown procurement programme.
    I believe that there is an awareness in all NATO nations on both sides of the Atlantic that we face great challenges in our security arrangements. We must act as a collective, united group of democratic nations in meeting them.
    The day has gone when Soviet quantitative superiority could be compensated by Western qualitative advantages. I am greatly worried about this gap of five to one on major equipment. Furthermore, the Western pact exercises its forces in a purely offensive manner. It is clear that Soviet military leaders, should they choose to attack, seek the capability rapidly to overrun NATO defence positions and bring a war in Europe to a rapid conclusion.

    911
    By modernising NATO's forces, the West can counter the threat from Soviet SS20 missiles and other weapons. Clearly a unified armed procurement policy within NATO will improve our defence position and the United Kingdom contribution to it.
    My second point is about chemical weapons. In the late 1950s, Britain unilaterally abandoned chemical weapons. The pilot production plant for nerve agents in Cornwall was dismantled. Indeed, in the general election year of 1979 a party of international experts was invited to the Cornish site to see for themselves that it was possible to dismantle such production facilities safely. Today, as I understand it, Britain has no chemical weapons of her own and has no plans to re-acquire any. Research is concentrated on defensive measures, such as gasmasks and protective suits.
    The United States has also stopped the manufacture of chemical weapons since 1969, but small stocks that are available to NATO exist in West Germany. I was discussing with NATO commanders last week on a visit to Brussels the difficulties that arise from that. Clearly, those stocks are becoming unstable after some 15 years. If there is to be replacement of that chemical weaponry, is it to be sited in Germany, in the United Kingdom, at say, Upper Heyford, or in the United States, our fellow member of NATO?
    I appreciate the sincere belief of Opposition Members about the removal of nuclear deterrents, hut they do not answer the convincing argument in connection with chemical weaponry—that, although we have abandoned chemical weaponry, the Soviets have not followed suit. The best way to cope with the difficulties is for all nations to agree to the conclusion of a comprehensive and verifiable ban not only on the use but on the manufacture and stockpiling of chemical weapons, and to agree to destroy existing stocks. In the absence of an agreed ban, it will be necessary to continue to deter the Soviet Union from considering the use of its powerful chemical capability against the West. I understand that the United States proposes to modernise present stocks.
    My right hon. Friend should push for such a treaty, whether in Vienna or Geneva, in his discussions with the Soviets. The talks aimed at a comprehensive agreement on chemical weapons began in the 1960s in the 18-nation disarmament committee. Initially, there was little pressure for a ban. The draft treaty of 1976, which is still on the table, should be pursued with alacrity by the new Secretary of State. The feeling in the Western world is that we have one of the best chances yet to conclude a treaty. The alernative is almost too horrific to contemplate, with the placing almost certainly in Britain of chemical weapons. If we are to seize the momentum in 1986, the chance is before us.
    Diplomacy must succeed to ensure peace. But it will do so only if we have a realistic defence capability. I hope that my right hon. Friend will respond to the two key points that I have highlighted in the defence debate.
    Several Hon. Members rose— —
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Martin O'Neill.
    Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you please ensure that it is placed on the record that I and several other hon. Members have
    912
    been unable to contribute to the debate? Indeed, many of my hon. Friends had to curtail their speeches severely. It is important that that is placed on the official record, because in the past it has been used as a slur against Labour Members that they were not interested in defence debates. That is clearly not the case now, but we have not been given the opportunity to participate.
    Dr. Hampson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Chair rightly operated the 10 minute rule this evening. Could it possibly consider these double-day debates when four Front Bench spokesmen from each side take part? The time taken by the Front Bench so far has been enormous. There have been two 45-minute speeches, plus two of half-an-hour each. Yet there are still two of us who have failed to get in, despite a constituency interest.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I realise the disappointment of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and the hon. Member for Leeds, North West (Dr. Hampson) and other hon. Gentlemen, on both sides of the House, who have not been able to get into the debate today. All I can say, which I hope will be of some slight consolation, is that at the beginning of today's debate Mr. Speaker said that he would give some precedence to those who were here for a substantial part of yesterday's debate, and they just managed, in every case, to get called today. However, I apologise to the hon. Gentlemen. I am sure they will realise that the length of speeches from the Front Benches is a matter for the Front Benches and not for the Chair.
    9.10 pm
    Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I think it is also fair to point out that statements were stacked up today, which prevented this debate from starting until way after 5 o'clock.
    However, although it has started comparatively late, the debate has gone on for some 12 hours. At times, those of us who have to reply have some difficulty in remembering exactly what we are supposed to be debating. Some of the issues raised concern the past. There is a degree of repetition in debates of this length and I was casting around for a means of trying to pull some of the threads together. I remembered the nonconformist background of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), and I was led to the conclusion that I should perhaps seek a text.
    I needed to look no further than the remarks of the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, who said last night that the message of the White Paper was
    "continuity, consolidation and realism".—[Official Report, 30 June 1986; Vol 100, c. 793]
    I congratulate the Under-Secretary on his appointment and his speech, but I would point out that it is sometimes dangerous to confuse loyalty to one's colleagues and superiors with blindness to the truth.
    Our contention is that this White Paper is a break with continuity. We believe that the consolidation in certain defence activities, which we would like to see, has been undermined and that realism is sadly lacking when it comes to the nuclear cloud which has hung over this debate. Throughout the debate we have had a series of speeches from hon. Members expressing constituency interests who have said that they want a particular project to be pursued although they have been extremely cautious

    913
    about what they can get out of the Government because of the financial strictures which have been placed upon expenditure.
    Page 39 of last year's report from the Select Committee on Defence stated:
    "Both the Secretary of State"—
    the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—
    "and the Chief of Defence Staff told us that, if level funding in reals terms is maintained then the programme would be manageable. Our view, which was confirmed by the thrust of the CDS's evidence, is that with the present policy there is bound to be a substantial real cut."
    On that occasion there was a degree of difference, because the right hon. Member for Henley stated:
    "If you say to me would it do harm to reduce the defence budget by 7 per cent. I would think that it is an unthinkable denial of resources in the defence budget. There are no plans or any discussions or even information that such a thing could come about ".
    The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman do not suggest a degree of continuity.
    From the early days of this year, with the right hon. Gentleman's rapid departure and the arrival of the new rapid deployment force in the shape of the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), there has been a change of view especially with regard to consolidation.
    There is not much hope for consolidation in relation to frigate orders. We have had the figure of 50 reduced to near 50, just about 50 or around 50. I am not sure where that comes in simple arithmetic. My understanding is that if one adds 40 and 10 one gets 50. If one takes 10 away from 50 one does not get Younger, one gets Nott. This will not be the consolidation process which we expected considering the speech of the Under-Secretary last night.
    As for realism, frankly, the document is undermined by the need to find money and resources from other budgets to fund the independent strategic nuclear strike force—a strike force which was described elsewhere as an expensive luxury, irrelevant both to the needs of NATO and to Britain's defence. I do not use those words lightly. They were used by a distinguished former soldier, whom I think is known to everyone.
    The heart of the debate lies in paragraph 503 on page 40 of the statement on Defence Estimates where it says:
    "Although the budget for 1986–87 and the two subsequent years, as published in the recent Public Expenditure White Paper, is planned to rise in cash terms, its value in real terms will decrease by about 6 per cent. over the three-year period."
    The use of the word "about" could mean that it might be 5 per cent. or 7 per cent., but certainly we are seeing a massive cut in the defence budget which, according to the statement on the Defence Estimates, will require difficult decisions to be taken.
    I want to remind the House that the proposed cuts will probably amount to something in the order of 6·4 per cent. over the years between 1984–85 and 1988–89. As I understand it, that will have the effect of cutting the equipment budget overall by about 10 per cent. up to 1989. The impact will not necessarily be felt on new equipment immediately, but it is certainly true to say that non-Trident new equipment will be cut in real terms by something in the order of 25 per cent.
    Those figures were used by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and they have some currency as they come from the Defence Information Group — a respectable research group. If, as I go through the figures, there is any possibility that they are wrong, I hope that the Minister will correct my arithmetic
    914
    when he replies because I know that the academics who have prepared those figures would be interested to see where their findings have gone astray.
    It is true that the Labour party has continually expressed the desire to cut defence expenditure. We want to see a shift in our national priorities. In 1979 for every £100 spent on education and science some £79 was spent on defence. Five years later in 1984, for every £100 spent on education and science, £101 was spent on defence.
    Meeting our responsibilities within the Western Alliance means that spending levels may well have to be sustained at those almost unacceptable levels because we recognise that the next Government will have to repair the damage to the conventional budget which the figures that we have been discussing this evening will inflict upon that budget.
    Where will those cuts be made? We have heard it said that expenditure on Trident will rise from the 198485 figure of £ 163 million to about £900 million in 1988–89. 'To fund that, conventional spending will have to be cut by about 10·8 per cent. in real terms over the next four years.
    It has been made clear, and I think that all hon. Members would agree, that any cuts of that nature should not come out of the spending on personnel. At the mornent the personnel budget accounts for about 35 per cent. of the whole budget. It is suggested that there may well be some reductions in personnel— about 2·5 per cent. in the numbers for the armed forces and about 6 to 7 per cent. in the numbers of civilians.
    But, frankly, there may well have to be an increase in the figure of 35 per cent. if service wages are to keep up with outside pay and conditions. At the moment the Government are taking consolation from the fact that fewer people are leaving the services now than in the late 1980s, but in their complacency they seem to forget that there are now 3·5 million people out of work, whereas in the 1970s the figure was barely one third of that. At that time Britain's defence industries were looking forward with some optimism to future increases in defence expenditure and were head-hunting for people to fill gaps in their organisations. I realise that account may have to be taken of possible cuts in the Falklands commitment. We are led to believe that the figure will have been reduced to about £165 million in 1988–89 from an outturn figure of about £684 million in the last financial year for which we have figures. Even allowing for that, however, conventional spending excluding the Falklands will still fall by about 8·1 per cent.
    As well as the Falklands, there may well be a fall caused by the reduction in oil prices. However, the largest part of the cuts will be found in the 46 per cent. of the budget accounted for by equipment. Between 1978–79 and 1984–85 that budget grew by about 47·5 per cent., or 6·7 per cent. per annum in real terms. Government Members have continually stressed that figure. The increase was split almost evenly between new equipment and spares and maintenance. In sea systems there was a 38 per cent. increase, in land systems a 52 per cent. increase and— largely because of Tornado—there was a 63 per cent. increase in air systems. According to the Estimates, between 1985–86 and 1986–87 there will be a cut of 4·8 per cent. in real terms of which spares, maintenance and repairs will account for just over 13 per cent. Expenditure on land systems—ammunitions, mines and explosives—will fall from £322 million in 1984 to £190 million in 1987.

    915
    In air systems—aircraft, engine support, instruments and avionics, the edges of technology—expenditure will fall from £1,001 million to £752 million.
    I appreciate that some hon. Members may find these figures tedious. However, although they may not read my remarks in Hansard for their flow of eloquence, they may well recall them when, during the long recess, they meet the firms in their constituencies that are engaged in the armaments business and begin to find out what is happening on the other side of the counter and what problems are arising about the orders.
    In avionics and air systems, there is a drop of £250 million.
    Mr. Cecil Franks: During the recess, I shall meet the managing director of Vickers. The hon. Gentleman met him too some time ago. The hon. Gentleman frequently quotes or misquotes the managing director. May I ask him a question that the managing director has put to me? If there is a general election on Thursday and on Friday the Labour Government cancels Trident, what will the lads in the yard do on Monday morning? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not say, "build more hunter-killer submarines". There are such things as design work and long lead orders. What will my constituents do on Monday morning after a Labour victory?
    Mr. O'Neill: I made a mistake in allowing the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) to intervene. Had he been here for most of the debate——
    Mr. Best: Answer.
    Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) has attended at least one day of the debate and has heard some of the Labour arguments. As far as I know, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness entered the Chamber only a few moments ago and appeared briefly yesterday afternoon.
    When it was seeking control of the privatised yard the firm stated in its prospectus that it was confident that a Labour Government would find work for the yard. I am sure that the managing director would not mislead the people to the extent that has been suggested. It may be that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the answers that have been given repeatedly, but the position is clear. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I must move on.
    At present the RAF has had to forgo the delivery of Tornados because the Tornados which it was to receive have gone to Saudi. That represents a new style of cuts and savings because equipment which was destined for the RAF but which goes to another country, conveniently, does not appear in the accounts for the forthcoming year.
    It is anticipated that the cost of the sea systems will increase from about £163 million in 1984–85 to about £500 million in 1986–87. Although there are also to be some changes in shore construction, probably at Rosyth, the net non-Trident cut in sea systems will be about 8 per cent.
    This evening, there have already been repeated requests for a clear, explicit statement as soon as possible about what the frigate orders will be. We are anxious that the statement is made before the recess and that it will give the number of ships. This evening we should like to know how many ships will be ordered, and the correct answers to
    916
    questions 503, 504 and 505 in the Select Committee document. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) says, the answers given by Mr. Levene to the Committee are untrue, it raises serious problems about the way in which the Chief of Defence Procurement conducts his relations with the Select Committee. One would have thought that those relations are central to parliamentary scrutiny of the procurement side of the budget.
    The Minister has already had more than two hours to find an answer to that, and this evening we expect a response from him. Grave allegations have been made and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who pursued Mr. Levene in Committee, is entitled to have the position made clear. He is extremely embarrassed at the way in which the matter has been raised.
    The equipment budget, regardless of spares and so on, has been a source of pride to Conservative Members. Indeed, the Government have kept their word about supplying the forces. In 1984–85 the figure stood at £7,961 million, but by 1988–89 it will have decreased to £7,125 million. If expenditure on Trident is excluded there will be a decrease of about 20 per cent. over four years. If the ongoing side of the fares and maintenance is excluded, non-Trident new equipment will fall from about £4,600 million to £3,500 million—a reduction of 25 per cent.
    The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) mentioned that figure in his speech. In many respects his speech was a model of concision, given the difficulties he had in speaking in the debate. I must say that the hon. Gentleman probably said much more in 10 minutes today than the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said in 50 minutes yesterday. However, in the midst of his remarks about the desirability of a complete test ban, the hon. Gentleman did not say whether the Liberals would have a successor to Polaris and would go along with the right hon. Member for Devonport. If they are to have a successor to Polaris, would it be tested? There must be a new kind of device which does not need testing, one which will work the first time that it is used. [Interruption.] In addition to all his other qualities, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) assumes to himself the qualities of prescience and omnipresence. The analysis and the criticism were prefectly acceptable, but sadly the conclusions left a great deal to be desired.
    Mr. Wallace: Many warheads have already been tested and we know they all go bang. I am not saying that we would have a successor to Polaris, but it would not be an insurmountable problem if at the end of the day we decided that there was a need for it.
    Mr. O'Neill: If the report in The Guardian yesterday was correct, one can have big bombs or no bombs and if one is a member of the alliance one can have small bombs, because somehow they are acceptable. They are like the Victorian chambermaid's illegitimate child — it is all right if it is a little one. Perhaps the alliance has not yet made up its mind. Perhaps at its conference in Eastbourne the alliance will reach its conclusions.
    The nature of the Estimates that the Secretary of State has presented will result in 1988–89 in new equipment spending being no higher than it was in 1979–80. We will

    917
    be back to where we started, to the beginning of the so-called fat years. Many things must be done to ensure that our contribution to the NATO Alliance is sustained. We have heard in debates elsewhere that decisions cannot be evaded by using a combination of gimmicks and sleight of hand. It is quite clear that orders will be postponed. Only nine frigates have so far been ordered and that is 12 fewer than we ought to have. A former Chief Sea Lord has said that this is a figure of extraordinary discrepancy.
    Savings cannot come from a tail to teeth exercise and they certainly cannot come from the privatisation of the dockyards. The Government will have to face some choices before 1988–89. They will have to decide whether there is to be a reduction in the British Army of the Rhine and whether there will be a reduction from 50 to 40 frigates. They will have to decide whether to sell off any of the Invincible class carriers.
    There is an absence of any definite or specific expression of commitment about the role of the amphibious craft mentioned in paragraph 42. Last year the Select Committee said:
    "If the UK does not replace us amphibious capability NATO reinforcement plans for the Northern flank will be in jeopardy."
    Given that the Government are unlikely to renege on Tornado, a large question must be raised about the orders for 250 of the European fighter aircraft. The role of Britain within NATO must be a non-nuclear one. That is a role in keeping with our economic position and with a need to secure a degree of peace and security within Europe. The Opposition recognise that in other parts of the House there is a lack of enthusiasm for that policy, but we also know that throughout Britain, following the bombing of Libya and the frightening experience for Europe of the Chernobyl disaster, people are clearly aware of the size of Europe and of the dangers of an explosion equivalent to a kilotonne shell that is not even on the surface. Chernobyl was not an air burst. The fear and anxiety surrounding an explosion of that scale has brought to many people's minds the cruel reality of what even a limited nuclear exchange would be like.
    In keeping with this country's tradition as a source of peace and security throughout the world, especially in Europe, we must modify our ambitions, in conjunction with countries which are in the NATO Alliance —Canada, Norway, Denmark and Spain—and which have just decided to commit themselves to a non-nuclear policy within NATO. As Lord Carrington said, it is an a la carte NATO. There are many precedents. We recognise that our American allies will not be over-impressed by what we are doing. But it is an alliance. It is a group of partners who should be able to agree and disagree and come together again. We believe that our policies and those embodied in our amendment are sufficient to require the support of the House. I invite my hon. Friends and other hon. Members to join us in the Lobbies to ensure that our policy becomes this country's policy.
    9.35 pm
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): The fundamental point to which the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) did not address himself was that a non-nuclear policy within NATO is a contradiction. If every member of NATO pursued that policy, there would be nothing left of the NATO Alliance.
    918
    Inevitably we have spent a great deal of time talking about defence policies, but just as important are the men and women of the armed forces. Since our debate last year they have been on duty in the United Kingdom and in 64 countries overseas. Many have served in very demanding conditions. They have served at sea, under the sea, in every type of terrain and climate and in all types of flying conditions, ranging from the best to the appalling. They have been engaged in life-saving operations in Ethiopia, Mexico, Colombia, Aden and Jamaica, and in search and rescue throughout the United Kingdom.
    Very sadly, a further 11 service men have given their lives, including, I am sorry to say, a UDR soldier who was killed earlier today, in the counter-terrorist operations that are conducted with skill and great determination in Northern Ireland. I know that all hon. Members will applaud the consistent standards of excellence shown by our armed services throughout the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who opened the debate after my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, referred to the Opposition's policy on chemical weapons. He made an important statement of policy when he said that there would be no deployment of chemical weapons to the United Kingdom under any circumstances. In reality, that means that the Labour party is eliminating the option for all time and in all future circumstances, which cannot possibly be foreseen, of giving the people of this country the defence of a chemical deterrent against the massive chemical capability or the Soviet Union, which can reach any western European country, including our own. I believe that that is an irresponsible position to take.
    Mr. Churchill rose— —
    Mr. Stanley: I shall give way to my hon. Friend a little later. I want to make further progress.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) made some pertinent points about the regional aspects of arms control. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), gave us his strong views in favour of the repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act. It is an extremely difficult issue, with some important implications. There are two sides to it. I doubt that the provision would have lasted 40 years on the statute book under successive Governments if there had not been a strong case for it, although the right hon. Gentleman has advanced arguments against it. I assure the right hon. Gentleman, as we have recently said, that we are trying to complete the review as quickly as possible. It is well advanced.
    The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of Mr. Meredith and asked what guidance is given in relation to section 10 and recruitment. I should like to look further into those points. I shall, of course, be glad to write to him about them.
    My hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) gave us the benefit of their recent visits to the Falklands. I am grateful to them for giving the House their first-hand reactions. I accept their points about the importance of mail in relation to morale, the issue of the

    919
    Falkland Islands pay rules and possible delays in the receipt of World Cup videos. I assure my hon. Friends that I shall look personally at those matters when I am in the Falklands in a few weeks' time.
    The hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) made a number of detailed points about Mr. Levene's evidence to the Select Committee of Defence. It is not possible within the compass of this debate to produce detailed responses to the hon. Gentlemen's points, but I assure them that they will be considered carefully by the Department.
    Mr. Douglas: That is not good enough. Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Stanley: If I may, I should like to continue a little further.
    The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West raised the issue of apprenticeships. I assure him that contractors for Rosyth are required to set out in their responses to the invitation to tender proposals for apprenticeships, and they will be carefully considered by the Government.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Stanley: I shall continue just for the moment. I am going to reply to those hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.
    The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) referred to a number of aspects of the equipment programme——
    Mr. O'Neill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A serious question has been raised in the debate relating to the activities of a civil servant, and there has been adequate time to obtain an answer. The Minister is refusing to provide the House with information that is available to him.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): This must be a matter for the Minister.
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member for Eccles made——
    Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on this point?
    Mr. Stanley: —a number of points on various aspects of the defence programme. I very much welcome his support for the European fighter aircraft programme.
    Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker —[Hon. Members: "Stand up."]—I am standing up. I hesitate to raise a point of order and interrrupt the Minister's speech, but serious points have been raised during the debate concerning the commercial relationships between the Ministry of Defence and large companies. The House and those companies should not have to wait any longer. The Minister has had ample opportunity to consult the civil servant, who is within the precincts, to get this vital information.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are at the end of a two-day debate. I hope that the House will give the Minister an opportunity to answer it.
    Mr. Stanley: I say to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West that I have done my best to try to
    920
    answer the points raised by many other hon. Members apart from him. I am trying to do my best to respond in the limited time available.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) made a characteristically individualistic and witty contribution. I think that I would agree more with his comments about the Labour party than with his comments on the implications of the Government's defence policy, but we certainly enjoyed his wit.
    The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) made some important points on racial discrimination. He asked for a clear statement of policy on that issue. I am glad to draw his attention to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces on 12 June, in which he said:
    "No form of racial discrimination is tolerated either in recruitment or subsequent employment. Any complaint of racial discrimination brought by a member of the Army concerning his treatment in the service would be fully investigated under the redress of grievances procedures." [Official Report, 12 June 1986; Vol. 99, c.292.]
    My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) spoke strongly in favour of the early flotation of the royal ordnance factories. He made a strong plea for them not to be broken up and for an early decision on the 7th Challenger Regiment. He addressed his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who was in his place and who I am sure will have taken careful note of the points made.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that budgetary pressures will necessitate some difficult decisions. In his speech yesterday he said that some items are having to be deleted from the equipment programme and others are having to be delayed. However, he also made the point that we are pressing ahead with improvements all the time. We are constantly making judgments on priorities and adjusting the programme accordingly.
    Against that background, the House will be glad to know that among the items for which we have made financial provision for the first time are the replacement of our amphibious shipping, Rapier for the United Kingdom-Netherlands force, an area defence missile for the next generation of surface ships, a Sea Harrier attrition buy, a 7th Challenger Regiment, and additional attrition buys of Tornado. I stress that that all represents financial provision rather than firm commitments, but to present a balanced picture the House should be aware that we are engaged in a continuous process of trying to reallocate funds in relation to changing priorities. I believe that the House will welcome those arrangements.
    Mr. Best: In the provision for the replacement of our amphibious forces, how much has been provided for, and does that include a new Commando carrier? If so, is it to be a converted merchant vessel, or a properly defended one?
    Mr. Stanley: I cannot give that degree of detail to my hon. Friend. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said, those are all details which will have to await the decision which will be taken later this year.
    The House has spent a considerable amount of time considering the future of the British deterrent. The first point that must be made is that the decision whether there should be a successor system to Polaris has to be taken now if Britain is to have continuity of a viable deterrent

    921
    in the 1990s. That decision cannot be delayed, and I was glad that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) agreed with that view in his speech yesterday.
    It is totally unrealistic to think that one can get a viable replacement system researched, developed, manufactured, tested and fully into service inside 10 years, as the alliance seems to think, let alone the European strategic cruise missile system which the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) seems to want Britain to have. That system is not on the drawing board in any European country, and it is wholly unrealistic to think that one can delay that decision.
    The second point is that one cannot expect to deter a nuclear threat with conventional forces today any more than the Japanese could in 1945. The only deterrent to nuclear is nuclear. Therefore, the basic argument advanced by the Opposition that we should simply scrap our nuclear capability and replace it with conventional capability does not stand up in defence terms. There is perhaps some doubt whether the Opposition are determined to use the whole of the Trident programme for conventional defence. We heard yesterday from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has apparently said that the Trident money would be used in the Health Service.
    The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman's commitment that the Labour party would use the Trident money for defence purposes would purchase, in the front line, perhaps three additional armoured divisions. To put that into perspective, the Warsaw pact in peace time on the central front has nearly 60 armoured divisions, and that figure would be increased rapidly to more than 90 by readily available reinforcements. Against that background, it is clear that we would achieve only a relatively marginal increase in conventional capability, even if we used all the money involved for conventional purposes.
    My third point—here I agree with the hon. Member for Devonport—is that the British people are entitled to know the views of all political parties on whether Polaris should he replaced. The right hon. Gentleman has been admirably clear on this point, and he has made his apologies for his absence tonight. He has said bluntly that he believes that we should remain a nuclear weapons state. That does not seem to be entirely in accord even with the Members of the SDP. Indeed, the president of the SDP, Mrs. Shirley Williams, with her characteristic decisiveness, said:
    "The present policy of the SDP is that the party is willing to replace Polaris under certain circumstances, but is not irrevocably committed to doing so."
    That is the present position of the president of the SDP, but I agree with the right hon. Member for Devonport that the matter must be made clear.
    The policy of the official Opposition has the merit of being clear. The right hon. Member for Llanelli said that the Polaris force will be scrapped in quick time, "in the first phase," as he described it, of the implementation of Labour's non-nuclear policy. However, we understand that the scrapping of Polaris by the Labour Government —if there is a Labour Government, and we believe that that is improbable with their defence policy—would be accompanied by a little arms control agreement between Britain and the Soviet Union.
    We read that during his recent visit to India the Leader of the Opposition said that a Labour Government would take up Mr. Gorbachev's offer to negotiate separate
    922
    nuclear weapon cuts with Britain. The key point was that Mr. Gorbachev was now prepared to talk in terms of equivalent missile-for-missile reductions. What a brilliant and masterly arms control agreement that would be. It would certainly be brilliant and masterful for the Soviet Union. It would leave the Russians with 880 strategic missiles at sea and 1,398 strategic missiles on land, and Britain with precisely zero. Only the Opposition could have fallen hook, line and sinker for that one.
    It would be completely irresponsible to scrap our Polaris deterrent when it has some years of life left in it, and when it has just been modernised with Chevalme, following the wish of the Labour Government. It would be irresponsible to scrap it when it has been confirmed once again at the most recent meeting of the NATO nuclear planning group that our strategic deterrent is fully supported by our NATO partners. The Labour party's commitment to scrap our Polaris force immediately is completely irresponsible in defence and economic terms.
    I turn to the position of the so-called alliance on this issue. I do not believe that the Liberal party's position is any different from that of the official Opposition — [Interruption.] As the Daily Mirror said:
    "Labour would have us throw away our gun now. The Liberals would wait until it was useless."
    That more or less sums up the situation.
    I see that the Leader of the Liberal party has recently been lashing out at the media over their ignorance of defence matters compared with his deep understanding of them. Last month he wrote:
    "Some of the more ignorant commentators have portrayed Britain without Polaris as being virtually defenceless. They forget, for instance, that we already have nuclear armed Tornado squadrons."
    If the right hon. Gentleman believes that the Tornado aircraft represent any sort of deterrent to the massive Soviet strategic nuclear capability, he should direct his charge of ingnorance, not at the commentators but at himself.
    The Liberal party has again and again said that it does not wish to replace Polaris. It is on the side of the one-side disarmers in this debate, and it should have the gumption to say so. The other part of the so-called alliance is hooked on to the right policy of ensuring that our country remains a nuclear capable power, but is hooked on to a wholly incorrect way of implementing it.
    Mr. Douglas: Perhaps the Minister will now clarify a point that I asked him to make clear earlier. The questions that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) asked in the Select Committee need only yes or no answers. It is extremely important that we should have those answers now. The Minister has had ample time during the debate to find out the answers, especially as the official responsible has been within the precincts of the House.
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) have raised some detailed points in relation to evidence given to the Select Committee. They need to be looked at in far more detail than is possible this evening.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Stanley: Although the SDP is right to have adopted a policy of replacing Polaris, it has chosen the wrong

    923
    means of implementing it. Sea-lauched cruise missiles are not more, but less, cost-effective. The alternative put forward by the SDP is either a deterrent that is below the minimum threshold and thus will not deter, or a deterrent which, if it is to be credible, will cost much more than Trident.
    I notice that the leader of the Liberal party, in a recent interview on "Weekend World", was asked how he viewed his relationship with the right hon. Member for Devonport. He replied:
    "Divorce never but murder occasionally".
    If the right hon. Member for Devonport was here, I would say that if he wants to save his skin and ensure his physical protection, a minor adjustment in his defence policy that takes it a little further in our direction would enable him to do that.
    The other major issue to have surfaced in the debate is the future of the American bases in this country. The Labour party's commitment is one of the most damaging and serious defence commitments to be made by any political party in this country. It will have serious consequences in Europe, where it may set in train a process whereby other countries are tempted to follow suit, but the implications for Capitol hill and for Washington itself may be much more significant. Many Americans will say that if Britain or Europe does not want them, they should start to pull out. They will start to pull out. They will pull out not only their nuclear but also their conventional assets. The policy of the official Opposition will undermine NATO and will seriously reduce the defence capability of this country———
    Mr. Norman Hogg 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 amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 346.

    Division No. 237]

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Abse, Leo

    Campbell, Ian

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Anderson, Donald

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Clarke, Thomas

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Clay, Robert

    Ashton, Joe

    Clelland, David Gordon

    Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Cohen, Harry

    Barnett, Guy

    Coleman, Donald

    Beckett, Mrs Margaret

    Conlan, Bernard

    Bell, Stuart

    Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

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

    Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Corbett, Robin

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Blair, Anthony

    Craigen, J. M.

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Crowther, Stan

    Boyes, Roland

    Dalyell, Tam

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

    Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

    Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

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

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

    Deakins, Eric

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

    Dewar, Donald

    Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

    Dixon, Donald

    Caborn, Richard

    Dormand, Jack

    Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

    Douglas, Dick

    924

    Dubs, Alfred

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Meacher, Michael

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

    Michie, William

    Eastham, Ken

    Mikardo, Ian

    Evans, John (St. Helens N)

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Ewing, Harry

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Nellist, David

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

    O'Brien, William

    Fisher, Mark

    O'Neill, Martin

    Flannery, Martin

    Park, George

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Patchett, Terry

    Forrester, John

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Foster, Derek

    Pendry, Tom

    Foulkes, George

    Pike, Peter

    Fraser, J. (Norwood)

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Garrett, W. E.

    Radice, Giles

    George, Bruce

    Randall, Stuart

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Raynsford, Nick

    Gould, Bryan

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Gourlay, Harry

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Hamilton, James (M'well N)

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

    Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

    Robertson, George

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Rogers, Allan

    Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

    Rooker, J. W.

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Rowlands, Ted

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Ryman, John

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Home Robertson, John

    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

    Hoyle, Douglas

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

    Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

    Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

    Silkin, Rt Hon J.

    Hume, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    Janner, Hon Greville

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

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Snape, Peter

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Soley, Clive

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Spearing, Nigel

    Lambie, David

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

    Lamond, James

    Strang, Gavin

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Straw, Jack

    Leighton, Ronald

    Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

    Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

    Thorne, Stan (Preston)

    Litherland, Robert

    Tinn, James

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Torney, Tom

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Wareing, Robert

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Weetch, Ken

    McKelvey, William

    White, James

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Williams, Rt Hon A.

    McNamara, Kevin

    Winnick, David

    McTaggart, Robert

    Woodall, Alec

    McWilliam, John

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Madden, Max

    Marek, Dr John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Mr. Allen McKay and

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Mr. Chris Smith.

    Maxton, John

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Alexander, Richard

    Baldry, Tony

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Alton, David

    Batiste, Spencer

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Amess, David

    Beith, A. J.

    Ancram, Michael

    Bellingham, Henry

    Arnold, Tom

    Bendall, Vivian

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Benyon, William

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Best, Keith

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

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

    Blackburn, John

    925

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Bottomley, Peter

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Glyn, Dr Alan

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

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes

    Gorst, John

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Gow, Ian

    Bright, Graham

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Brinton, Tim

    Greenway, Harry

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Gregory, Conal

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon

    Browne, John

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Grist, Ian

    Bruinvels, Peter

    Ground, Patrick

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Grylls, Michael

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

    Gummer, Rt Hon John S

    Budgen, Nick

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Burt, Alistair

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Butcher, John

    Hancock, Michael

    Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Butterfill, John

    Hannam, John

    Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

    Hargreaves, Kenneth

    Carlisle, John (Luton N)

    Harris, David

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hawksley, Warren

    Cartwright, John

    Hayes, J.

    Cash, William

    Hayward, Robert

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Chapman, Sydney

    Heddle, John

    Chope, Christopher

    Henderson, Barry

    Churchill, W. S.

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

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

    Hickmet, Richard

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hicks, Robert

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    Hirst, Michael

    Cockeram, Eric

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Colvin, Michael

    Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

    Conway, Derek

    Holt, Richard

    Coombs, Simon

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Cope, John

    Howard, Michael

    Couchman, James

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

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

    Critchley, Julian

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

    Crouch, David

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Howells, Geraint

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Hubbard-Miles, Peter

    Dicks, Terry

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Hunter, Andrew

    Dover, Den

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Irving, Charles

    Dunn, Robert

    Jackson, Robert

    Durant, Tony

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Dykes, Hugh

    Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Evennett, David

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Eyre, Sir Reginald

    Jones, Robert (Herts W)

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Fallon, Michael

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Farr, Sir John

    Kennedy, Charles

    Favell, Anthony

    Key, Robert

    Fletcher, Alexander

    King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Forman, Nigel

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Knowles, Michael

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Knox, David

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Franks, Cecil

    Lang, Ian

    Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

    Latham, Michael

    Freeman, Roger

    Lawler, Geoffrey

    Freud, Clement

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Fry, Peter

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Gale, Roger

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Galley, Roy

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

    Lester, Jim

    926

    Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Lilley, Peter

    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

    Livsey, Richard

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Rost, Peter

    Lord, Michael

    Rowe, Andrew

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    McCrindle, Robert

    Ryder, Richard

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Sackville, Hon Thomas

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

    MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Maclean, David John

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Maclennan, Robert

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Shersby, Michael

    Maples, John

    Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

    Marland, Paul

    Silvester, Fred

    Marlow, Antony

    Sims, Roger

    Mates, Michael

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Mayhew, Sir Patrick

    Speed, Keith

    Mellor, David

    Speller, Tony

    Merchant, Piers

    Spencer, Derek

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Squire, Robin

    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Stanley, Rt Hon John

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Steen, Anthony

    Moate, Roger

    Stern, Michael

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

    Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Stokes, John

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Sumberg, David

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mudd, David

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Neale, Gerrard

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Neubert, Michael

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Newton, Tony

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

    Normanton, Tom

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

    Norris, Steven

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Onslow, Cranley

    Thurnham, Peter

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Tracey, Richard

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Trippier, David

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Patten, Christopher (Bath)

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Viggers, Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Penhaligon, David

    Walker, Bill (T'side N)

    Pollock, Alexander

    Wall, Sir Patrick

    Porter, Barry

    Wallace, James

    Portillo, Michael

    Waller, Gary

    Powley, John

    Walters, Dennis

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Price, Sir David

    Warren, Kenneth

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Watson, John

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Watts, John

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

    Raffan, Keith

    Wheeler, John

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Whitfield, John

    Rathbone, Tim

    Whitney, Raymond

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Wolfson, Mark

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Wood, Timothy

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Yeo, Tim

    927

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Mr. Carol Mather and

    Mr.Robert Boscawen.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Main Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 42.

    Division No. 238]

    [10.15 pm

    AYES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Alexander, Richard

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Amess, David

    Dover, Den

    Ancram, Michael

    du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Arnold, Tom

    Dunn, Robert

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Durant, Tony

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Dykes, Hugh

    Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

    Emery, Sir Peter

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

    Evennett, David

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Eyre, Sir Reginald

    Baldry, Tony

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Fallon, Michael

    Batiste, Spencer

    Farr, Sir John

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Favell, Anthony

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fletcher, Alexander

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Benyon, William

    Forman, Nigel

    Best, Keith

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Franks, Cecil

    Blackburn, John

    Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Freeman, Roger

    Bottomley, Peter

    Fry, Peter

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Gale, Roger

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

    Galley, Roy

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes

    Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Bright, Graham

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Brinton, Tim

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Browne, John

    Gorst, John

    Bruinvels, Peter

    Gow, Ian

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

    Greenway, Harry

    Budgen, Nick

    Gregory, Conal

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon

    Burt, Alistair

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

    Butcher, John

    Grist, Ian

    Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

    Ground, Patrick

    Butterfill, John

    Grylls, Michael

    Carlisle, John (Luton N)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John S

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Cash, William

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hannam, John

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hargreaves, Kenneth

    Chope, Christopher

    Harris, David

    Churchill, W. S.

    Harvey, Robert

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

    Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Hayes, J.

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Hayward, Robert

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Cockeram, Eric

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Colvin, Michael

    Heddle, John

    Conway, Derek

    Henderson, Barry

    Coombs, Simon

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Cope, John

    Hickmet, Richard

    Couchman, James

    Hicks, Robert

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Critchley, Julian

    Hind, Kenneth

    Crouch, David

    Hirst, Michael

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    928

    Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

    Normanton, Tom

    Holt, Richard

    Norris, Steven

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Onslow, Cranley

    Howard, Michael

    Oppenheim, Phillip

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

    Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

    Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Hubbard-Miles, Peter

    Patten, Christopher (Bath)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Pawsey, James

    Hunter, Andrew

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Pollock, Alexander

    Irving, Charles

    Porter, Barry

    Jackson, Robert

    Portillo, Michael

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Powley, John

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Price, Sir David

    Jones, Robert (Herts W)

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Key, Robert

    Raffan, Keith

    King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Knowles, Michael

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Knox, David

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lang, Ian

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Latham, Michael

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Lawler, Geoffrey

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Rost, Peter

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Rowe, Andrew

    Lester, Jim

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

    Ryder, Richard

    Lilley, Peter

    Sackville, Hon Thomas

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

    Lord, Michael

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    McCrindle, Robert

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

    Shersby, Michael

    MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

    Silvester, Fred

    Maclean, David John

    Sims, Roger

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

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

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Speed, Keith

    Maples, John

    Speller, Tony

    Marland, Paul

    Spencer, Derek

    Marlow, Antony

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mates, Michael

    Squire, Robin

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Stanley, Rt Hon John

    Mayhew, Sir Patrick

    Steen, Anthony

    Mellor, David

    Stern, Michael

    Merchant, Piers

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

    Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Stokes, John

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Sumberg, David

    Moate, Roger

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

    Mudd, David

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Neale, Gerrard

    Thurnham, Peter

    Nelson, Anthony

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Neubert, Michael

    Tracey, Richard

    Newton, Tony

    Trippier, David

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    929

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Wheeler, John

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Whitfield, John

    Viggers, Peter

    Whitney, Raymond

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Walker, Bill (T'side N)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Wall, Sir Patrick

    Wood, Timothy

    Waller, Gary

    Yeo, Tim

    Walters, Dennis

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Warren, Kenneth

    Watson, John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Watts, John

    Mr. Carol Mather and

    Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

    Mr. Robert Boscawen.

    NOES

    Alton, David

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Freud, Clement

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Hancock, Michael

    Beith, A. J.

    Howells, Geraint

    Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

    Caborn, Richard

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Canavan, Dennis

    Kennedy, Charles

    Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Cartwright, John

    Lamond, James

    Clay, Robert

    Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

    930

    Livsey, Richard

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    McKelvey, William

    Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

    Maclennan, Robert

    Skinner, Dennis

    Madden, Max

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Wainwright, R.

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Wallace, James

    Meadowcroft, Michael

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Mikardo, Ian

    Nellist, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Penhaligon, David

    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and

    Pike, Peter

    Mr. Harry Cohen.

    Question accordingly agreed.
    Resolved,
    That this House approves the statement on the Defence Estimates 1986, contained in Cmnd. 9763.

    Business of the House
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to European Communities (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Garel-Jones.]

European Communities (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time)
10.28 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—
Committee. Report and Third Reading: time allotted for proceedings
1. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings, but—

(a) proceedings in Committee shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the House next resolves itself into a Committee on the Bill; and

(b) proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee.

Proceedings on going into Committee
2. When the Order of the day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, notwithstanding that notice of an Instruction has been given.
Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
3. On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
Order of consideration
4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken.
Re-committal
5. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, re-committal.
(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise) and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any Amendment moved to the Question.
Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Exclusion of Business Committee
7. Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.
Conclusion of proceedings
8. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings on the Bill to a conclusion in pursuance of this Order the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question, That the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any Amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that Amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

Supplemental orders
9.— (1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
932
(2) If on the day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
10. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order.
Interpretation
11. In this Order 'the Bill' means the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the following: amendment (a), in (1), leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert:
'the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at such times after the start as are shown in the following Table ("the start" for this purpose being the time when the House next resolves itself into a Committee on the Bill):

TABLE

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of Proceedings

Amendment No. 7

1 hour

Amendment No. 9

2 hours

Amendments Nos. 11 and 14

3 hours

Amendments Nos. 47 and 22, the remainder of Clause No. 1, Clause No.2, and Clause No. 3 to the end of subsection (3).

4 hours

Amendment No. 46 and remaining proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading

5 hours

Amendment (b), in (1), leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert:
: 'the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at such times after the start as are shown in the following Table ("the start" for this purpose being the time when the House next resolves into a Committee on the Bill):
Provided that, in calculating such times, no account shall be taken of time spent on Divisions:

TABLE

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

Amendment No. 7

2 hours

Amendment No. 9

4 hours

Amendments Nos. 11 and 14

6 hours

Amendments Nos. 47 and 22, the remainder of Clause No. 1, Clause No.2, and Clause No. 3 to the end of subsection (3).

8 hours

Amendment No. 46 and remaining proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading

10 hours.'.

Amendment (c), in (1), line 6, leave out 'two' and insert 'fifteen'.
Amendment (e), in (1)(b), leave out from 'shall' to the end of line 9 and insert:
:'not be on the same day as proceedings in Committee, nor brought to a conclusion until after six hours.'.
Mr. Biffen: The motion before us today would provide a timetable for the remaining stages of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill in this House. While our Standing Orders do not formally recognise constitutional Bills as a separate category of legislation, I would not seek to deny the constitutional importance of the Bill. Later, I propose to deal more generally with the nature of the passage of constitutional Bills, and the problems that it can pose. First, however, I shall say a few words about the passage of the Bill so far and about the timing and content of the timetable motion. The main purpose of the Bill is

933
to incorporate into our law the agreement reached in the Single European Act. That Act was signed by representatives of all member states of the European Community at Luxembourg in February this year. Its roots lie in the European Council's meeting at Fontainebleau in 1984. Perhaps the most important provision of the Single European Act relates to completion of the internal market within the European Community and the greater use of qualified majority voting. The Act also allows for the establishment of a new court of first instance related to the European Court of Justice. Beyond the Single European Act and the court which it creates, the Bill itself gives effect also to the formal change of name of the "European Assembly" to "European Parliament'.
They are important matters, both substantively and symbolically. For that reason, we have provided a significant amount of time for the House to debate them. The Second Reading debate of the Bill, which took place on 23 April, lasted a full day, and we have had extensive discussions in Committee. The Bill received its Second Reading with the clear majority of 319 votes to 160. That is an indication that the Government fully have the authority of the House for wishing to ensure that the passage of the Bill can be concluded.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way so soon. Has he not forgotten one major feature in the catalogue of major features of the Single European Act? Does not clause 3(4) of the Bill certify that additional powers will be given to the European Assembly or Parliament? Am I right in thinking that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention that during his brief resume?
Mr. Biffen: Obviously, the resume was brief because we are operating within a three-hour debate as provided by the Standing Orders. The number of hon. Members present shows that many others wish to speak in the debate besides me.
Progress on the Bill has, however, been slow. Five hours were spent in Committee on the Floor of the House on 16 June, a further eight hours on 26 June, and five hours on 27 June. Yet those 18 hours of debate have concluded our proceedings on only three groups of amendments. We have barely started the fourth. I believe that progress could have been quicker without impairing our consideration of the Bill.
That has been taken into account in the timetable motion in my name which would provide for two hours to complete the Committee stage of the Bill and a further one hour for the Third Reading debate.
Mr. Max Madden: In the proceedings to which the Leader of the House has just referred did the Government at any stage seek to make progress? If they did not, can the right hon. Gentleman recall any precedent of a Government who did not seek progress at any stage, nevertheless tabling a guillotine motion?
Mr. Biffen: Yes, the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. Indeed, the motion was set down for debate in the belief that there was no voluntary agreement which would satisfy those who most strongly seek to resist the passage of the Bill.
At this point, I should deal with the point raised on Friday by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), the shadow Leader of the House,
934
who asked for an example of a guillotine motion debated outside prime time. On 21 May 1968, the Labour Government moved and passed a timetable motion on the Finance Bill in a debate which began at 10.27 pm. In April 1970, when the right hon. Gentleman was deputy Leader of the House, a debate on the timetable motion on the Ports Bill began at 10.12 pm. Finally, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in July 1976 the House had three debates on timetable motions in succession. The last of these began at 10.50 pm and provided timetables for two Bills, the Rent (Agriculture) Bill and the Education Bill.
I would not wish to justify the debate on a timetable motion at this time merely on the grounds of those precedents. I believe that taking this debate now is a way of causing the minimum disturbance to the programme already given to the House since it is the time previously set aside for the Third Reading of the Bill.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: As my right hon. Friend has said that in allocating two hours for the Committee stage of the Bill he has taken into account the important issues to be discussed, and as he knows that we must discuss the European monetary system, harmonisation of VAT, additional powers to the Commission, the reform of the common agricultural policy and a commitment to European union, how much time in particular does he think should be allocated to each subject within that two hours?
Mr. Biffen: I may be able to provide the most happy answer to my hon. Friend when I deal with the amendment that stands in his name. Earlier I mentioned that there were various problems relating to constitutional Bills. In part that arises from their being taken on the Floor of the House where they must compete with other Bills and other subjects for debate when time is being allotted.
Mr. Tony Marlow: The rumour going round the House at the moment is that the last substantive business, the Whip business, to be put before the House during this Session will be on 18 July. Does that not mean that there is plenty of time for a proper debate on this subject? My right hon. Friend is suggesting that he will take up my hon. Friend's amendment which offers five hours of debate. That is, five hours for the six important subjects that my hon. Friend has put forward. Is that not scandalous?
Mr. Biffen: In this instance the word scandal is on the lips of the speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sorry, on the lips of the parliamentary oracle. If my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North is talking of the House rising on 18 July, I hope that he will not have to pay for so much optimism.
Constitutional Bills often attract disparate forms of opposition, and the usual understandings to provide an adequate and ordered debate under voluntary arrangements are that much more difficult to conclude. Inevitably, this renders constitutional Bills particularly vulnerable to timetable motions. It has been so on this occasion.
Since 1966, six constitutional Bills have been timetabled. These were the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill in 1969, the European Communities Bill in 1972, the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill in 1979, the European Assembly Elections Bill in 1978, to which I have already referred, and the Northern Ireland Bill 1982. All were taken on the Floor

935
of the House and all save the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill were subject to sustained opposition which fell outside the operation of the usual channels.
Sir Russell Johnston: If indeed there is an intrinsic tendency for constitutional Bills to require timetabling, why did the Leader of the House not act sensibly at the outset and seek through the usual channels to negotiate a timetable which would have led to a proper, ordered debate from beginning to end?
Mr. Biffen: One always travels hopefully in these matters, even if the negotiations are through intrinsically, unusual channels.
I turn now to the amendments to the motion which have been selected for debate. Amendments (c) and (e) in the names of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues would together provide for a further 15 hours consideration of the Bill, and a six-hour Third Reading debate to be taken on a different day.
It will come as no surprise to the House to hear that I cannot recommend the acceptance of these amendments. Not only would they provide more time than we can afford for concluding the passage of this Bill, but they would do so in a far from constructive way. In particular, the lack of any way of allocating time within the 15 hours proposed for Committee means that, if this amendment were accepted, we might spend all 15 hours in lengthy discussion on one or perhaps two groups of amendments, and at the end of that time we would still not have addressed at all the issues arising from the later amendments.
Amendment (b) in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and two other hon. Members would provide a further 10 hours for the remainder of the Committee stage and Third Reading of the Bill. In addition to this would be any time taken by Divisions. The terms of this amendment would at least ensure a structured debate on the remaining amendments to the Bill which have been selected but not yet fully considered. None the less, the amount of time recommended for debate, together with the amount of time that might be taken up by Divisions, would be excessive considering the length of time we have already spent on this Bill—important though it is.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Why does the Leader of the House keep referring to the amount of time already spent on the Bill as if that justified having insufficient time to deal with the remainder of the Bill? Does he realise that he is busily convincing people who think it reasonable to have a timetable and has not formed any reasonable assessment of how much time the Bill requires?
Mr. Biffen: One always travels in the hope that one can construct a reasonably free arrangement for the passage of a Bill. That has been essayed by my right hon. and hon. Friends and they have not met with success. I have to acknowledge that.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why was not the Bill taken through Thursday night?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman said, "Why was not the Bill taken through Thursday night?" I think that that
936
is an extraordinary form of tribal ritualism — that the House must sit through the night when there is no prospect of constructive progress of the Bill but, none the less, it has to be undertaken to justify the timetable motion.
Mr. Skinner: The events of Thursday might were not as the Leader of the House suggests. The Tory party Whips were running around the House of Commons, including the bar and the terrace, trying to find Tory Members who would go into the Chamber to provide them with 100 Members so the debate could be closed. The truth is that the Leader of the House did not have enough Common Market slaves to do the job, and that is why the guillotine has been introduced.
Mr. Biffen: The thought that the Whips are put around like a bunch of ferrets is always a charming one. I am extremely loth to disabuse the hon. Gentleman of his analogy, but I fear that it does not neatly correspond with the truth.
Finally, I turn to amendment (a) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and others. My hon. Friend has been a doughty opponent of the Bill, but the amendment shows that he is not one who would oppose the will of the majority of the House by undue delaying tactics. Moreover, the timetable which he proposes takes realistic account of the pressure on parliamentary time at this stage of the year. It would provide for five hours — one hour for outstanding amendments divided into five sets, the last hour of which might include any debate on Third Reading. That represents a framework within which all the remaining amendments can be considered, albeit briefly.
Mr. Marlow: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend anticipates that Members of the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench will speak on each group of amendments, how many Back-Bench Members does he think will get a chance to speak?
Mr. Biffen: That will depend on the length of Front Bench speeches. Given the high quality of Back Bench contributions throughout the debate so far, there will be a great incentive for my right hon. Friends to be commendably brief.
I recognise the concern that was expressed yesterday about the terms of the motion in my name. Following further discussions through the usual channels, and more widely, I can now say to the House that I am prepared to accept the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East.
In conclusion, I would ask the House to reflect that we are now in July. As I said earlier, and as has been said by right hon. and hon. Members throughout our consideration of this measure, these are important matters, but we have many other matters of significance to discuss before we rise for the summer recess. It is not an ignoble consideration to take into account the desire of the House to adjourn for the summer recess no later than early next month. [Interruption.] The best is yet to come. That objective has been made more difficult by the proceedings on this Bill. Time already taken cannot be recalled. Within the constraints that that implies, I believe that amendment (a) is a constructive and realistic step.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: rose—
Mr. Biffen: I commend to the House the motion in my name as it would be amended by that amendment.
10.43 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: In spite of the levity and good humour with which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has regaled us, I must express in the stongest terms the deep objections which are felt not only by myself but by many hon. Members at the existence and content of the timetable motion and to the timing of this important debate at 10 o'clock tonight. I shall deal with the precedents for late night debates on guillotines a little later. We shall not he bought off with the sop which the Leader has contemptuously offered the House in the adoption of the five-hour debate which his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) put down in amendment form.
I agree with the Leader of the House on just one point. the European Communities (Amendment) Bill is not just another Bill relating to our domestic affairs. It is not a Bill which, however objectionable to the Opposition and others and however truncated the debate on it, is still capable of repeal and replacement in a subsequent Parliament when a different party will occupy the Treasury Bench. It is not even what might he described as a domestic constitutional Bill, such as the Bill abolishing the metropolitan counties or the Bill on devolution for Scotland and Wales, for they, too, are capable of restoration or repeal in a subsequent Parliament.
What is special about the Bill is that it gives legislative effect to a treaty concluded with other nations — the member states of the EEC — and upon whose institutions it confers additional legislative powers. Once passed, this measure cannot be repealed by a subsequent Parliament, unless that Parliament is prepared to tear up the underlying treaty itself — a special dimension of difficulty which I do not believe many Conservative Members have even given serious thought to.
Moreover, it is a Bill that directly affects the power of Parliament. That point has been drawn to our attention by the House of Commons Select Committee on the European Communities and, most recently, on 6 May by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities. The House of Lords concludes:
"The powers of the United Kingdom Parliament will be weakened by the Single European Act. The Committee draws this important fact to the special attention of the House."
The powers of the United Kingdom Parliament will he weakened in two principal ways: first, because, as a result of amendments to the Rome treaty, qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers will be substituted for unanimity voting in five important articles of the Rome treaty and, secondly, because it introduces the new so-called "co-operation" procedure between the European Assembly and the Council of Ministers which will remove the national veto from a wide range of Council decisions and permit the Council to reject amendments by the European Assembly only if the Council itself is unanimous. Whereas previously there has existed a national veto on all the decisions of the Council of Ministers, henceforth the Council can only reject in large parts of the treaty the revised proposals from the European Assembly by unanimity.
The veto power in the Council of Ministers has been the central defence of British national interests. During the referendum campaign in 1975, the then Government,
938
supported by the Conservative Opposition, sought to comfort the sceptical British electorate with this categorical statement — I quote from the document "Britain's New Deal in Europe"—
"no important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.
The top decision-making body in the Market is the Council of Ministers which is composed of senior Ministers representing each of the nine member governments … it is the Council of Ministers and not the market officials who take important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the members of the Council agree. The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interest."
How do the Government expect and justify this departure and change? It would be refreshingly honest if they had admitted in the first place that a change was taking place and rested their case on what they clearly believe in —the advantage of removing the veto in many areas of the treaty, especially in all the provisions making for a single European market. But that is not the argument that they deploy.
On 23 April, on Second Reading, the Foreign Secretary brazenly claimed:
"The one thing that is clear is that the Luxembourg compromise as I have described it is in no way affected one way or the other by the Single European Act." —[Official Report, 23 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 321.]
In rebuttal, I content myself with this passage from the House of Lords Select Committee:
"The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has said that the veto under the Luxembourg compromise is still available to be invoked where necessary. It must however he open to question whether it would, or even could, be invoked in circumstances where the Commission, the majority of the European Parliament, and a qualified majority of Member States were united against the United Kingdom."
That judgment by the Select Committee in the House of Lords is repeated in almost identical terms in the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in this House.
Mr. William Cash: As a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we made recommendations to withdraw to the House and to Westminster some vital scrutiny improvements which could be made, which would effectively deal with many of the problems to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred and which would not engage us in a re-run of the events of 1972.
Mr. Shore: This is not matter of scrutiny. We are considering a shift of power, the removal of the power of veto and the precise breach of the undertakings given to honour and maintain the Luxembourg compromise.
Furthermore, as the Foreign Secretary said, the Luxembourg compromise is not a provision of the treaty. It can be — and has been — overridden and it will certainly be overridden when the new co-operation procedure permits it to happen.
The other defences against the charge that both the Council of Ministers has been weakened as a whole and that the national veto within it has been similarly weakened, were deployed by the Minister of State on 26 June. Her defence was twofold: first, that it was unlikely that the European Assembly would be in a position to do much damage since it needed an absolute majority of its members to adopt an amendment to the Council of Ministers common position. There will be many occasions

939
when it will find its decisions much more interesting in future than they have been in the past. We can confidently expect that there will be far more absolute majority voting decisions in the European Assembly in the future, than there have been in the past.
Secondly— —
Mr. Allan Rogers: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Shore: I will give way when I have completed my second point.
The Minister of State's second defence was her naive and misleading assertion:
"The power of the Council as the decision-taking body in the Community remains as before. The Council will have the last word on all decisions." — [Official Report, 26 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 532.]
However, the hon. Lady omitted the crucial fact that the last word was not in future to be the national veto but the highly improbable unanimous rejection of the Euro-Assembly's amendments by the whole 12 members of the Council of Ministers.
Mr. Rogers: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the European Assembly's standing orders in relation to the acceptance of amendments is laid down by the Assembly itself? The Council of Ministers, in whatever position it operates, cannot lay down the procedure of the Parliament. That is laid down by the bureau to the Parliament and accepted by it. If the Council of Ministers wishes to alter the rules of procedure it can do so.
Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has direct experience of that Assembly and he has made an additional valid point.
Irrespective of that, I believe that what I have said is right. There will be a greater interest in turning out to vote in the Assembly because the power of the Assembly has been enhanced.
In addition, there is a commitment in the Single European Act to complete the free and frontierless internal market by the end of 1992, including Commission programme reports by the end of 1988 and 1990. If, by the end of 1992, the Commission is not satisfied, it will be able to draw up an inventory of relevant national laws not yet harmonised and submit appropriate proposals.
I have not even mentioned the extension of the Treaty into such areas as high technology, transport, environment and foreign policy. But I have said enough to establish that the content of the Bill and the treaty changes which it embodies are of a kind that merit, at the very least, deep and serious debate and cross-examination in this House.
One might have expected, therefore, that the Government would have responded with equal seriousness and adequate time would have been allotted to the Bill's Committee stage. Instead, the Government have responded first with deception — the pretence that the Bill is a minor, piffling matter—and secondly with an arrogant and sustained attempt to bulldoze it through the House in the minimum time. We have had precisely three days of debate. Since the Government have not seen fit to move a single closure, and since the subject matter of the treaty changes is both complex and important, it is hardly surprising that only the first three groups of amendments have so far been dealt with.
At the end of business last Friday, a further six groups of amendments remained, including such major matters as
940
tax harmonisation, monetary union and foreign policy coordination. We were then treated to the astonishing announcement from the Lord Privy Seal, that it was the Government's intention to introduce a timetable motion to limit further debate, and quite remarkably, that it would be taken not in prime time but after 10 pm tonight.
Like the Lord Privy Seal, I have looked at the precedents. While it is true that guillotine motions have occasionally been moved after 10 pm, it is certainly not the case that any constitutional measure or any measure deemed important enough to be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House has ever been treated in this way. Yesterday, the Government's insolence and arrogance was taken a long step forward with the announcement that the remaining timetable stage of the Bill would be concluded in just three hours: two hours for the Committee stage, and one hour for Third Reading.
Mr. Budgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to deal with the last argument of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal? My right hon. Friend would not give way to me, but I noticed that there was some concern in the House. My right hon. Friend said that he was very short of time this session. However, many of us who recollect that the Shops Bill was defeated, and who realise that it would have taken a very long time on the Floor of the House, find that rather difficult to understand. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has had some discussions with my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, and I wonder whether he would care to comment on my right hon. Friend's assertions.
Mr. Shore: I simply assumed that the Lord Privy Seal was being untypically vulgar and populist in his appeal to hon. Members' baser instincts to go on holiday at the earliest possible moment.
Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I pointed out yesterday that this derisory timetable would not even allow for votes to be taken on outstanding matters, let alone for any room for debate to be held. I say again, that substantially the same objection must apply to the additional two hours that the amendment of the right hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) requires, and which the Lord Privy Seal has seen fit to accept.
This is not just a party matter, but a matter for the House; conscious that it is dealing here with the rights of the British people. My own instinct and belief is that we should reject the timetable motion all together. But at the very least, I strongly urge hon. Members to support our amendments, which will at least allow minimum debating time for these major and outstanding issues.
11.57 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move amendment (a), in (1), leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert:
'the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at such times after the start as are shown in the following Table ("the start" for this purpose being the time when the House next resolves itself into a Committee on the Bill):

TABLE

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

Amendment No. 7

1 hour

Amendment No. 9

2 hours

Amendments Nos. 11 and 14

3 hours

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

Amendments Nos. 47 and 22, the remainder of Clause No. 1, Clause No.2, and Clause No. 3 to the end of subsection (3).

4 hours

Amendment No. 46 and remaining proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading

5 hours,

I should make it clear that, although the time proposed for these vital issues in my amendments is pathetically inadequate. I strongly feel that it is desperately important that the House should at least have a minimal amount of time in which to discuss these major issues and to vote on them. If we had approved the original motion for two hours on the lot, without any time for votes on those vital issues, it would have come back to haunt us in the years to come.
Whether hon. Members support or oppose the Bill, they all agree that the Bill is very important. It will radically change our constitution. It will mean that a whole flood of regulations is applied in Britain whether or not the Government want those regulations. It will also mean that things will be decided or dropped by the European Assembly, when it previously did not have the power to do that. If we care about democracy at all, we should realise that nothing could undermine it more than the realisation of our constituents that we are powerless to do anything about the issues raised by business men or constitutents, and—more importantly—that we did not even have the time to vote on the original principle. For that reason, if for no other, I am grateful for the fact that the Government have at least given us the opportunity to vote for or against these massive, fundamental constitutional proposals.
The second reason why I am glad that the amendment has been accepted is that this would have been an appalling precedent for any future Government. I do not live in fear of what any of the Opposition parties may do, because I believe that deep down they are still committed to the democratic way of life and that they are sincere about the views that they hold. However, if we had approved a motion relating to a Bill that is of major constitutional importance that did not allow time for votes on major issues, a future extreme Government would have been able to come to the House and throw this legislation in our faces and say, "This is what you did in 1986. We are only doing what you did." For that reason, if for no other, it is important that the Government have made this minor concession, for which I am grateful. This is the first time that a guillotine motion has been amended for 25 years. That, therefore, is something.
There are six vital issues to be considered, upon one of which I hope there will be time to divide the House. It relates to the important issue that many new articles are to be incorporated in the treaty upon which decisions will not be taken by the Council of Ministers. They will be interpreted by the European Court. Some hon. Members believe that it is right that our VAT system should be harmonised with Europe. The Commission's view is that that is vital if the internal market is to be completed. However, other hon. Members think that it would be unfair if we were to harmonise VAT and then to levy VAT on such items as children's shoes, gas and electricity. I do not believe that hon. Members appreciate that decisions on the new articles that are to be incorporated in the treaty
942
will not be taken by the Council of Ministers, or by Parliament. They will be taken by the European Court, on a proposition from the European Commission.
I do not believe, either, that hon. Members fully realise what is involved in the additional powers that are to be given to the Commission. Some hon. Members think that what is wrong with the Common Market is that the Commission is not strong enough, because it does not have the power to overrule the Council of Ministers or member states if it is thought that the treaty is not being applied. Other hon. Members think that the Commission is too powerful and that it is wrong that it should be spending money when it has no legal authority to do so. How wrong it would be if hon. Members did not express a view.
On the veto, hon. Members know that the Luxembourg compromise is a load of nonsense. This country used it only once, on prices for agricultural products, and then it was overturned by a majority vote. The real issue is the veto. Therefore this issue should be examined very carefully. Hon. Members will shortly be receiving letters from their constituents about the flood of harmonisation directives that Lord Cockfield and his friends intend to introduce. Reference has already been made today to the harmonisation of MOT tests, which will result in ore costly and more difficult MOT tests. Very few of our constituents believe that this House does not have the power to decide what kind of MOT test this country should apply and what fee should be charged. However, that will be decided on a majority vote.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my hon. Friend accept that it might be in the national interest if a European directive resulted in the vehicles on our roads being in a more roadworthy condition?
Mr. Taylor: We cannot go into the merits of this matter on a guillotine motion, but surely my hon. Friend accepts that the right of the Commission or the council to impose, by a majority vote, that kind of decision on this House is something to which we should say yes or no. If the original motion stands, vital issues, such as handing over power to the Common Market, will be decided without this House having expressed an opinion upon them.
On European union, if the motion stands in its original form, the House of Commons will not have even the right to vote on whether European union is good or bad. Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) have consistently and sincerely put forward the view that there should be a federal Europe, or a united states of Europe, and that decision-making powers should be handed over to it. That is a fair point of view, which is held sincerely by certain hon. Members.
Sir John Farr: Is my hon. Friend saying that we could be subject to a directive from Europe relating to the content of the programmes put out by the BBC and the ITV?
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Yes, indeed. Hon. Members should realise that this directive exists today. The Government have said that they are opposed to it, the BBC has said that it is opposed to it, and the 113A has said that it thinks it is wrong. It is one of the majority voting directives. There is a whole flood of them. I hope hon. Members will appreciate that what we are deciding is a big thing. It will mean a flood, and such things as MOT test, the content

943
of television programmes and a whole range of things will be decided by majority vote. Even though our Ministers and Members of Parliament vote against by 630 to nothing, it will not make the slightest difference.
If we are going to make any sense of democracy in the House, it is crucial that we either agree to give this new power to Europe or say that we will not do it.
What are the views of the House on whether we want to give powers to the Commission to bring forward a European union? That is one of the amendments. If the motion stands in its original form, we will not even have a chance to vote yes or no. I have always understood that at the end of guillotines we have votes on all the outstanding amendments, but this motion does not allow that. It says that we will not even have votes on the outstanding amendments.
Then there is the question of the environment and whether polluters should pay, which is a vital issue; and the question of the European monetary system and extra powers for the European assembly. I am surprised that the Government have even suggested this. It would be criminal and an abrogation of our duties as Members of Parliament if we were to agree to a Bill to hand over these powers without even having the right to say whether we support or oppose it.
The main reason why I move the amendment—and I am very glad to have had enormous support from my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), who made strong representations, as did other of my hon. Friends—is that we have an absolute obligation to our constituents for the power given to us. Some of us—it seems the majority—think it is right to hand over a lot of that power to Europe. Many Members take the view that it is right that a major area of decision should be undertaken by majority voting in the Common Market. I feel that it is our duty to go into the division Lobbies and say whether we, as representatives of the people, think that it is a good thing or a bad thing.
There are many issues that divide all of us in the House. The one thing we must never run away from is taking the responsibility to say that we agree or do not agree.
I appeal to those who may think that the amendment is a silly one because it allows for only a pathetically limited debate to understand that, if we pass the amendment, it means that every Member of the House will have to decide whether we want to give more powers to the European assembly, whether we want to surrender the veto in a big way, whether we want to support the European union, whether we believe in the harmonisation of VAT and excise duties and whether we want to give more powers of implementation to the Commission. These are things that we cannot run away from.
While I accept that many people have fought the Bill tooth and nail, and rightly so in their view, I hope that they will accept that at least, if we pass this little amendment, we will have the right to give our approval or our disapproval to what is one of the major constitutional issues of our time, on which I accept that there are differing views in the House.
I hope that, if the guillotine motion does anything at all, it will encourage Members to read the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and the Single European Act. One of the tragedies is that, if what has happened here had happened in the republic of South Africa, I fancy there
944
would have been five "Panorama" programmes and two special "Newsnight" programmes to talk about what was happening to democracy. What is happening is enormous. I hope that Members will think carefully about whether this is something to which they would want to add their names. More important, I hope that they will bear in mind what is in the Bill when, at a later stage, our constituents . start complaining that we have thrown away power on issues that they think are important and vital.
For these reasons, I thank the Leader of the House for having accepted the amendment which, although it does not offer the opportunity for proper debate, at least gives Members of the House of Commons the chance to say whether we agree or disagree to a massive constitutional change and a massive handing over of powers to another body in Europe.
11.9 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: So it has happened again. Fourteen years ago, when it was proposed to this House that it should make a comprehensive resignation of its traditional constitutional powers and transfer them to the institutions of the European Economic Community, the House had to be forced to do it by means of a guillotine motion. Now, in 1986, when it is proposed that that transfer of powers should be further enlarged, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has demonstrated, and that we should accept, by writing into an Act of Parliament, the principle of political union as the objective of our membership of the EEC, the Government come forward to coerce the House of Commons to pass that legislation by means of a guillotine motion.
It is a cruel irony that this act is committed to the hands of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). The House knows, and the country knows, the right hon. Gentleman's view of British membership of the European Economic Community. Through all his years in office he has preserved his honour on this subject in the sense that by no word or gesture has he conveyed to anyone approval of the decision that was taken in 1972. He has given no one any reason for mistaking where his heart and where his mind lay upon this subject. Yet it falls to him, by cruel chance, to propose that the House of Commons should be guillotined in order to pass this further instalment of abnegation.
The right hon. Gentleman, in a courteous and generous reply to me last Friday, sought to find some differentiation. He said:
"perhaps I have a different recollection of the arithmetic."
That was a different recollection from mine. He continued:
"The size of the majority on the Second Reading of this Bill is in no way related to that on the Second Reading of the European Communities Bill." — [Official Report, 27 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 666.]
Indeed, on the Second Reading of this Bill the majority in favour was far larger than the niggardly eight by which the Second Reading of the European Communities Bill was carried on 17 February 1972, or the even more niggardly figure of four to which the Government majority fell at one point in Committee.
The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North is not unaware of another important numerical consideration. Three days have been allotted so far to the Committee on the Floor of the House on this Bill. The second and third

945
days were last Thursday and Friday. If the Government had commanded adequate support in the House for the Bill, with the availability of the whole of the sitting on Thursday and the whole of the sitting on Friday, and the use of the powers of curtailing debate that are available under the closure procedure, there would have been no difficulty in making substantial and even decisive progress before the House rose on Friday. We should be almost as near to the termination of proceedings had that been so as we shall be brought to by the passing of this guillotine motion.
The fact is that the Government do not enjoy sufficient support on their own Benches for the Bill to be able to carry it through in Committee in the House of Commons by means of the ordinary resources at their disposal. On the very day, 1 July, on which the United Kingdom assumes the so-called presidency of the European Economic Community, the Government are faced with the fact that they do not enjoy adequate support, in a House in which they have a huge majority, for the passage by ordinary means of this piece of legislation.
I wonder whether the Government and the Foreign Secretary have been candid with what they call their partners in the European Economic Community. I wonder whether they have told that, in the midst of the euphoria for a further move towards political union in Europe, that the mood and mind not only of the public of the United Kingdom remain deeply entrenched against membership, let alone the extension of its implications, but that a Government commanding so imposing a majority in the House of Commons cannot, by ordinary means, pass through Parliament a Bill which would embody in the law of this country the terms of the treaty that has been made.
I hope that that has been made clear to the European Community. I hope that the Government have been candid, for they have a duty to be candid. They have a duty on behalf of the House and the people of this country to declare that, in this respect, there is a deep difference between the attitude and mind of the public of Britain and that of the rest of the Community, without even the exception of Denmark. A deep repugnance is felt in the country and the House to the resignation of our ancestral rights and freedoms. It is something to which there is no parallel in Europe, and that has been demonstrated by the progress of the Bill. It is demonstrated by the motion that is before the House tonight. The Government ought to be candid in the face of Europe about the true situation and mind of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), in a speech which delighted the House last Friday, drew attention to a curious anomaly which had engaged his notice, namely, that the Prime Minister was, to all appearances, strongly opposed to the step which we are invited to embody in United Kingdom legislation. The Prime Minister had stated publicly and repeatedly that no such treaty was necessary, and that for the purposes and interests of the United Kingdom in the Common Market no such legislation as this to embody that treaty would be called for. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Bolsover pointed out, she went along and signed.
The hon. Gentleman did not pursue his reflections into the reasons for that difference, I think that it is a real difference. I do not think that this is just an exhibition of insincerity and contortion. I think that it is a real difference between the instincts and motives of the right
946
hon. Lady and the actions that are extorted from her in the circumstances in which she finds herself, not only in Europe, but specifically and particularly in Europe.
I think that this evening it is right that those differences should be mentioned on the Floor of the House if we are to be forced into passing the means of compulsorily embodying this treaty in the law of the United Kingdom.
Eighteen months ago there was a remarkable review in the Sunday Telegraph by Sir Anthony Parsons, who has not been a stranger to the present Administration, of a book by Sir Nicholas Henderson. In that book Sir Nicholas Henderson said:
"a severe strain would be imposed on the code of loyal service to political masters if a future Government were to adopt an extremely radical policy, such as withdrawal from the European Community".
I pause there for a moment because I noted with interest this evening the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney who did not quote from the same 1975 referendum document as he quoted other phrases from. He made the remarkable assertion that if the result of the referendum were yes, British membership of the European Community would depend upon the continued consent of Parliament. In other words, it was an assertion that this House retained, and retains, the right, of course by the proper international steps taken in consequence on behalf of this country by a Government, to withdraw, if need be, from the commitments which have been created by our entry into the treaty of Brussels and by our signature to the Single European Act. But this is a digression.
Sir Anthony Parsons continued and concluded:
"I would go further. I think that, if the broad bipartisanship of the past 40 years"—
that is 1946 to 1986—
"broke down in such a way, many officials in the higher reaches of the Foreign Office would find it impossible conscientiously to implement the new policies and the Government would be obliged to recruit political loyalists in order to carry out its will."
That is a description of the prison which has been constructed and in which the Prime Minister finds that her instincts and her will are "cribb'd, cabin'd and confin'd."
It is under those pressures and under that kind of blackmail and dictation that the House finds itself being compelled, at the gunpoint of a guillotine, to pass the legislation consequent upon the Single European Act. It is blackmail, and it is blackmail from a quarter from which the House ought not to accept blackmail. It is a blackmail imposed by those who are not, as we are, the elected representatives of the people of this country, and it is a blackmail and a pressure to which successive British Governments, during the 40 years of bipartisanship, have been subject. If we are to do so, we bow the neck again to the yoke tonight, it is well that we should understand what we are doing. As for myself, I will have none of it.
11.21 pm
Sir Edward du Cann: The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) is entirely right. The House should not be treated in this way. This is a sad and a wretched occasion. While I very much regret that we shall be taking precious hours tonight to debate the guillotine motion instead of the far-reaching proposals in the Bill, I regret even more its proposal. I agree with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who made an admirable speech This is a sad, bad and unnecessary measure and it should not be proceeded with.

947
Like almost every other right hon. and hon. Member, I have voted over the years in favour of guillotine motions when my party in government has invited me to do so, and like almost every other right hon. and hon. Member I have voted against guillotine motions when my party out of government has invited me to do that.
In the first instance I have always felt uncomfortable, and I dare say that that is a shared feeling too. That is partly because delay is one of few legitimate devices, weapons, courses of conduct, open to the objector. One loyally follows the Whip, of course, because we are all elected here as party men, yet none of us was elected, was he, as a simple sycophant? We were sent here, above all, to use the capacity of judgment. That is our constitutional duty, as the right hon. Member for South Down suggested. A responsible democratic system must always allow a fair time for argument about the proposals of the Government of the day. Patience is the hallmark of wise leadership in a democracy, just as intolerance is the badge of the dictator. When we abandon reason — that is to say, Discussion—as the arbiter of issues, we are surely on a slippery slope away from our democratic tradition.
There is another point. This Parliament, so it is said, is the forum of the nation. Through our discussions in this place we interest popular opinion, awaken it and involve our fellow citizens in the decision-making process. That is our duty, and I think many of us would say our pride. But not in respect of this measure.
Why are the Government so keen, I wonder, to curtail discussion on the measure— for a second time in four days. Admittedly the Government may say that they have been provoked by lengthy speeches on occasion, but what a trivial provocation that is, in truth. There are always pressures on the Government's timetable in July, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House indicated, but what is one day in the scheme of things—one day of the 250 on which we sit?
Also, we have not even troubled to discuss this far-reaching treaty, which was signed by a junior Minister and was not made available promptly for inspection in the Library of the House. I hope that discussion is not being truncated because some members of the Government are worried that if the measure's full implications were more widely comprehended, they would cause public anxieties which had better lie dormant. If the case for the Bill is so good, let it be argued with conviction in the Chamber of the House. If the arguments are so persuasive, they will prevail. It must be wrong — to use a footballing metaphor—for time to be blown by an umpire who is also a combatant early in the first half of the discussion. We should be ashamed of government by stealth and lawmaking by fudging.
As the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar reminded us, when the great debates of the 1970s took place in Parliament and in the country, before the referendum and the votes in the House of Commons, the advocates of Britain's signature to the treaty of Rome—no doubt sincerely — gave us clear assurances, for example, that there would be no derogation of the United Kingdom's national sovereignty, that Parliament would retain all its powers and that the courts would retain their powers.
What is the reality, a little more than a decade later? European law is increasingly taking primacy over United
948
Kingdom law. Look at the way in which the Government scuttled, a fortnight ago, just one day before a decision on social matters was promulgated in the European Court. Now the right of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Parliament to decide taxation levels is to be subordinated to the prospect of harmonisation, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) spoke, in a remarkable and important speech.
The zero rate of taxation is already under challenge in the European Court. Most nations already have higher top VAT rates than does the United Kingdom. A vote for this Bill is a vote for higher VAT rates. I remember so well the late Patrick Hutber's law that improvement almost invariably means deterioration. One might argue that harmonisation in tax matters means always increasing tax rates. More money for an administration whose poor housekeeping is a scandal is the prospect in this Bill. Would that we had a European Public Accounts Committee or a departmental Select Committee to expose it.
The Bill provides for us to take further giant strides towards an integrated Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East said, how we will achieve that happy objective—if that is what it is—is not disclosed. It reminds me of the time of the south sea bubble, when promoters raised money for an enterprise, the purposes of which were to be secret, but which was such a good enterprise that it must be worth raising the cash for it. If someone tried to do that in the City of London today, he would be sent to prison.
So the Bill means, inevitably, a lesser role for our Parliament. Even the veto to protect our vital national interests is at risk, and power will increasingly rest with the Council of Ministers, where the United Kingdom, with a triviality of votes, can easily be outvoted by any combination of nations. Power will also rest increasingly with the bureaucracy. That is the certain prospect. The comments of the right hon. Member for South Down, deserve emphasis: with all the power that we can command, let it be said that the balance of power is to shift. That is what that Bill means.
Mr. Peter Fry: Does not the way in which the Community has been enlarged, and may be enlarged in future, move further and further away from our country and Parliament our control over our own affairs? More and more, we shall be subject to peoples who are perhaps not yet members of the Community.
Sir E. du Cann: That is a wise observation. My hon. Friend raises the question whether a constitution that was devised for an old situation is any longer adequate for an entirely new one.
Above all else, the Bill proves that the old assurances upon which our people in the country have relied are now unreliable and false.
Is two hours enough for a sober and careful examination of the most significant issues raised by the Bill —issues with the deepest constitutional implications and prospects? Is five hours, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East enough? I do not know. However, I do know that one cannot timetable free discussion among free men, and that one should not attempt, on such affairs, to do so. These are matters that we should take adequate time to discuss.
Every previous guillotine debate in which I have participated in past years has been wholly different in

949
character from this. There has always been a lengthy Committee stage. There have always been closures. There has always been what my right hon. Friend, in his opening speech, called a pertinacious Opposition. That has not been so in this case.
All the other guillotine debates have been, basically, about party matters such as nationalisation and denationalization — the great domestic divides between the two sides of the House. The present matter is wholly different in character, scope, style and implication. The situation with which we are now dealing is unprecedented because, as the right hon. Member for South Down has so clearly shown, the constitutional issues are fundamental.
The House should unite to reject the motion. This affair is above party. It is above the personal convenience of a day's holiday more or less. I do not argue how the matter should be decided, but I argue that our Parliament should discuss it thoroughly and encourage the nation similarly. I do not believe that such a proposal can reasonably be contradicted by any right hon. or hon. Member in any part of the House. I hope that the motion will be triumphantly rejected tonight.
11.33 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: The Leader of the House referred at the beginning of his speech and later on to some previous guillotine motion debates. I hope that I will not be thought arrogant if I say that I am as great an authority on guillotines as almost any hon. Member in the House. I believe that I have participated in as many guillotine debates as anyone.
I was somewhat disturbed—although I have heard it from the Liberal and other Benches before—to hear the proposition that the right way to deal with these matters is to have timetable motions for all measures before they are introduced. I am bitterly opposed to any such proposition, even though I know that, as the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) said, it is quite often the case that some Government supporters support guillotines whereas those who oppose a Government tend to oppose them. However, I am certainly opposed to the idea of introducing regular timetables for all Bills. If anyone is seeking an easy and simple way to kill off what remains of the debating vitality of the House of Commons, I recommend the idea of permanent timetables, which would also injure proper debate in the House as a whole.
Sir Russell Johnston: How much debating vitality does the right hon. Gentleman think would be left for the Bill even with the acceptance of the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)?
Mr. Foot: We have had some vitality up to now, although the Government are trying to kill it off. The Liberal party, on the other hand, would have killed off that vitality from the beginning. The idea of permanent guillotines, permanent timetables or other permanent arrangements for the allocation of time is not a good recommendation for debate. Such an arrangement would play straight into the hands of any Government, and it should be rejected.
I have no doubt that the Leader of the House has referred, in the usual polite way in which he always treats me, to certain occasions when I introduced guillotine motions, and I agree that I introduced quite a large
950
number on a certain occasion. But none of those instances have any relevance to this debate. The five measures in question were all manifesto commitments of the party to which I belonged and the Government whom I supported. If guillotines had not been introduced in those cases, there would not have been the remotest chance of those measures being translated into operation. All had passed through their Second Reading stages and had been the subject of substantial votes.
That cannot be said of the position today. Even had the Leader of the House not introduced this guillotine, he would have had a good chance —even though some of us would have opposed the measure strongly—of getting the Bill through. He cannot claim, therefore, that the situations are the same, and the excuse that he or others may seek to invoke—of comparing this with previous occasions — does not apply, and the right hon. Gentleman should not resort to such a comparison.
The House will agree that there must be different rules, with greater provision for discussion, for constitutional as opposed to other measures. That does not mean that guillotine motions can never be applied to constitutional measures. Indeed, had that been the case, some major constitutional measures of the century would never had been placed on the statute book. In the last resort, therefore, Governments have a right to resort to the guillotine to get through constitutional measures.
But Governments, especially when dealing with questions that come fresh to debate in the House, have an obligation to ensure the fullest possible debate on great constitutional issues. Thus, the first charge against the Government—as most people listening to today's debate will agree—is that they have sought to push through this measure as if it were a minor, trivial one, when every minute of the debate has proved that it is a major constitutional measure. The Leader of the House will agree with that proposition.
Mr. Biffen indicated assent.
Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is a great constitutional measure. In that case, there cannot be any excuse for him — and we appreciate that he understands the House of Commons better than any other member of the Treasury Bench — tabling a motion saying in effect, that all debate on this great constitutional measure must be curtailed to a couple of hours, with an hour for Third Reading. Such a motion represents not a provision for debate but a denial of debate.
Mr. Eric Deakins: My right hon. Friend will agree that the crime is made more heinous by the fact that, unlike the examples to which he referred, the Government have no mandate from the British people for this measure. It was not mentioned in their 1983 manifesto.
Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is right, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) showed not only that the Government do not have a mandate for it but what happened when various parties sought approval for Britain's continued membership of the Market in 1975. The British people had propositions put before them to win their support for the maintenance of our position in the EEC, some of which propositions are being denied by this Bill, and an attempt is being made to push it through without the British people knowing what is happening to them.

951
The case is aggravated not only by the breach of the undertakings given by all parties to the British people at the time of the referendum but by our subsequent experience. The British people, especially the British Parliament, like to say how pragmatic we can be and how we work things out in practice. During all our debates at the time of our entry I remember many pro-marketeers saying, "Let us see how we can work these things out. A proper scrutiny committee among other organisations will examine the legislation. Let us see how that works. It will help to safeguard against the perils that are being described." We have a Scrutiny Committee and nobody would deny that it has done excellent work. If it had not been for my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is Chairman of it, and other hon. Members who have given it huge amounts of their time, the dangers of our entry would have become even more apparent over the years. But if the Scrutiny Committee is asked to advise the House, occasionally one must take note of what it says, particularly when it refers to such a measure as this.
The second great charge against the Leader of the House is that he has brushed aside all the advice that he has received on this measure. The Select Committee on European Legislation said:
"The arrival of the Single European Act demonstrates one inherent weakness of the current system (of scrutiny). The House had no opportunity to examine the Act until it had been agreed by the Member States, and even now can only accept or reject it as a whole through the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. As a scrutiny committee, we were never able to report on the Act, or on the Inter-Governmental Conference held in accordance with the Treaty in autumn 1985 which produced it. because both were outside our terms of reference. A similar situation has occurred from time to time in the budgetary affairs of the Community, when an Inter-Governmental Agreement has been used to supplement Community funds. Here again, the House was suddenly faced with a major development, almost without warning, and the terms of reference of the Committee meant that the document was not subject to scrutiny procedure."
This major constitutional measure, as the right hon. Gentleman has now been forced to acknowledge it, is not only being forced through in insufficient time but in opposition to the warnings given by our Scrutiny Committee.
I am not for a moment claiming that the operations of the Scrutiny Committee are a satisfactory substitute for the protection of the House. I never accepted the view that because the Scrutiny Committee examines this curious form of legislation, which arrives from the Assembly or the Council of Ministers—their methods of legislation are very different from ours, which is why it is so difficult to amalgamate the two methods by which the Assembly and the House work — it can successfully ensure that amalgamation. Despite that, what are we to say when a Scrutiny Committee had been set up to advise on these matters, its advice is brushed aside and a measure is rushed through in this ignominious way?
This will do great damage to the Government. I am sorry that it will also damage the Leader of the House, because he is far and away the best member of the Government. He is the only one who really seeks to understand what is happening in the House and who takes back faithful reports. No doubt that is why he has not been invited to participate in some of these inner sanctums which have been set up in recent weeks. If I could think
952
of any other compliment that would do him some damage I would be happy to pay it. That always comes easily to me.
I am deeply surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is a party to this. The only explanation is that he too has, perhaps, awakened to the fact that these proposals are far-reaching. Of course, if he tries to force through the scandal of a two-hour debate, that will be even worse. Even if, on the basis of accepting the amendment from his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) he forces that through, it will come back to haunt the Government and the right hon. Gentleman, because all the matters raised by the right hon. Member for Taunton and by all the other speakers, and the matters that will be raised in abbreviated future debates will be laid at the door of the Government.
When people discover that they will have to pay more in VAT because of some decision taken in Europe that this House had decided shall not be referrable to us, the Government's unpopularity will be multiplied manyfold. The wisest course for the Leader of the House is not only to accept the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Southend, East but to get up and recognise the force of this debate. Nobody listening to the debate can doubt that the British House of Commons is asserting its authority. The right hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members ought to pay
11.46 pm
Sir Anthony Meyer: I shall not add to the discomfiture of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House by praising him, much as I should like to do so. I know about his underwhelming enthusiasm for the measure that we are debating and speak merely to support him.
These guillotine debates are as weary, stale, flat and unprofitable as most of our debates on the EEC. They are also as entirely predictable, and my own contribution will be entirely predictable. I make it primarily to show that not every speaker, even on the Government side, is so unrepresentative as to be hostile to the European Community.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) made a quite remarkable contribution to our debate when he suggested that there was something terrible about the idea that there exist in the Foreign Office senior civil servants who are so attached to traditional interests and to policies based on those interests that they would find extreme difficulty in serving a Government that abandoned those interests. It seemed to me that what he was rattling as a terrifying spectre in front of us was a totally admirable statement by senior civil servants that there are interests transcending their careers and the kind of blind obedience that the right hon. Gentleman would seek to force upon them that would require them not to serve a Government that went so far away from everything that has traditionally been in the interests of Britain.
As I said, my contribution is totally predictable. I support the guillotine motion. It seems clear from the debate so far and from the lengthy speeches made on both sides, that however much time the Government had allowed for the further consideration of the measure, progress would have remained imperceptible. At whatever stage the Government had decided to impose a timetable motion, there would have been the routine howls of protest.

953
The complaint was made, especially by Opposition Members, that at no stage did the Government seek to move a closure. To that I retort that on the few occasions when we managed to get as far as a vote, the number of objectors to the measure who took the trouble to turn up in the Division Lobby was ludicrously small. I have no hesitation whatever in following my right hon. Friend into the Division Lobby to try to get a move on with this Bill.
11.50 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The first part of my speech will not be predictable. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) in his dogged determination of the cause of which he often speaks. I pay tribute to his internationalism. We have a happy augury of official representatives of foreign states in this building tomorrow. The point between us is the sound, philosophical and fundamental difference in how we express that internationalism. Some hon. Members express that internationalism by a wish for co-operation, which indicates that operations are parallel, by agreement and by consent. Some hon. Gentlemen believe that international accord can best be achieved by a pooling of legislative and judicial authority. That is what the Single European Act is all about. I do not think that the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West and I agree on that, but we might at least agree on the differences. I believe that the Single European Act seeks to do that, with serious consequences.
The Bill should consider the Single European Act, which contains 22 pages of small print and more than 50 amendments to the treaty of Rome. It is complex in the extreme, because it is legislation by reference and reference. A double take is necessary. Yet, despite that, the Government have not seen tit to publish a White Paper or guide. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum at the front of the Bill is as derisory as the motion before us tonight.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has said that the way in which the Government have gone about the Bill illustrates the politics of coercion. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) last week and repeated today by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). The Prime Minister has said that she does not want the Bill. I suggest to the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West that if one pursues the path of pooled legislation, pooled budgetary powers and a pooled judiciary, one ends up with the politics of coercion. That is what hon. Members are faced with. The Bill is not wanted by the Government, and they can only get it through by means of the motion before us.
I shall be a little less provocative perhaps, and turn to my role as Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent kindly referred. The Scrutiny Committee can only look and report. It does not have the power to act. If the House gives its power away, it will not have the power to act. There is a difference between an ability to see and an ability to act.
The present terms of reference of the Scrutiny Committee have not permitted it to give a summary of the Single European Act as it stands. The Committee was able to report on the Single European Act only in so far as it affected our duties on scrutiny. That is what we did in House of Commons paper No. 400. We also suggested that. if we were to discharge our duty to the House, we
954
should require slightly enlarged terms of reference. That was a unanimous decision. I am glad to see that it was unanimously endorsed by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.
As I am concerned with parliamentary scrutiny, I shall do something which I do not think has been done before in guillotine debates. I shall tell the House in some excruciating detail the groups of amendments which still remain to be debated. I hope to summarise—although not at too much length — the contents of the Single European Act.
The Committee is debating amendment No. 7, moved by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), which relates to article 17 of the Single European Act and new article 99 of the treaty of Rome. The article deals with the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and VAT, which could be imposed on food, fuel, hooks and a range of other activities. Many suspect that the unpopular VAT on building repairs, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced some time ago, was the result of letters from the Commission under the sixth VAT directive. If that is not the case, I invite the right hon. Gentleman to write to tell me so.
Under the timetable motion of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), one hour is to be spent on that vast range of fiscal activity. I suggest that the very minimum period would be two hours. If any hon. Member thinks that the time should be less, let him get up and say so.
The next amendment is amendment No. 9, which relates to article 20 of the Single European Act and new article 102A of the treaty. It deals with the vast subject of the obligation on the House to accept European monetary union and the European monetary system and to accept the convergence of policies and it provides for conferences on that subject to be called under article 23 by only one Government. In addition, there is to be a new article 70(1) of the treaty of Rome which says that directives relating to exchange policy shall be achieved by a "qualified majority". I can hardly credit that. 10 years ago, any Chancellor would have agreed, let alone contemplated, such a proposal. As hon. Members know, if there is a qualified majority, we can do nothing about a measure once it is accepted.
I should have thought that those matters required at least a two-hour debate. If any hon. Member thinks that they do not, let him say so. The motion of the hon. Member for Southend, East would give us an hour.
The guillotine motion does not provide for amendments Nos. 23 to 25, which are to do with the solemn declaration at Stuttgart which has 32 paragraphs and is published in full by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in House of Commons Paper 442. The measure also concerns European co-operation of a political character. Title III of the European Common Act and new article 30 has 10 paragraphs which set out the treaty form of European political co-operation. This group of amendments would provide the only means of debating that matter, but there is no time allocated to it. There will be six new treaty institutions relating to an obligation to consult on all matters of foreign affairs, at multilateral and bilateral levels. I should have thought that a two-hour debate on both topics would be the least anyone could expect. I should prefer double or treble that time, but I do not think that any Conservative Members could suggest that it be less than two hours.

955
The next amendment is amendment No. 11 which deals with article 25 of the single European Act and the new articles 130R. 130S and 130T of the treaty of Rome. It concerns the new scope of the treaty in relation to the environment. New article 130S says that if the Council of Ministers decides unanimously that certain things shall be decided by a qualified majority, it shall be so. I calculate that the motion of the hon. Member for Southend, East allows for a half-hour debate but I should have thought that two hours at least were needed to debate the environment, which is a huge topic and one on which the European Community is now claiming vires.
The next amendment is amendment No. 14, which concerns article 10 of the Single European Act and new article 145 of the Rome treaty. It deals with the important topic of providing the Commission with delegated powers. Many hon. Members might think that the Commission already has plenty of delegated powers but I have news —there are new delegated powers under new article 145 of the treaty. The hon. Member for Southend, East allocates half an hour to that matter. I should have thought that one hour at least would have been necessary.
The next group of amendments covers amendment 47 and relates to the Single European Act article 23 and to the Treaty of Rome, new article 130A, 130B, 130C. and 130D. These deal with what is called cohesion in the Community and they require reports on the future of the common agricultural policy, the social fund and the regional fund and their revision. I suggest that one hour on the CAP and half an hour on each of the other subjects is much too little time, but on my calculations we will have only a quarter of an hour on the lot, if we are lucky, under the motion of the hon. Member for Southend, East.
The next group of amendments contains amendment No. 22 which deals with the complete meaning of the preamble of the Treaty. As hon. Members will know, the preamble of the Treaty, while not being part of the Treaty, can be taken into account if there is any dispute as to its meaning. Therefore, the preamble — which I would recommend hon. Members to read if they have not already done so—will be taken into account by the European Court if their is any question as to whether we should be within the jurisdiction of the Treaty or not. If hon. Members read the preamble they will see its extensive terms. Half an hour would be far too short a time for that subject and the hon. Member for Southend, East gives about a quarter of an hour for that in his motion.
The next topic for debate would be clause stand part on clauses 1 and 2. We have debated these clauses already, but we have not entered into discussions on the complex machinery of the powers of the Commission and the Parliament and the expansion of the Court. That was discussed but the Court is being given a blank cheque to produce proposals as to how it can expand — not I hasten to add in powers—but in numbers. I would have thought that two hours on that point would have been reasonable. The Southend motion gives it half an hour.
The last amendment is amendment No. 46 in the name of the right hon. Member for South Down. The amendment covers a very important part of the Bill, clause 3(4), because it relates to the fact that the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 required an Act of Parliament if power was to be transferred to the European
956
Assembly. The mere fact that this is in the Bill shows that the Government acknowledge that power will be transferred.
The Third Reading will receive two hours when it should have three. My grand total is that some 16 hours 30 minutes or 17 hours of debate without Divisions would be needed. That is more than the total of 15 hours put down in the motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) which was rubbished by the Leader of the House. With Divisions, we would need about 20 hours to carry out the minimum timetable that I have suggested tonight. Instead of that, we are being asked to spend five hours, including Divisions.
Some people want to give powers away from the House. They have every right to say that, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West for expressing that view. However, have they got the power to prevent us from discussing whether we should give powers away? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn has said, once those powers have gone we will be told that we gave binding international treaties to that effect.
People in South Africa are struggling to obtain some form of democracy. Can it be that today we are giving ours away too lightly? My own charitable interpretation is that I do not think that the Government know what the Bill contains. They do not know the extent or implications of the Single European Act and by moving the guillotine motion tonight they are preventing people and Parliament from finding out what it contains.
12.3 am
Mr. Tony Marlow: A full House, late at night. No press present, with the media gone to bed. A shameful time to debate this shameful issue. That is not parliamentary hyperbole. This is the most important constitutional issue to he debated since I became a Member of Parliament. I believe that it is even more important than the European Communities Act. After that Act, we had a veto. Can we be sure that we have a veto now?
Almost every major provision in the Bill is more pregnant with significance than any two items of primary legislation, yet it is to he debated, including Divisions, in five short hours. No wonder that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House sits hunched in his seat. He is an honest man, and I imagine that he must feel sick at heart. I hope that we shall not have any more little jokes about the Front Bench making short speeches on major issues that merit a proper introduction.
For the past few weeks, the House and the country have been deeply concerned about the important and tragic events of South Africa. We might have some minimum control over those events, but we potentially have a great deal of control over this massive event. Yet we are not being allowed to have a proper debate on the issue.
The media have not taken the issue seriously at all. Is it because it is too complex, and people do not understand it? Or is it because the Government have such a massive majority that people believe that nothing can be done about it? When we had a referendum, it was about a common market and not about a united Europe. But despite that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) said, only last week there were major changes in our social legislation as a result of the

957
European Court. It was nothing to do with harmonising the internal market, or with the common market that we joined. It had everything to do with moving towards a united Europe.
Two or three short weeks ago, my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General made a statement reducing the burdens on small companies. Immediately afterwards he introduced some European legislation to increase the burdens on small companies. Was that necessary for the internal market? Of course we all want co-operation with Europe and a large, vital trading entity within Europe. But that does not mean that we have to harmonise everything: harmonise the arrangements for family leave, harmonise the health and safety regulations, and so on.
Harmonised and unified as we are, we are moving yet further towards this Single European Act. Of course, at first it was not called that. It was going to be called the Act of European union. But out of deference to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the title was changed. Many people have said that the Prime Minister is against this measure, because it is unnecessary. I believe that to be her position. We know that those Conservative Members who think about the issue are not in favour of it. On Friday we had an important debate, yet how many Conservative Members were here to vote it through? The answer is a mere 84 and two Tellers which amounts to 86 members out
What about the country? What does the country know about this issue? Does it know how important and significant this matter is? Have the Government shouted from the rooftops what they intend to do, and what the effects of the measure will be? If' the country knew about it, it would be, as it should be, against it. About the only person in favour of it is the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. She has always been in favour of a united Europe. But she does not for one moment represent the views of hon. Members on this matter.
Of course, people will say that this matter has nothing to do with a federal Europe and nothing to do with a united Europe. Really! Have they, or all of my hon. Friends, read the Bill? I apologise to my hon. Friends for saying this, but if they have not done so, they should read it and read it again. They should understand it. They should find out what is in it, and what it will do to the sovereignty of the House. They should find out what the Bill will do to our ability to control the fortunes of our country. This is dynamite, and important dynamite, and it should be read and digested.
The preamble says:
"to transform relations as a whole among their States into a European Union".
The Bill is a vice in the hands of the European Court with which to squeeze the nation states of Europe into a union, which is often against their individual wills.
What about giving more power to the European Assembly? There, as anywhere else, issues will be debated on a political basis. Overriding all that, however, the Assembly will be concerned first and foremost with European unity, and the more power that it has the more European unity there will be.
Mr. John Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend not agree, however, that it would be preferable for a democratically elected body to have the power to propose amendments to Commission proposals, or would he perfer to be governed constantly by the proposals of a non-elected body such as the Commission?
Mr. Marlow: I say with due deference to my hon. Friend, whom I respect a great deal, that I believe that the conjunction of powers between the European Court, the European Assembly and the European Commission, all of which will be committed to a federal and united Europe, will lead to the negation rather than to the enhancement of democracy.
On majority voting, that already takes place on minor issues, but majority voting is to be extended. What effect will its extension have? It will move us towards European unity. We have 10 votes out of 78, or whatever the number is. The population of Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece, Portugal and Ireland — seven small countries—when put together is smaller than ours, but they have 28 votes. Because they have no influence elsewhere, the small countries of Europe want to move towards a united Europe. How can British Ministers agree to those small countries having nearly three times as many votes as we have? And, having given them those votes, how can British Ministers agree that they should be allowed to vote on issues that are of paramount importance to this country? Why does this parliamentary democracy and sovereign state intend to surrender its powers to a bureaucracy? How will that benefit the British people?
My hon. Friend the Minister of State patronised the Prime Minister the other day. She said that the Prime Minister did not like it at first, but she has learnt and that is why she changed her mind. I would not patronise the Prime Minister if I wanted to join the Cabinet and if I were the hot tip as the next lady in the Cabinet. However. I am sure that the Prime Minister is a forgiving lady. If she wants to get back into the Prime Minister's good books, I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that when she winds up the debate she should tell us what power and strength are still left to us, how committed she is to the veto —the Luxembourg compromise, or whatever we call it —and how we shall be able to sustain interests that are vital to this nation in the Council of Ministers. We have not yet been told, and it is high time that we were.
In our imperfect constitution, made more imperfect by the Bill, there is but one hope, but it is not here. Too many hon. Members are confused by the Bill and know little about it. They have been bullied by the Whips and they are not prepared to stand up on this issue. They are not concerned for the generations and centuries of history of this country and therefore do not feel that they should do what is right about it. But there is still the other place.
This Bill was not a manifesto commitment. It was not contained in the Queen's Speech. It is not about money. First and foremost, it is a constitutional issue. The other place has great power over constitutional issues. If we raise the ceiling tonight and make a noise, if we make people aware tonight of what this issue means, then let them wake up at the other end of the building. Let them stand up for Britain and do what they think is right. Let them throw the wretched thing out.
12.14 am
Sir Russell Johnston: In no way shall I attempt to follow that. I support the Bill, and in so doing I do not believe that I am betraying anybody. Also, I support the view that in general it is fairer to hon. Members and that it is of advantage, in order to secure a balanced argument, for timetabling to take place from the outset, after discussion between the parties, if a Bill is likely to be controversial. That is well known in

959
advance. I also support, where necessary, a limitation on the speaking time that is allotted to hon. Members. In working that out, I believe that Front Benchers should also be prepared to accept some restraint. Hon. Members have already said that some Back Benchers are occasionally garrulous, but many Front Benchers are often garrulous. In the period that I have been in the House, I have heard Front Benchers on both sides propose and oppose timetable motions in almost identical terms, so I cannot get terribly worked up anymore about their speeches.
In general, what has been wrong with timetable motions is that they have never really been, or even succeeded in being considered as, matters for the House of Commons, as the shadow Leader of the House put it. The situation has rather been as the Leader of the House frankly stated when he said that the majority on Second Reading represented "the authority of the House", and hence the right to propose a guillotine—in other words, the power of the majority to steamroller legislation through the House.
I am in no doubt that to allow the Bill to drift on in the way that occurred, only once moving. That the Question be now put—
Mr. Foot: Not once, often.
Sir Russell Johnston: This was close to midnight on 16 June:
"Question put, That the Question be now put".—[Official Report, 16 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 868.]
That motion was moved by the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household. It was, therefore, moved once after a limited
After that, to come to the House and suggest that all the other amendments be concluded in two hours is really insulting. There is no way in which a proper debate can be conducted in that time. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who is not garrulous at all, has already taken up nearly an hour and a half of the Committee's proceedings, and it is now proposed to allocate only two hours for the whole of the remaining amendments. We would merely be spectators of abbreviated exchanges between Front-Bench spokesmen who would not even allow interjections or questions in their speeches. One of the supposedly unique characteristics in the Chamber is that people can interrupt and ask questions rather than having the set piece orations that are the normal characteristic of continental hemicycles. Therefore, that would not be in the tradition of this place.
The timetable proposed by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is, of course, better. When one considers that he spoke for nearly an hour and a quarter on amendment No. 1, it would be interesting to know how he feels time should be allocated within the hour that he has suggested for amendment No. 7. That amendment has already been proposed by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), who was still speaking when the Committee was adjourned on 27 June, having addressed the Committee up until then with his customary fluency for about 40 minutes. The hon. Member for Southend, East agrees that the time is inadequate. One presumes that he proposed the inadequate time only because he had some intuition or
960
information that the Leader of the House would accept his alternative as a means of giving the appearance of generosity.
As I see it, if we have a timetable motion now, it should be so constructed as to make available sufficient time for some reasonable debate. I believe that the proposition made by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), the shadow Leader of the House, meets these requirements, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.
12.19 am
Sir John Farr: I too want to ask why the Government are in such a hurry. The right hon. Gentleman who used to be the Member for Ebbw Vale, which is now something rather complex and Welsh — Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot)—sought to probe my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about why the Government and my right hon. Friend in particular were so anxious to proceed apace on an important constitutional Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, like many other hon. Gentlemen on both sides, put many questions to my right hon. Friend. I do not think that he answered them properly in his opening remarks. I can see no reason why we should have a truncated debate on this important and critical Bill or why we should have a timetable motion.
Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is not here at the moment. He has been in the Chamber continuously until now and has an excellent record of listening to the debate. I should have hoped that by now he had heard enough arguments from both sides to convince him that there is no good reason for a guillotine motion. He might even ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to make the appropriate sounds and withdraw the guillotine motion.
It has already been pointed out that there is no question of a shortage of time—not that time matters on an issue of constitutional importance, as this Bill is. Even if it was not a constitutional matter, there is no question of a shortage of time because of the demise of the Shops Bill. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, whose integrity I trust implicitly and whom I have always admired—I am only sorry that he is not present to hear all the nice things I am saying about him —is not intent on deceiving the House.
The messages that my right hon. Friend has got continuously through the usual channels, and in the debate tonight, have contained one theme: that he is making a severe mistake in recommending the timetable motion to the House. I hope that he may come up with the right answer later and will give an appropriate message to my hon. Friend. Unless he does, I shall certainly vote against the timetable motion, for reasons that have been stated clearly earlier in the debate.
I am puzzled because my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is such a capable parliamentarian, has always prided himself on keeping closely in touch with opinion in the country. He cannot say after this debate, after the article in The Times some days ago by Mr. Johnson and after the article in the Daily Telegraph yesterday by Mr. Utley that he is not aware that this is a significant measure. If he was making an attempt to slide it through on the quiet, that attempt has been rumbled.
My hon. Friends have spoken about the implications. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr.

961
Taylor) referred to the VAT implications, to the other problems that could be associated with harmonising and to the questions that we are likely to be asked at the next general election and future elections about the attitude we took to this measure, which goes many paces beyond the original European Community legislation.
Having been a Member of the House at the time, I can well recall the assurances that were given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that we would never go beyond what was in the original measure. I can recall, and it is in Hansard, that one or two hon. Members suggested that it could lead to a form of European union. When some of us raised these matters in private, we were assured that in no way would that take place and that in any event never would a guillotine motion even be contemplated by a sensible Labour or Conservative Government on such a constitutional matter.
I think that is a big step backwards and the House must think again about this matter. I only hope that the usual channels will have a word with my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House, so that he can persuade my hon. Friend the Minister, who will reply to the debate, that perhaps there is no great rush to rise before the royal wedding or some other event which may be happening. In any event. a matter of this consitutional importance and gravity cannot be swept under the carpet. All the important amendments which are needed must be debated fully and aired in public.
12.25 am
Mr. Eric Deakins: I rise for a number of reasons, hut I ought to tell the House that of the 50-odd amendments to the Bill, just under half are in my name. Therefore, I have some interest in the remaining proceedings of the Bill. Of the amendments I have tabled a number have been selected in the subsequent debates and some have been linked with those of other hon. Members.
In 1640 and 1641 this House of Commons debated ship money and also the proclaimed right—a divine right— of Charles Ito tax the British people without their consent and that of their parliamentary representatives. There was a very important series of constitutional debates in the two years preceeding the civil war. I ask myself and right hon. and hon. Gentlemans of both sides of the House, what would have been the verdict of contemporaries and the subsequent verdict of history, had those in the king's party sought to guillotine the debate on those vital issues. Of course, in those days, the guillotine was not available and this is mere speculation. In view of the importance of the constitutional issues, the verdict would have been one of abhorrence and contempt at the squalid manoeuvring to attempt to stifle the debate on important constitutional issues.
No one can deny from the speeches we have heard tonight that the issues we are debating in the Bill, although not directly in this guillotine motion, are just as important as those which laced the House in 1640, 1641 and also in 1972, as well as on other occasions, when constitutional issues of major importance have been before the nation. Surely there has not been any previous occasion when any Government have sought to stifle discussion on such issues without any mandate from the people of the country for that measure or for trying to stifle the debate.
Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that things may have improved to a certain extent because in the 1640s Cromwell came in with a bunch of soldiers and removed everybody else.
Mr. Deakins: As an historian — I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is an historian— I know we had a civil war first before that happened.
I do not wish to waste the time of' the House by developing the constitutional arguments of the importance of the Bill— they have already been outlined by many speakers. I wish to take up one by one—no one else has done so — the Leader of the House's argument in support of this guillotine motion.
The right hon. Gentleman argued that we have had 18 hours of' debate and that we have got through just over three groups of amendments. That 18 hours of debate was in fact two and a half days of parliamentary time. We had a half day on a Monday, a day on a Thursday and a day on a Friday.
One of the issues that we were discussing was a subsidiary court of the European Court of Justice and that legitimately raised— it was not out of order— the whole future of the European Court of Justice, the verdicts it has given and what sort of court it is. Surely, in anyone's estimation that was worth half a day of parliamentary time to discuss?
We then had less than a day — half a day — with a debate truncated to suit the convenience or hon. Members on both sides of the House and we eventually had a vote at 8.30 pm. We had a half day in which to debate the new powers to be given to the European Assembly, which is increasingly emerging as a competitor to this Parliament. One would have thought that in normal circumstances, had it not been for the convenience of hon. Members, that debate would have been worthy of a whole day. So no one can argue that that was not an important topic and worthy of the time that was allocated to it.
We then went on to the third debate on the completion of the internal market. On that, the Committee would probably have divided on party lines. Most Government supporters are in favour of the completion of the internal market and most people on the Labour Benches are against that, for purely party political reasons which I do not wish to go into now.
Nevertheless, we all recognise the great importance of that subject from our differing points of view, particularly those of us on the Labour Benches. We felt that that subject was well worth going into in some detail. I did that myself in a speech which ended proceedings on Thursday evening when I gave a great number of details and statistics to show that the case for completing the internal market was not a good one since our experience of the incomplete internal market over the past 13 years has not exactly been a happy one economically. My arguments may not have been right, but that is not the point. However, they were valid arguments. They were all in order. The debate was in order. That important debate was well worthy of a full day's debate in the time of the House of Commons.
When the Lord Privy Seal uses as his first argument for the guillotine that we have been dilatory on our debates so far, we have had 18 hours—two and a half days—on three groups of amendments, he has not bothered to look at what the amendments were, as I have just done. I hope that I have convinced at least those who have an open

963
mind on these issues that those debates were not deliberately prolonged, that they were real debates on important issues affecting both sides of the House and the British people. Therefore, no argument can rest on the fact that they should have been disposed of in two or three hours instead of 18.
The second argument used by the right hon. Gentleman was that — I quote his exact words — "time cannot be afforded" for the completion of the Bill. But are we not masters of our own time? Whether we choose to begin our summer recess on 5 August, 1 August, 27 July, 24 July or 18 July is entirely within our control. Of course, the Government naturally control the business of the House, and no one objects to that. We can make choices between any of those dates and the choice really rests on the importance of the business that remains to be done.
Surely it cannot be a valid argument in any circumstances to say that on this supremely important constitutional issue time cannot be afforded for the remaining stages of the Bill, and yet can be afforded for other matters which are of lesser importance, although one understands that they are important in terms of the Government's programme, and one does not object to the Government spending time on them.
The Lord Privy Seal has sought to submit to the House this evening an entirely specious set of arguments in justification of, this guillotine motion. He attacked the words of the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). asking for a mere 15 hours, roughly two days of Parliamentary time, to be given to complete the Committee stage of the Bill. He implied, in criticising my right hon. Friend, who had not then spoken but whose motion is on the Order Paper, that such a motion should he rejected, as he did, not merely because it said 15 hours but because it did not lay out the timing of the individual debates. He implied, significantly, that it would not leave enough time for later groups of amendments, and that the House could consider only some groups of amendments in those 15 hours because my right hon. Friend had not divided the time properly. That is an open admission that the House needs substantial time to debate those groups of amendments.
The arguments of the Lord Privy Seal were specious and were intended—I say this sadly—to stifle the debate and to censor the arguments that would otherwise have been put. Had the press been present on Thursday and Friday, they might also have been put to the British people.
The Government have accepted the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southend. East (Mr. Taylor), but they have not accepted the other amendments, which will no doubt be voted upon. However, because of the Government's majority, they will probably be rejected.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: They may not have a majority.
Mr. Deakins: Perhaps I am being unduly pessimistic. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point.
Seven groups of amendments remain to be debated, and we shall have three clause stand part debates. No one expects a clause stand part debate on clause 4, but clauses 1, 2 and 3 are important. Therefore, we have the prospect of 10 debates in Committee, including the debate on which we embarked on Friday. Even if the hon. Gentleman's
964
amendment is accepted by the House, that means that we shall have 10 debates in four hours. If there were no votes, it would mean 24 minutes for each debate.
However, the House would be justified in assuming that some of the issues are so vital that the House would wish to vote on them, and I mention only four. Hon. Members may disagree with my choice. I expect that hon. Members would wish to record an opinion on tax harmonisation, economic, monetary and political union, the common agricultural policy and the entire preamble. The amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for South Down, to which I have attached my name, would remove the preamble from the Bill. If we shall need one hour for voting, that would leave only three hours for debate. Therefore, the average time for debate would be 18 minutes on each of the seven groups of amendments and three clause stand part debates.
One point that the Lord Privy Seal did not make in his speech, although he tried to explain it in reply to me at Business Questions on Thursday of last week, was that between the Second Reading of the Bill on 23 April and the first Committee stage day in the House, there was a gap of six weeks. I asked the Lord Privy Seal for an explanation. He hummed and hawed and said, "We had to have informal and formal consultations." I reject that entirely. It would have been possible for the Government to introduce the Committee stage after two weeks, which would have provided ample time for consultation with Conservative Back-Bench Members, Labour Back-Bench Members, the usual channels, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all.
The Government chose not to so so. I do not query why they chose not to do so. It is the Government's prerogative to decide when to bring a Bill to its Committee stage. But as in the normal course of events, they had chosen to start the Committee stage within two weeks of the Second Reading, we could have had one day a week in Committee and we would probably have disposed of the Bill without the need for guillotines or closures.
Some may say that that is wishful thinking, but all the issues could have been explored in that time. I await a proper explanation of this from the Lord Privy Seal. Perhaps the Patronage Secretary was responsible for it. Whoever is responsible has not yet so far given the House an explanation. It is the failure to bring the Bill back to Committee stage that is responsible for the mess that the Government are in now. The Government themselves have wasted five weeks of parliamentary time when they could have brought the Bill before the House.
The Government confidently thought that the Bill could be disposed of in Committee stage, in its entirety, in one parliamentary day. When they made that assumption, there were already 40 amendments on the Amendment Paper. The Chairman of Ways and Means had not yet made his selection, but the Government could have formed some inkling from the authorities of the House of how many groupings there might be. They must have known that there would be a number of serious and controversial debates. How could the Government have imagined that it would be possible to dispose of all those debates in seven or eight hours? They must have been out of their tiny mind. I said to the Lord Privy Seal at Business Questions last week that he had been treating the House with arrogance and contempt. I was thinking not just of

965
the Lord Privy Seal — he happened to be answering Business Questions—but of the Government as a whole and the other Ministers responsible.
Whatever one thinks about the Bill, how could the Government have imagined that such a major constitutional Bill could have been disposed of in its Committee stage in one day of parliamentary time? I do not understand the mentality. Perhaps the Minister who is to reply will be able to tell us.
Furthermore, the Lord Privy Seal and those who advise him, by determining that the Bill should really have been disposed of in one day—and the Lord Privy Seal tells us that two and a half days would be far too long—are making a serious if implied criticism of the Chairman of Ways and Means. In effect, they are saying "We did not expect that, on this Bill which we do not regard as important and which should only have one day of parliamentary time, you would choose nine groups of amendments with the possibility of three clause stand part debates. We had assumed that there would be so little choice in the groups of amendments that we could have disposed of the Bill in one day." It is an implied criticism of the Chairman of Ways and Means that the Government are now saying that much less time should have been given to the Bill than has already been given to it in Committee.
In the form and content of the guillotine motion, the Leader of the House has set a very dangerous precedent. This place works, by and large, on the basis of give and take. Governments know that they will not be Governments for ever. By and large, Oppositions know that they will not be Oppositions for ever. One cannot say that there will not be revolutionary changes in the next decade, but one has every right to assume that that situation will remain as it is.
After the next Election there will be many more Labour Members in the House, and I hope that they will be sitting on the Government Benches. That parliamentary Labour party will be different in temperament and character from the present parliamentary Labour party. That Labour Government will have a contentious and heavy programme of controversial legislation to get through as quickly as possible, and the members of that parliamentary Labour party will seize on this precedent—not the precedent of a guillotine, but the precedent of disposing of an important constitutional Bill under a guillotine at the rate of 16 minutes for each group of amendments. The Government and the Conservative party will live to regret this day. Before it is too late, let them think seriously about what they are doing.
12.45 am
Mr. Andrew Rowe: It is with some reluctance that I shall support the Government tonight. My view, having been here only since 1983, is that the Government have brought many of their difficulties on themselves.
Since my arrival here, I have watched the archaic procedures of Parliament snarling up the business that the public would like to see transacted in a more efficient manner. We do not need to be lectured by senior Members of the House who have allowed the whole of their parliamentary careers to pass without paying attention to the way in which we transact our business. They have no right to say, in the twilight of their careers, that it is disgraceful for the Government to move guillotine motions or make the House sit late at night.
Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend seems to be condemning all the accumulated wisdom of this place, giving the impression that he is in favour of turning it into a well-oiled law-making machine. Does he approve of any of the procedures of the House?
Mr. Rowe: That was an ingenious attempt to distort my argument. I recall, for example, an attempt that was made to alter, at any rate for an experimental period, some of the procedures of the House. On that occasion the Government wheeled out the payroll vote to defeat any modification.
We must examine the whole way in which Parliament conducts its business. When people say that the Government or Members of Parliament are out of touch with public opinion, the clearest demonstration that they may be right is for us to continue to transact our business late at night, placing an enormous premium on length rather than on lucidity. For hon. Members to argue at length why there should not he a timetable seems to many people outside to be not only incomprehensible but inefficient.
Mr. Budgen: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is an extraordinary tradition of the House that hon. Members are often allowed to speak the most appalling rubbish while their colleagues sit listening almost without a word of disagreement?
Mr. Rowe: The fact that my hon. Friend has interrupted my remarks twice leads me to believe that he does not consider that I have been talking rubbish.
We must improve our procedures. Hon. Members who have spoken at length in this debate have themselves shown the need for the guillotine. After all, had they spoken briefly and to the point, they would have attracted more support for their views.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is not the problem that if hon. Members seek to put a view in opposition to the majority view in their party, they must do so by repetition and opposition because the Whipped vote will always outvote them?
Mr. Rowe: That is a long-standing tradition. It is believed that the only weapon a minority has is time and the interminable repetition of points that are fairly easily grasped first time if they are made well. It is a procedure which seems worthy of re-examination. I entirely accept that the discipline of the Whips has become absurdly overextended. The combination of the two reinforces my view.
This Chamber is supposedly the place where Governments are made and unmade, and where Governments can and should be controlled. The fact that they are not is substantially due to two factors. First, because nobody has ever looked hard enough at the number of matters that we are asked to consider, the size of the Executive has been allowed to grow to the point where there is no controlling it. Secondly, we should not have to debate so much administrative and executive detail. The result is that large constitutional issues are not properly addressed.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Is not one of the problems of this honourable House perhaps that many hon. Members speak at great length and say absolutely nothing?
Mr. Rowe: Far be it from me to level any such charge. I believe strongly that we must take the way we do our

967
business seriously, instead of nearly all the time concentrating on specialist subjects, not coming into the Chamber when our subjects are not being discussed and then complaining when business is slipped passed us by the use of the Whipped vote.
It ill becomes some hon. Members who have already contributed to the debate to complain that what Euro Members do is incomprehensible and not explained sufficiently well to the House, when some of them took part in decisions which excluded the possibility of Euro Members having any space in this building, where they could explain what they were doing. We shall make the EC work by taking pains to understand its extraordinary achievements, whereby free democracies have come together in a form of alliance which has no precedent and which holds the seeds of the future. That is why, reluctantly, I shall support the Government.
12.54 am
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: If the Bill goes through, and I hope it does not, the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) will be more irrelevant in future than he has been tonight.
We are discussing the future of this Parliament and that has not been brought out in the speeches of many hon. Members. I am an internationalist, but political union should not be brought about by stealth and that is what is happening in the Bill. We are being manoeuvred into a situation and one day we will wake up and discover that the importance of the House has been lost to us. That is the issue and we should wake up to it now and do something about it.
I remember the debates on Europe that we had when I was on the Front Bench. We raised the question of the veto and were given plenty of assurances. We were told that there was no need to worry, that the Conservative Government would protect the rights of the Parliament and the people by way of the veto. Because some of us did not believe that, we were told there was no question of the European Assembly becoming a real Parliament and having advanced powers.
Many of us said over the years that, once the European Parliament was in operation, it would automatically insist on getting greater powers. That is what is happening, and stage by stage we can see the political union developing. That is taking place, without a proper debate in the country and without the people really understanding what is happening. That is the issue, and everything else is flapdoodle.
If the hon. Member for Mid-Kent wants to talk about the procedures of the House, he should do so in an appropriate debate and in this debate should not depart from the issues that we are considering. The Leader of the House agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member of Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) that this legislation is of greater constitutional importance.
We must understand what has happened in the past on constitutional matters. There was a great deal of opposition to devolution when we debated it, but in the main most people felt that the measure would go through without any difficulty. Then the issues began to be understood in the country and as the debate went on and people in all parts of the British Isles understood it, there was growing opposition among hon. Members who at first
968
were quite indifferent to devolution. If we had the time properly to discuss these issues, there would be growing opposition to the Bill before the House.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heffer: I have sat here the whole evening and I shall speak for five minutes. If the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) does not mind, I shall not give way.
It is vital that the House does not agree with this guillotine motion. A number of hon. Members have outlined, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) spoke in detail about, the sort of issues that have still to be discussed.
The hon. Member for Southend. East (Mr. Taylor) pointed out the long list of issues which should be discussed but which will not be discussed properly. I believe that that is absolutely wrong. I ask all hon. Members to vote against the guillotine motion. I do not know whether the Government have been able to get Conservative Members into the Chamber. They have not been able to get them in up until now so that they could close the debate. If they are in the House tonight, I hope that they will put the interests our people first and not allow us to get into a political union by stealth, as is happening now.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. We are debating the Government's motion and, I understand, the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend. East (Mr. Taylor). Does the Chair take note of the names of hon. Members on the amendment? Can you give some guidance, Mr. Speaker, to hon. Members? When an examination is made of those hon. Members who are called, it will be found that only——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I stop the hon. Member because I think that he is challenging the selection of the Chair.
Mr. Walker: I am seeking guidance, Mr. Speaker. No criticism is intended. Hon. Members seek guidance on the fact that a Member who proposes a motion and many other hon. Members are called, but those who support the motion are not called.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows—it is at the discretion of the Chair—that in such a debate a balance must be struck. In that it is true that some hon. Members who support the various motions that I have selected on the Order Paper have been called tonight, as have some hon. Members who are against the amendments in their entirety.
1.1 am
Mr. George Robertson: This guillotine motion
"is no ordinary guillotine. The House faces a major constitutional innovation with far-reaching ramifications that are hard to predict, and that may take years, and even decades, to develop. Therefore it behoves us to proceed with more care and caution and to take more time before reaching a final conclusion."— [Official Report, 22 February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 1253.]
Those are not my words. They are the words of the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), speaking in the debate on the allocation of time for the Scotland and Wales Bill (Allocation of Time) Order on 22 February

969
1977. It is one of the standard traditions of guillotine debates for hon. and right hon. Members to find that their words are thrown back in their teeth all the time.
This has been an amazing debate. It commenced by an amazing contribution by the Leader of the House. The House looks forward to the right hon. Gentleman's contributions. We hear them increasingly as the Prime Minister tours the world and the right hon. Gentleman stands in at Prime Minister's Question Time. We have come to anticipate with great pleasure the dry humour that he brings to such occasions. Indeed, one might think of him as the "thinking man's Les Dawson". However, the right hon. Gentleman stooped to a fairly low level of humour tonight when he tried to threaten the House with the pain of postponing its summer holidays in order to consider, day after day, the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
The Leader of the House supervised a delay of six weeks from the Second Reading of the Bill on 23 April to when the Committee stage commenced. The Leader of the House proposed only one closure on all the hours of debate that he catalogued this evening. He was able to muster only 84 Conservative Members at the end of the debate on Friday afternoon. What is being put forward by the right hon. Gentleman is incompetence on a massive scale. It is thinly disguised as a compassion for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and Ladies, and for the staff of the House. I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether in his heart there really was a feeling of compassion for the staff of the House, whose inconvenience must he considerable as we drone on into the night discussing these and other matters, and why he kept the staff and the rest of us hanging on the end of a string until 2.30 on Friday afternoon before he decided that the debate had reached the stage at which the guillotine had to be invoked.
The Government have mismanaged the Bill. They have mismanaged their timetable and have lost their supporters. They have found themselves in such trouble that on this major constitutional issue we were to be allocated only three hours for the remaining stages.
But of course out of the dark night comes a white charger to rescue the Government. Here comes the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) with the great compromise. I knew the hon. Gentleman when he was just plain Teddy Taylor, shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the man who, if it were not for the whim of the electorate in Glasgow, Cathcart, would have found himself in the Scottish Office amid the splendours of Bute house, and the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) would be planked here defending the indefensible, as he did for so many long months before he was promoted to Cabinet.
I distinctly heard some Labour Members saying, in words that will not be recorded in Hansard, that this was a dirty deal, a shabby compromise, a sort of sell-out, but I know the hon. Member for Southend, East much better that that. I know that it was simply a pay-off and that somehow, somewhere a deal was done and, undoubtedly, his rewards will be great. Who knows, he might yet be a Government Member, standing at the Dispatch Box defending the next intergovernmental agreement, the next European budget supplement or even the 1·6 per cent. VAT limit after the next meeting of the European Council!
I should like to pay one further tribute to absent friends, among whom I count the whole of the Social
970
Democratic party. We are told that the members of the SDP left the Labour party with one major reason being the fact that they disagreed with our disenchantment with the European Community. They said that it was not good enough for them to be tied in to a party that was so equivocal on Europe. I am glad that the equivocation of the Labour party to which they referred has been so richly repaid by the support that they have given during the passage of the Bill.
Throughout all our hours of deliberation on the Bill we have not seen a single Social Democratic Member, with the sole exception of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), who made an all too fleeting visit to the debate and did not stay long enough to get his own Adjournment debate! I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not sufficiently experienced in the ways of the House to recognise that one gets one's Adjournment debate when the main debate has ended and that sometimes it is a matter of caution to stay until the end of that debate to make sure of one's own debate.
The sole voice of the huge multi-party alliance present during the debates—I pay single tribute to him for his bravery in the face of much opposition—has been the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). At last, we now discover why they gave him, and only him a knighthood.
The real crunch in the debate is the fact that it was not even necessary. The Bill and the Single European Act were not necessary. It is not I who contend that. On 22 July 1985, the Prime Minister returned from Milan and said:
"I saw nothing before us that would require an amendment to the treaty."—[0ffichd Report, 22 July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 189.]
But now we are told by the Leader of the House, no less, that so necessary are the treaty amendments and the Bill that we are going to truncate the debate on a massive and major constitutional Bill on the Floor of the House and telescope it into a tiny fragement of parliamentary time during which it could not possibly be given any scrutiny, let alone the scrutiny that it deserves.
Let us return to the happy days in February 1977 and the allocation of time on the Scotland and Wales Bill which I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) will remember only too well.
Mr. Skinner: As my hon. Friend is dealing with the Leader of the House and the fact that the Leader of the House has brought in the guillotine motion, is my hon. Friend aware that for some strange reason—and we know that the Leader of the House has an anti-Common Market past—his name is not on the Bill that is before us? [Interruption.]
Mr. Robertson: That is an illustration in words which cannot be recorded in the Official Report, that the crafty master of procedure who may have made a few mistakes along this road, has not made all the mistakes that he could have made.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East, whose words I used to open my speech, may now have been tipped out into the rubbish can of Prime Ministerial history, but the hon. Member who wound up the debate on the allocation of time for the Scotland and Wales Bill is still in the Cabinet. The right hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards), the Secretary of State for Wales, is a fairly shadowy character. None the less, he said:

971
"This brings us to the central point of our discussions. The sole practical and moral justification for the timetable motion is that it ensures that all aspects of the Bill are adequately debated and all clauses discussed. That was the principal justification for the timetable motion on the European Communities Bill." —(Official Report, 22 February 1977, Vol. 926, c. 1346.]
That Bill was held up as the great example during that debate. I remind the Leader of the House and I do not need to remind my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) that that debate which caused such outraged comments from the Conservative Benches and which led to these distinguished Members making such dreadful comments, was carried out on the basis of an offer of 20 parliamentary days to debate the matter. Yet 20 parliamentary days were not adequate or sufficient for a measure that was going to strike at the heart of the British constitution. However, we are told this evening that even after the great compromise from the depths of Southend, five hours are sufficient to consider the incredible constitutional significance of the Single European Act and the European Communities (Amendment) Bill today.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: No, I will not give way. For a brief moment, I thought that when the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) was talking about the bad, sad Bill, he had in mind the hon. Member for Tayside, North.
The constitutional importance of the Bill has already been outlined and the need for discussion has already been adequately explored. Right hon. and hon. Members have stated those points with great clarity and they have used a Select Committee report from the House of Lords and one from the House of Commons. Both had Conservative majorities and both were prayed in aid to show the important constitutional implications of the Bill.
I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said from the Front Bench, and the House of Lords Select Committee report sums it up in one sentence:
"The powers of the United Kingdom Parliament will he weakened by the Single European Act."
The United Kingdom Parliament will not even have enough time to consider the implications of that incredible statement. There is more than a whiff of humbug from the Government on this motion, hearing in mind all that they have said in the past on the matter. This is simply a facade and a display of complete parliamentary incompetence. In this debate we can detect little conviction or support for the timetable, let alone for the Bill. If the Government had any sense of shame or any consistency, they would withdraw their motion. If, as we expect, they have disregarded their essential sense of honesty, I can only invite the House to vote overwhelming against the motion tonight.
1.14 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Many right hon. and hon. Members have sought to fight again the accession battles of 1972 — [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish".] I do not underestimate the significance of the treaty change that in turn involves a change to legislation. II there were no changes there would be no need for legislation, but this is
972
only a limited change to the treaties, particularly by comparison with the changes to our law which were required when we entered the Community 13 years ago.
There is, too, the practical advantage of these changes. I remind the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and the House that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, in relation to the meeting of the European Council on 2 and 3 December 1985, that those changes marked
"an important step towards enabling this country to realise more fully the benefits of our membership of the European Community."—[Official Report, 5 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 430.]
In the last 18 or so hours of debate so far on the Committee stage of the Bill we have covered three groups of amendments and have just begun a fourth group. On two of the issues—the court of the first instance and the internal market—the arguments put in Committee have been less about the significance of the changes that are now to be made than about the powers set out in the original Community treaties to which this nation acceded 14 years ago.
The way in which some hon. Members have spoken tonight makes it hard to believe that those hours were spent in Committee, and that the Committee stage had been preceded by a total of 10 hours of discussion in debates in the House on 5 March and during Second Reading on 23 April. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said in the course of his speech on the Single European Act on 16 June that there were few "excessive Europeans" in the House. Most hon. Members would agree with him.
Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend the Minister is one.
Mrs. Chalker: I do not for one moment suggest that the few anti-Europeans are obsessive either, but I dispute whether over the past few weeks we have not heard from some hon. Members frequently, and at considerable length —sometimes rather repetitively.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) was clearly embarrassed by the poor attendance the other night on the Opposition Benches. He decided to make good the default by making all the speeches of his colleagues for them. He spoke for an hour and a half on the subject of the internal market— —
Mrs. Chalker: I apologise if I missed the odd minute and added it up wrongly, but the hon. Gentleman did not stay to vote for his amendment. Indeed, not one Labour vote was cast in favour of the amendment for which Labour Members had spoken for several hours in relation to the internal market. I hardly think that those hon. Members who have, between them, occupied nearly half of the 17 or so hours of debate in Committee can complain if the remaining amendments are taken somewhat more briskly.
Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that two Labour Members, including me, acted as Tellers in order to cause that Division? We did so, not to see how many hon. Members voted, but to prove to everyone something that has been demonstrated again tonight — that the Government had only 84 hon. Members there, which was not enough to force the closure. That is why my hon. Friends did not go into the Lobby, but I and one of my hon. Friends were there as Tellers.
Mrs. Chalker: I fully admit that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was there as a Teller, but I was talking about the voters. There was not a single opposition vote in favour of the amendment that was debated so lengthily that night.
Mr. Spearing: The selection list shows that the Question was put on amendment No. 5, which was something of a derogation. Most of the debate was on amendment No. 15, which has yet to be voted on. It would therefore have been inappropriate for hon. Members to vote effectively against a derogation.
Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman knows the principle that I have in mind. After a very long and detailed debate, only two Labour Members were left.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), rightly in his view, said that the guillotine was wrong, but he also believed that the Government should have moved closure motions. I have heard many hon. Members say that, but it came as no surprise to right hon. and hon. Members that the Government sought to give a second and third day of debate to the Bill last Thursday and Friday so that the groups of amendments on which debate began on 16 June could be discussed.
There are many occasions on which the House uses the usual channels successfully. Sometimes, even more unusual channels are used. The Government proceed on the basis of all the information that is available to them, and that is what the Government sought to do on this Bill. They felt that it was right to try to meet the wishes that had been expressed. I recognise the wish of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East that there should be a sensibly timed debate, but it was clear that progress was not being made. One only has to look at the statistics to see what progress had been made.
Mr. Marlow: I do not know how long my hon. Friend has been speaking, but she has been looking backwards all the time. Perhaps she could dignify the House by looking forward. Under my hon. Friend's amendment, there will be a total of five hours of debate. Assuming that every issue is voted upon, and assuming also that the Front Benches take 15 minutes between them on each debate, how long will that leave for Back Benchers?
Mrs. Chalker: If my hon. Friend intervenes a litte less frequently than he did in some of our previous debates, I shall do my very best to ensure that he is allotted the maximum amount of time.
There were over four hours of debate on the first amendment, which related to the limited issue of the court of first instance. On that occasion the Government majority was 83. There were over two and a half hours of debate on the second amendment, which related to cooperation between the Council of Ministers and the name of the European Parliament. On that occasion the Government majority was 70. We spent over eight hours on the amendment that related to the internal market. The hon. Member for Walthamstow took up over one and a quarter hours of that debate, while the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) took up about 35 minutes, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) over 40 minutes, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) about 30 minutes and the hon. Member for Bolsover about 30 minutes. There were also other speakers. The majority for the Government after
974
that debate was 80. The only votes against the Government were, as the hon. Member for Bolsover said, those of four Conservative Members. It is interesting to note how many hon. Members were in the House to vote for issues about which they have argued so loudly tonight.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney referred to the veto and the Luxembourg compromise. I hope that he will hold neither me nor this Government responsible for what was said to the people of this country by the Government of which he was a member. He said today that the Luxembourg compromise has always been applicable to articles where majority voting applies. Its role is in no way changed by the Single European Act. In any case, it is not the Luxembourg compromise on which we have relied to safeguard our interests. Where we need to retain unanimity we have done so, and where we need national safeguards we have secured them, too.
The right hon. Gentleman also implied that the role of the Council is to be changed by the new co-operation procedure with the European Parliament. The hon. Member for Newham, South agreed with him, yet it was the Committee that was chaired by the hon. Member for Newham, South that reported to the House:
"At the end of the day the European Parliament still has no power to insist and the last word remains with the
Mr. Shore: Why does the hon. Lady set her judgment about the effect of these changes in the Bill on the veto against the considered judgment of the Select Committee of this House and the Select Committee of the other place? Why does she think that she is right and they are wrong?
Mrs. Chalker: I have never said that I am right and that they are wrong. I have quoted words that are contained in a report of a Select Committee that was chaired by the hon. Member for Newham, South, and I have done no more than agree with its findings.
During the Committee proceedings last week several hon. Members referred to the public hanging on to every word because they wanted to know whether they could go peacefully to bed or whether they should man the barricades. All I can say is that the public have had to hang on for a very long time. I believe firmly that the people of this country want Britain to make a success of its membership of the Community. The Community is valued and the role that we are playing in the Community in reinforcing peace, stability and democracy is a vital one. The people of this country value the role that the Community can play as a bridge between East and West. They want the Community to make a difference to prosperity and jobs.
The Bill is not about a diminution of the powers of this Parliament. It is about getting more from our membership of the Community. I repeat the words that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister used in December 1985. She said that the changes were
"an important step towards enabling this country to realise more fully the benefits of our membership of the European Community."—[Official Report, 5 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 430.]
That is exactly what we shall achieve from the improved voting on the internal market and from the initiatives that we are taking. The public are not impressed when we sit here night after night raking through the tepid embers of past battles. They want Parliament to get on with the job. That is exactly what we seek to do.
Perhaps it is the only time that I may say this on this Bill, but on this occasion may I urge the House to support

975
the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, which provides a sensible way forward at this stage of the Bill.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 150.

Division No. 239]

[1.25 am

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Amess, David

Emery, Sir Peter

Ancram, Michael

Evennett, David

Arnold, Tom

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Aspinwall, Jack

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Fallon, Michael

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Farr, Sir John

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Favell, Anthony

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

Fletcher, Alexander

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Baldry, Tony

Forman, Nigel

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Batiste, Spencer

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Fox, Sir Marcus

Bellingham, Henry

Franks, Cecil

Bendall, Vivian

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Benyon, William

Freeman, Roger

Best, Keith

Fry, Peter

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gale, Roger

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Galley, Roy

Blackburn, John

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Bottomley, Peter

Glyn, Dr Alan

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Goodhart, Sir Philip

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

Goodlad, Alastair

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gorst, John

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Gow, Ian

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Gower, Sir Raymond

Bright, Graham

Greenway, Harry

Brinton, Tim

Gregory, Conal

Brooke, Hon Peter

Griffiths, Sir Eldon

Browne, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Grist, Ian

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Grylls, Michael

Budgen, Nick

Gummer, Rt Hon John S

Bulmer, Esmond

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Burt, Alistair

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Butcher, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

Hanley, Jeremy

Butterfill, John

Hannam, John

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hargreaves, Kenneth

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

Harris, David

Cash, William

Harvey, Robert

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hayes, J.

Chapman, Sydney

Hayward, Robert

Chope, Christopher

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Churchill, W. S.

Heddle, John

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

Henderson, Barry

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hickmet, Richard

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hicks, Robert

Cockeram, Eric

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Colvin, Michael

Hind, Kenneth

Coombs, Simon

Hirst, Michael

Cope, John

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Couchman, James

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Cranborne, Viscount

Holt, Richard

Critchley, Julian

Hordern, Sir Peter

Crouch, David

Howard, Michael

Currie, Mrs Edwina

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

Dickens, Geoffrey

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Dorrell, Stephen

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Dunn, Robert

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Durant, Tony

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Dykes, Hugh

Jackson, Robert

976

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Rhodes James, Robert

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Jones, Robert (Herts W)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Key, Robert

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Knowles, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion

Knox, David

Rost, Peter

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Rowe, Andrew

Lang, Ian

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Latham, Michael

Ryder, Richard

Lawler, Geoffrey

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Lawrence, Ivan

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Lee, John (Pendle)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Lester, Jim

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lilley, Peter

Shersby, Michael

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Silvester, Fred

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Sims, Roger

Lord, Michael

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lyell, Nicholas

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

McCrindle, Robert

Speed, Keith

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Spencer, Derek

Macfarlane, Neil

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Squire, Robin

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Stanbrook, Ivor

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Stanley, Rt Hon John

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

Steen, Anthony

Malins, Humfrey

Stern, Michael

Maples, John

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Marland, Paul

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Mates, Michael

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Mather, Carol

Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

Maude, Hon Francis

Sumberg, David

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Mellor, David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Merchant, Piers

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Miscampbell, Norman

Thornton, Malcolm

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Thurnham, Peter

Monro, Sir Hector

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Moore, Rt Hon John

Tracey, Richard

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Trippier, David

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Moynihan, Hon C.

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Neale, Gerrard

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Nelson, Anthony

Viggers, Peter

Neubert, Michael

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Newton, Tony

Waldegrave, Hon William

Nicholls, Patrick

Walden, George

Norris, Steven

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Onslow, Cranley

Wall, Sir Patrick

Oppenheim, Phillip

Waller, Gary

Ottaway, Richard

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Warren, Kenneth

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Watson, John

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Watts, John

Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Wheeler, John

Pawsey, James

Whitfield, John

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Whitney, Raymond

Pollock, Alexander

Wolfson, Mark

Porter, Barry

Wood, Timothy

Portillo, Michael

Yeo, Tim

Powley, John

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Price, Sir David

Younger, Rt Hon George

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Raffan, Keith

Tellers for the Ayes:

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Mr. Teddy Taylor and

Rathbone, Tim

Mr. Jonathan Aitken.

977

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Janner, Hon Greville

Alton, David

Johnston, Sir Russell

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Ashton. Joe

Lambie, David

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Lamond, James

Barnett, Guy

Leighton, Ronald

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Beith, A. J.

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Bell, Stuart

Litherland, Robert

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Bermingham, Gerald

McCartney, Hugh

Bidwell, Sydney

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Blair, Anthony

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

McKelvey, William

Boyes, Roland

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Bray, Dr Jeremy

McTaggart, Robert

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Madden, Max

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

Marek, Dr John

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Marlow, Antony

Caborn, Richard

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Maxton, John

Campbell, Ian

Maynard, Miss Joan

Canavan, Dennis

Meacher, Michael

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Mikardo, Ian

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Clarke, Thomas

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Clay, Robert

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Clelland, David Gordon

Nellist, David

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

O'Brien, William

Cohen, Harry

O'Neill, Martin

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Park, George

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Patchett, Terry

Corbett, Robin

Pendry, Tom

Corbyn, Jeremy

Pike, Peter

Craigen, J. M.

Powell, Rt Hon J. E.

Crowther, Stan

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Dalyell, Tarn

Randall, Stuart

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Raynsford, Nick

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Richardson, Ms Jo

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

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Deakins, Eric

Robertson, George

Dewar, Donald

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Dixon, Donald

Rogers, Allan

Dormand, Jack

Rowlands, Ted

Douglas, Dick

Sheerman, Barry

Dubs, Alfred

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Duffy, A. E. P.

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Eastham, Ken

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

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

Faulds, Andrew

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Skinner, Dennis

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

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

Fisher, Mark

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Flannery, Martin

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

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Soley, Clive

Forrester, John

Spearing, Nigel

Foster, Derek

Strang, Gavin

Foulkes, George

Straw, Jack

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Garrett, W. E.

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

George, Bruce

Tinn, James

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Wallace, James

Gould, Bryan

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Wareing, Robert

Harman, Ms Harriet

White, James

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Winnick, David

Heffer, Eric S.

Woodall, Alec

Hogg,'N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Home Robertson, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Mr. John McWilliam and

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Mr. Derek Fatchett.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put:—
The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 153.

Division No. 240]

[1.40 am

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Franks, Cecil

Amess, David

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Ancram, Michael

Freeman, Roger

Aspinwall, Jack

Gale, Roger

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Galley, Roy

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

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

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Baldry, Tony

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Goodlad, Alastair

Batiste, Spencer

Gorst, John

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Gow, Ian

Bellingham, Henry

Gower, Sir Raymond

Bendall, Vivian

Greenway, Harry

Best, Keith

Gregory, Conal

Bitien, Rt Hon John

Griffiths, Sir Eldon

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Blackburn, John

Grist, Ian

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Grylls, Michael

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gummer, Rt Hon John S

Bottomley, Peter

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Hampson, Dr Keith

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

Hanley, Jeremy

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hannam, John

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Harris, David

Bright, Graham

Harvey, Robert

Brinton, Tim

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Hayes, J.

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hayward, Robert

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Bulmer, Esmond

Heddle, John

Burt. Alistair

Henderson, Barry

Butcher, John

Hickmet, Richard

Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

Hicks, Robert

Butterfill, John

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hind, Kenneth

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

Hirst, Michael

Cash, William

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Holt, Richard

Chapman, Sydney

Howard, Michael

Chope, Christopher

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

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

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

Cockeram, Eric

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Colvin, Michael

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Coombs, Simon

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Cope, John

Jackson, Robert

Couchman, James

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Cranborne, Viscount

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Crouch, David

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Jones, Robert (Herts W)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dorrell, Stephen

Key, Robert

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

King, Roger (B'ham N field)

Dunn, Robert

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Durant, Tony

Knowles, Michael

Dykes, Hugh

Knox, David

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Emery, Sir Peter

Lang, Ian

Evennett, David

Latham, Michael

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Lawler, Geoffrey

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lawrence, Ivan

Fallon, Michael

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Favell, Anthony

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fletcher, Alexander

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Forman, Nigel

Lester, Jim

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lilley, Peter

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

979

Lord, Michael

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Lyell, Nicholas

Ryder, Richard

McCrindle, Robert

Sackville, Hon Thomas

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Sayeed, Jonathan

Macfarlane, Neil

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Shelton, William (Streatham)

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Shersby, Michael

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

Silvester, Fred

Malins, Humfrey

Sims, Roger

Maples, John

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Marland, Paul

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Mates, Michael

Speed, Keith

Mather, Carol

Spencer, Derek

Maude, Hon Francis

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Squire, Robin

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mellor, David

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Merchant, Piers

Steen, Anthony

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stern, Michael

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Miscampbell, Norman

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Monro, Sir Hector

Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Sumberg, David

Moore, Rt Hon John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Moynihan, Hon C.

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Neale, Gerrard

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Nelson, Anthony

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Newton, Tony

Thornton, Malcolm

Nicholls, Patrick

Thurnham, Peter

Norris, Steven

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Onslow, Cranley

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Tracey, Richard

Ottaway, Richard

Trippier, David

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

Viggers, Peter

Pattie. Geoffrey

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Pawsey, James

Waldegrave, Hon William

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Walden, George

Pollock, Alexander

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Porter, Barry

Wall, Sir Patrick

Portillo, Michael

Waller, Gary

Powley, John

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Price, Sir David

Warren, Kenneth

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Watson, John

Raffan, Keith

Watts, John

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Rathbone, Tim

Wheeler, John

Rhodes James, Robert

Whitfield, John

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Whitney, Raymond

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Wolfson, Mark

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Wood, Timothy

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Yeo, Tim

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rost, Peter

Mr. Michael Neubert and

Rowe, Andrew

Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Blair, Anthony

Alton, David

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Boyes, Roland

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Ashton, Joe

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

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

Barnett, Guy

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Caborn, Richard

Beith, A. J.

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Bell, Stuart

Campbell, Ian

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Canavan, Dennis

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

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Bermingham, Gerald

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Bidwell, Sydney

Clarke, Thomas

980

Clay, Robert

McCartney, Hugh

Clelland, David Gordon

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

McKelvey, William

Cohen, Harry

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

McTaggart, Robert

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Madden, Max

Corbett, Robin

Marek, Dr John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Marlow, Antony

Craigen, J. M.

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Crowther, Stan

Maxton, John

Dalyell, Tarn

Maynard, Miss. Joan

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Meacher, Michael

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Mikardo, Ian

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

Mil Ian, Rt Hon Bruce

Deakins, Eric

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Dewar, Donald

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Dormand, Jack

Nellist, David

Douglas, Dick

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Dubs, Alfred

O'Brien, William

du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

O'Neill, Martin

Duffy, A. E. P.

Park, George

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Patchett, Terry

Eastham, Ken

Pendry. Tom

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Pike, Peter

Farr, Sir John

Powell, Rt Hon J. E.

Fatchett, Derek

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Faulds, Andrew

Randall, Stuart

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Raynsford, Nick

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Richardson, Ms Jo

Fisher, Mark

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Flannery, Martin

Robertson, George

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Forrester, John

Rogers, Allan

Foster, Derek

Rowlands, Ted

Foulkes, George

Sheerman, Barry

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Fry, Peter

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Garrett, W. E.

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

George, Bruce

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Gould, Bryan

Skinner, Dennis

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

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

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Harman, Ms Harriet

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

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Soley, Clive

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Spearing, Nigel

Heffer, Eric S.

Strang, Gavin

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Straw, Jack

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Home Robertson, John

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Tinn, James

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Wallace, James

Janner, Hon Greville

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Wareing, Robert

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

White, James

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Lambie, David

Winnick, David

Lamond, James

Woodall, Alec

Leighton, Ronald

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Tellers for the Noes:

Litherland, Robert

Mr. Don Dixon and

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Mr. John McWilliam.

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—
Committee, Report and Third Reading: time allotted for proceedings
1. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings, but the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at such times after the start as are shown in the following Table ("the start" for this purpose being the time when the House next resolves itself into a Committee on the Bill):

TABLE

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

Amendment No. 7

1 hour

Amendment No. 9

2 hours

Amendments Nos. 11 and 14

3 hours

Amendments Nos. 47 and 22, the remainder of Clause No. 1, Clause No. 2, and Clause No. 3 to the end of subsection (3).

4 hours

Amendment No. 46 and remaining proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading

5 hours

Proceedings on going into Committee
2. When the Order of the day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, notwithstanding that notice of an Instruction has been given.
Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
3. On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
Order of consideration
4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken.
Re-committal
5. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, re-committal.
(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise) and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any Amendment moved to the Question.
Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall he moved except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall he put forthwith.
Exclusion of Business Committee
7. Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.
Conclusion of proceedings
8. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings on the Bill to a conclusion in pursuance of this Order the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been react a second time, the Question, That the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any Amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that Amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;

(d)any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

Supplemental orders
9. — (1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on the day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the siting is suspended, before that time no notice shall he required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
10. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order.
Interpretation
11. In this Order 'the Bill' means the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.

PETITION

  British Leyland
  1.49 am
  Mr. Robert Atkins: I beg to ask leave to present a petition on behalf of some 5,000 residents in the Leyland area and workers at the Leyland factories to express their concern about the future of their company. The petition has some 5,000 signatures, and covers a variety of areas in and around my constituency and other areas such as Wigan, Burnley, Preston, Chorley, west Lancashire and St. Helens, to name but a few. The petitioners are concerned about the sale of Leyland Bus and Multipart and the continuing discussions about the future of Leyland Trucks.
  The petition reads:
  "Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will recognise that in order to best secure the future of our company, it is essential to ensure that Leyland Vehicles, Bus, Trucks and Parts remain intact as one Company, preferably British and in public ownership … And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, et cetera."
  To lie upon the Table.

National Health Service (East Anglia)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
1.50 am
Mr. Richard Ryder: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for being here at this late hour to respond to this debate. I know what a close interest he takes in the National Health Service in East Anglia and elsewhere.
However much money is spent on the NHS in East Anglia or anywhere else, it is unlikely to meet all the demands made upon it or to satisfy all the expectations. That is partly because the astonishing success of medical science over the past 30 years has meant, at one end, that scores of previously untreatable diseases have become treatable and, at the other end, that hips and knees can now be replaced as a matter of course. Yet it should never be forgotten that the amount of money available to the NHS largely depends upon our economic growth rate, which, under the present Government, is one of the highest in western Europe. That is a reason why the NHS now employs about 1 million people. In Europe, only the red army employs more. That is a reason why the Government have been able to increase spending on the NHS by 24 per cent. in real terms to about £17 billion, the equivalent of £850 a year for every household in Britain.
As we know, however, increased spending is not the answer to every need. How has all this affected East Anglia? The recently announced second district hospital to cater for many people living in my constituency which is to be built in Norwich, providing a further 800 beds, will be the fifth district general hospital to be completed in East Anglia since the Government came to office in 1979, the others being the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King's Lynn, the James Paget hospital in Great Yarmouth, the Hinchingbrooke hospital in Huntingdon and the second district hospital in Peterborough. These vital new buildings, in addition to improvements to several existing ones underline the Government's firm commitment to the region. The regional health authority has plans to spend over £230 million on its capital programme over the next eight years. Indeed, it is appropriate to illustrate the Government's commitment by pointing out that by 1990 no less than 90 per cent. of the old stock of buildings in the west Norfolk and Wisbech district health area, which covers part of my constituency, will have been replaced with something better by this Government.
The Government's capital programme is sizeable and continuous. Currently, 22 building projects are under contract throughout East Anglia at a total cost of £26 million. If some claim with shaky logic that extra spending equals net cuts, they are clearly permitting prejudice to interfere with the facts, a practice that may suit their political ends but one that does nothing to enhance their credibility.
Not only have the Government increased spending in East Anglia — although, it should be stressed, from a low base—but they have also, with the co-operation of the regional health authority and the districts, made the NHS more efficient, and I pay tribute and offer thanks to all those working in the service.
Patient waiting times and hospital waiting lists are continuing to fall. Last year they fell by 5 per cent. There are, however, specialties such as orthopaedics where the

985
waiting time remains excessive. To be fair, this is a national problem. But in all specialties, more patients are being treated from a more elderly population than ever before. The age of the East Anglian population as well as its fast growth is significant, and I urge the Minister not to overlook that when allocating resources in future.
The vast majority of acute beds are occupied by people over 65, and, across the region as a whole, the 75-plus age group is projected to shoot up by 12 per cent. in the next eight years and by 18 per cent. in the Great Yarmouth and Waveney district area. This will stretch the capacity of existing facilities.
I draw the Minister's attention to another special feature of the Great Yarmouth and Waveney area. The seasonal burdens can be immense when the population is trebled by holidaymakers in the summer months, yet no additional funding is provided for such tourist centres, despite the seasonal burdens placed on the NHS locally.
It is also crucial to emphasise that the problems of rural areas can be just as severe as those encountered in the inner cities. Indeed, the problems of rural areas can often be more expensive to deal with properly. This applies particularly to ambulance service funding, where the results of the policy were not, I am sure, part of the original intention. I know that the Minister is giving close attention to this issue, and rightly so.
The greater efficiency of the NHS in East Anglia can be gauged in several ways, although we must guard against complacency as a result of progress achieved recently. There is still plenty of scope for improvement, as many doctors and nurses will testify.
Modern line management techniques have been injected into the system and business methods have become the norm. The principle of value for money is now taken more fully into account, which means that more resources can be spent where it matters most—on direct patient care. The RAWP exercise has been of benefit to East Anglia. Growth in revenue allocations from 1978–79 to 1986–87 is 20 per cent. against a national average of 11 per cent.
But it is important for the Minister to consider whether a new incentive mechanism can be built into RAWP by which hospitals and departments which perform well can be adequately rewarded. Commercial firms have better ways of rewarding their successful departments. All managements respond to stimuli and incentives; and in this respect the NHS can learn even more from the private sector.
We in East Anglia are lucky to have Sir Arthur South as chairman of the regional health authority and, as his chief executive, Mr. M. W. King, who has years of experience of how the private sector operates and who is working effectively and harmoniously with the districts. A new computer system costing £38 million will start in 18 months and this should further help to make the East Anglian NHS more efficient.
So far, the NHS in East Anglia has received careful attention from the Government, and I thank them for that. But the overriding purpose of this debate has been to bring home to the Government some of the region's special problems and to highlight the need to maintain our efforts to secure an even better health service for East Anglia in the 1990s.
1.59 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I am happy to have this opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder), who has certainly performed another invaluable service both to his constituents and the region of East Anglia, and to our general appreciation of what is happening in the NHS as a whole.
As my hon. Friend said, the story is there to be told and it is a good one. We must set it against the economic imperatives, which we both recognise, and the Government's achievements. Given our record on increasing prosperity, maintaining a firm control on public spending, as is shown in the successful fight against inflation, and on increasing resources for the NHS, we should be proud. As my hon. Friend said, whatever resources we can devote and however successfully we can manage our economy, the demand for increasing health care is well-nigh insatiable, especially for the aging population. I strongly endorse that. Each week I visit two or three hospitals and everywhere I see the elderly occupying acute beds. That is largely to be welcomed in that it is a testimony to our health care. My hon. Friend also referred to the pressures of medical advance and the rightly increasing expectations and aspirations of our people.
Although there is considerable anxiety, we should recognise that a great deal of it is not justified. The final test of the state of the NHS is the quality of the service delivered to patients. Recently, the National Association of Health Authorities conducted a test of opinion and found that of the substantial sample who were asked about their overall opinion of the NHS, 75 per cent. said that it was fairly good, very good or extremely good. That is a reasonable score. When those with experience of treatment in the previous two years were asked for their opinion of that treatment, the poll recorded that 87 per cent. were fairly or very satisfied with their hospital treatment and 88 per cent. with their family doctor. Therefore, the general level of public opinion does not do sufficient justice to the excellence of the service as it is perceived by those who become its patients.
Sadly, much of the blame for that must rest with the media, which all too frequently look for bad news and, in some instances, invent it. One example of that relates to Addenbrooke's hospital in East Anglia. On 14 May, the Daily Mirror under the headline "Yet Another Health Scandal" carried the story that a life support machine had broken down in the middle of an operation on a child. The article alleged that hospital staff had to borrow a spare ventilator from the intensive care unit to carry on the operation. It went on to say that the only suitable machine available in the hospital was eight years old and held together by sticky tape. The newspaper claimed that this was another example of the effect of the Government's cash cuts.
The story was completely untrue. The hospital has no record of a machine breaking down during an operation, or of staff having urgently to borrow one from elsewhere in the middle of an operation. As that was only one of several inaccurate stories about the NHS carried by the newspaper in May, we wrote and asked it to set the record straight, but, sadly, that has not happened. The consultant who was misquoted in the article has written to the

987
newspaper to protest about the story. He felt it would cause unnecessary anxiety to parents of children using the hospital. He pointed out that there were 27 ventilators at the hospital suitable for use on small children, and not one as the article reported.
The article of 14 May accused the Government of ignoring the facts about the Health Service but hon. Members will agree that it was The Mirror that ignored the facts. However, it is not only The Mirror that does that, and not only in this case. There are problems but, happily, the patients themselves understand what is being achieved.
My hon. Friend reminded us of the 24 per cent. increase in real terms that we have recorded. The general success of our economic policies, to which my hon. Friend also referred, is helping because the low inflation that we now enjoy means that we can provide more services in the National Health Service for the amount of money available. In East Anglia, that has meant progress. For example, the revenue allocation to the region increased by 28 per cent. between 1979 and 1986–87.
For the future, if the national growth of 0·5 per cent. is achieved, East Anglia can expect to achieve 1·6 per cent. annual growth in the period to 1993–94. For the next two years, the planning guidelines issued to health authorities show in East Anglia the biggest growth of any region in England — some 2·2 per cent. in 1987–88 and 2·1 per cent. in 1988–89. Those are the tangible benefits of the policy that has been followed.
My hon. Friend spoke about capital. The position there is the same. At national level, something over £900 million will be spent this year to replace and improve hospital stock, and to provide new hospitals and community care facilities. Some 159 new hospitals worth over £2 million each are at present being planned, designed or built in England alone.
We are all aware of the comparison that can be drawn with the dismal Labour record. The Labour Government made cuts in capital expenditure because such cuts were forced on them after they had to go to the International Monetary Fund. That is in eloquent and stark contrast to the record that we can show, and that record is demonstrated in East Anglia.
My hon. Friend spoke about the four new district hospitals planned for Norwich, which will cost over £45 million. This second district general hospital for the city has been approved by the regional health authority and will shortly be submitted to my Department for approval. Of course I cannot prejudge the decision that will be taken, but I can assure my hon. Friend that if the need is clearly demonstrated and the right option is identified, the project will have the full support of the Department.
Our record on staffing is also good and East Anglia matches the national position. For example, over the last six years there has been an increase of 3,140 nurses and midwives, an increase of 26 per cent., and there are now 280 more hospital doctors, a 22 per cent. increase, in the
988
region. All those figures point to an improvement in resources, but the best indicators are the number of people treated and cared for and the quality of treatment. At national level, those figures are good.
The annual number of in-patient cases rose by 15 per cent. to some 800,000 and the annual number of day cases rose by 61 per cent. The annual number of out-patients rose by 3 million, an increase of 9 per cent. Those are considerable increases. Similar increases can be shown in East Anglia, but I will not go into the percentages.
The Government are committed to a policy of community care based upon the needs of individuals. That is aimed at helping them to live as normal a life as they can and to enjoy the ordinary, everyday pursuits, activities and social life that we all take for granted. In that area too, progress has been made. For many people that means the support needed to enable them to live in their own homes, or in the homes of relatives, with dignity and respect, and without placing an intolerable burden on those caring for them. That represents a formidable challenge. It requires close working partnerships between all the agencies—the health authorities, the family practitioner committees, personal social services, housing, education, employment, social security and the voluntary sector.
There is another good story to tell in East Anglia. I warmly endorse the praise that my hon. Friend directed towards the chairman of the regional health authority and his general manager, Mr. King. I have had the privilege of meeting both of them on a number of occasions. I am deeply impressed by them. I believe that East Anglia is well served by them. Everything that I have seen in East Anglia and everything that my hon. Friend has said endorse that view.
As I said in opening, I believe that my hon. Friend has done a great service to East Anglia in this debate. It is important continually to recognise the good things that are achieved. The constant carping and attack, much of which is done for political gain and advantage, is in danger of doing serious harm to the morale of the many people —my hon. Friend mentioned a figure of 1 million—who work in the National Health Service. The vast majority of those people work well. They are making an impressive contribution to the level of health care in this country. It is vital to recognise that service and to understand and appreciate their contribution. It is understood and appreciated by the Government and by Ministers.
It is important that the country recognises that the steady real increase in resources is devoted to health care. East Anglia is getting its appropriate share of those resources. I take note of the special points which my hon. Friend made. I shall examine them in detail when I read his speech. It is important that we recognise what is achieved. There are challenges to be met. I submit that the Government are meeting those challenges.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Two o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  New Prisons
  New Prisons
  Maintenance Defaulters
  Maintenance Defaulters
  Drugs Offences
  Drugs Offences
  Alvada Kooken
  Alvada Kooken
  Radioactive Substances
  Radioactive Substances
  Probation
  Probation
  Trespass
  Trespass
PRIME MINISTER
  EC Budget
  EC Budget
  La Belle Discotheque (Bombing)
  La Belle Discotheque (Bombing)
  Clifton, Rugby
  Clifton, Rugby
  Brymbo Steelworks
  Brymbo Steelworks
  Sir Robert Armstrong
  Sir Robert Armstrong
  Engagements
  Engagements
  EC (Grants)
  EC (Grants)
ENERGY
  Consultancy and Accounting Contracts
  Consultancy and Accounting Contracts
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Mr. Brian Gentlemen (Prosecution)
  Mr. Brian Gentlemen (Prosecution)
ENVIRONMENT
  Mobile Labour (Housing)
  Mobile Labour (Housing)
  Kirklees
  Kirklees
  Public Library, Berwick-upon-Tweed
  Public Library, Berwick-upon-Tweed
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing
  House Building
  House Building
  Rates
  Rates
  Assured Tenancies
  Assured Tenancies
  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mortgage Repossessions
  Radioactivity
  Radioactivity
  Dolphinaria and Marine Parks
  Dolphinaria and Marine Parks
  Housing Corporation
  Housing Corporation
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Radiation
  Radiation
  Sellafield
  Sellafield
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Accidents in the Home
  Accidents in the Home
  British Books (Canadian Tariff)
  British Books (Canadian Tariff)
  Beer Froth
  Beer Froth
  Weights and Measures
  Weights and Measures
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
  General Motors-BL
  General Motors-BL
  Austin Rover
  Austin Rover
  EC (Product Liability)
  EC (Product Liability)
  Furnishings (Inflammability)
  Furnishings (Inflammability)
  Jaguar
  Jaguar
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  Bulgaria (Srednogorye Steel Plant)
  Bulgaria (Srednogorye Steel Plant)
  Soviet Union (Weapons)
  Soviet Union (Weapons)
  United States of America (Weapons)
  United States of America (Weapons)
  African National Congress
  African National Congress
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  USSR (Russian Jews)
  USSR (Russian Jews)
  Chernobyl Radiation (Compensation)
  Chernobyl Radiation (Compensation)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schizophrenia
  Schizophrenia
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  School Examinations
  School Examinations
  Religious Education
  Religious Education
  Universities (Funding)
  Universities (Funding)
  General Certificate of Secondary Education
  General Certificate of Secondary Education
  School Leavers (Arithmetical Achievements)
  School Leavers (Arithmetical Achievements)
  Goods and Services
  Goods and Services
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Free Speech
  Free Speech
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  EC Students
  EC Students
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Force Survey (Qualifications)
  Labour Force Survey (Qualifications)
  Working Week (Reduction)
  Working Week (Reduction)
  Restart Programme
  Restart Programme
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Special Employment Measures
  Special Employment Measures
  Pension Age (Equalisation)
  Pension Age (Equalisation)
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
  Retail Prices Index
  Retail Prices Index
  Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee
  Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee
SCOTLAND
  Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde
  Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde
  Industry (Employment)
  Industry (Employment)
  Coal Mining Industry
  Coal Mining Industry
  In patients (Post-operative Infection)
  In patients (Post-operative Infection)
  Albyn House Association
  Albyn House Association
  Job Vacancies
  Job Vacancies
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
  Expenditure Statistics
  Expenditure Statistics
  Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984
  Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984
  Education (Planning)
  Education (Planning)
  Employment Structure (Stirling)
  Employment Structure (Stirling)
  Edinburgh District Council (Rate Reduction)
  Edinburgh District Council (Rate Reduction)
TRANSPORT
  Humber Bridge (Debt)
  Humber Bridge (Debt)
  Motor Vehicles (Records)
  Motor Vehicles (Records)
  M63 (Road Works)
  M63 (Road Works)
  Motorway Services
  Motorway Services
  Gatwick-Heathrow Helicopter Link
  Gatwick-Heathrow Helicopter Link
  Government Freight Agency
  Government Freight Agency
  Goods and Services
  Goods and Services
  Merchant Navy
  Merchant Navy
  LRT (Rail Journeys)
  LRT (Rail Journeys)
  EC (Vehicle Roadworthiness)
  EC (Vehicle Roadworthiness)
  East London River Crossing
  East London River Crossing
  British Nuclear Fuels plc (Plutonium)
  British Nuclear Fuels plc (Plutonium)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Community Care
  Community Care
  Pensioners (Residential Homes)
  Pensioners (Residential Homes)
  Board and Lodging
  Board and Lodging
  Battery-powered Wheelchairs
  Battery-powered Wheelchairs
  Maternity Units (Rural Areas)
  Maternity Units (Rural Areas)
  Social Security Bill
  Social Security Bill
  Poverty
  Poverty
  London Ambulance Service
  London Ambulance Service
  Non-United Kingdom European Community Citizens
  Non-United Kingdom European Community Citizens
  Disabled People (Appliances and Equipment)
  Disabled People (Appliances and Equipment)
  Benefit Claimants (Availability for Work)
  Benefit Claimants (Availability for Work)
  Cancer Treatment Services
  Cancer Treatment Services
  Nurses (Pay and Conditions)
  Nurses (Pay and Conditions)
  Chiropody Services
  Chiropody Services
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Unborn Children (Tests)
  Unborn Children (Tests)
  Teaching Hospitals
  Teaching Hospitals
  Wrightington Hospital, Lancashire (Children's Ward)
  Wrightington Hospital, Lancashire (Children's Ward)
  Private Homes and Hospitals (Inspections)
  Private Homes and Hospitals (Inspections)
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Mr. Victor Paige (Successor)
  Mr. Victor Paige (Successor)
  Family Credit
  Family Credit
  Students (Benefits)
  Students (Benefits)
  Child Abuse
  Child Abuse
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Claimant Statistics
  Claimant Statistics
  In-patients (Post-operative Infection)
  In-patients (Post-operative Infection)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Departmental Telephone Calls
  Departmental Telephone Calls
  Joint Planning (Report)
  Joint Planning (Report)
  NHS (Land Sales)
  NHS (Land Sales)
  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Pharmaceutical Committee, Avon
  Pharmaceutical Committee, Avon
  Conductive Education
  Conductive Education
  Intermediate Treatment Projects
  Intermediate Treatment Projects
  Community Care
  Community Care
  Invalidity Care Allowance
  Invalidity Care Allowance
  Friendly Societies (Personal Pensions)
  Friendly Societies (Personal Pensions)
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Erith Hospital
  Erith Hospital
  Skoal Bandits
  Skoal Bandits
  Dr. Issac Brave (Nursing Homes)
  Dr. Issac Brave (Nursing Homes)
  Hospital and Community Health Service (Expenditure)
  Hospital and Community Health Service (Expenditure)
  Health (Resources)
  Health (Resources)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Cable and Wireless
  Cable and Wireless
  Pound Sterling
  Pound Sterling
  Expenditure Statistics
  Expenditure Statistics
  Tobacco Duty
  Tobacco Duty
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
CIVIL SERVICE
  Departmental Duties (Emergency Cover)
  Departmental Duties (Emergency Cover)
WALES
  Planning Revocation Orders
  Planning Revocation Orders
  Housing Officers (Training)
  Housing Officers (Training)
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Health Education Council
  Health Education Council
  Health Authorities (Bilingual Staff)
  Health Authorities (Bilingual Staff)
  Road Signs
  Road Signs
  Health Authorities (Language Policies)
  Health Authorities (Language Policies)
  Less-favoured Areas
  Less-favoured Areas
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Radiation
  Radiation
  Sewage Sludge
  Sewage Sludge
  Food Labelling
  Food Labelling
  Sheepmeat (Caesium Levels)
  Sheepmeat (Caesium Levels)
  Retail Food Developments
  Retail Food Developments
  Radioactivity
  Radioactivity
  Veal
  Veal
DEFENCE
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  Radar Facilities (Fylingdales)
  Radar Facilities (Fylingdales)
  Rifle Ranges
  Rifle Ranges
  Army Training Team
  Army Training Team
  Virgin Airways
  Virgin Airways
  Northern Ireland (Security Forces)
  Northern Ireland (Security Forces)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.
Lord Addington Lord Addington—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Economic Prosperity: Criteria
Lord Beswick: 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 by what criteria the Secretary of State for Employment made his assessment as reported on 27th May, that "the country has never had as good a time as it has today."
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I have used the same criteria which one of our leading national newspapers used on 29th May, when it said,
"What the Employment Secretary said is precisely true. There can be no disputing the unprecedented prosperity of the great majority of the 87 per cent. of people who are in work".
That newspaper was the Guardian.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, and am interested to know that he is now hiding behind the Guardian. May I ask him this question? At this stage in our civilisation, when we have so many resources at our disposal if we care to use them, does the noble Lord not think that we ought to be judging progress on the basis of an improvement in the quality of life? On that criterion, would he stand by the statement which he is quoted as making?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. I think it is important to bring home to everyone that the take-home pay of a married man with two children has risen in real terms since 1979 by 17 per cent., and for those on half-average earnings it has risen by 15 per cent. That is indeed a measure of the way in which the quality of life can improve. Personal judgment about the quality of life is for the individual.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, if the noble Lord is bringing home the facts to the man in the street, may I follow up with this point? At a time when many women are afraid to go out in the evening, at a time when an increasing proportion of our GNP is devoted to sophisticated instruments for the protection of the household, at a time when Her Majesty's Government have brought morale in our great public services, like health and education, to the lowest level I have ever known, at a time when there is so much essential work to be done, and so many people unwillingly idle, can the noble Lord really say that this is improving the quality of life?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Question was directed to the quality of life, and in drawing attention to the fact that for the past five years this country has had the greatest growth rate of any country in Europe, which looks like carrying on till next year. I am looking at a time when, year after year, our standard of living is going up. In order to maintain our standard of life, we wanted to have pay increases of 1¼ per cent., but those in manufacturing industry took over 7½ per cent. It is important to put that into perspective. All the other matters to which the noble Lord referred are matters for which there are many different causes, and I think that the Government have only partial responsibility for some of them.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that anyone who travels to other countries on occasions and then comes back here would not recognise this country, if he listened merely to the description of it given by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick? It bears no relation to the true life and the true reactions of our people at this time.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am aware that it is a great temptation—to which, I am afraid, not only some noble Lords but many others succumb—to paint the life of this country in the blackest possible terms. I am proud of life in this country. I want to see it better. I work towards that aim, as do all Her Majesty's Government. I think there are occasions when we should look at the improvements that we have made, and should not merely look at the distance we still have to travel.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, would it not have been more accurate if the noble Lord the Minister had actually complained about the growth in earnings, which are doing so much damage to the real growth prospects of the economy, and the likely effect on unemployment?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am glad to say that I am able to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, because I have on many occasions in the past complained about the growth of earnings. But this Question was asked, I suspect, with the motive of showing that in this country things are so bad and we are proceeding so poorly. It is esssential that we put things in perspective. What we should look at and realise is that, our standard of living is going up faster, possibly, than at any time before. That has a rebirth side, and that is the prospect for jobs.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, can the Minister say whether, when he said that we have never had it so good, he was referring to the South of England and not to the North-East of England? We have more unemployment in the North-East of England now than we had when the famous Jarrow march against unemployment took place in the 1930s. When he says that we have never had it so good, does he think of the derelict areas that are being created in the North-East of England?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. But what I would caution all those sitting opposite about is not to take five words out of a 15-minute interview, and

751
then construct something from that. I will repeat exactly what I have already said in your Lordships' House, which is what I said immediately before those words. I said:
"I feel concerned for people who have been out of work for a long time and, more than anything else, I am motivated by a desire to see people back into employment and to see the economy grow and, above all, to have a caring society."
I am precisely aware of what is happening in the North-East of this country, and I shall be back there shortly. It is a problem which faces a large part of the industrialised world, and, in particular, all of Europe. It is something on which we all have to work together. It does not help to pick odd snippets out of long interviews.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, is the astounding prosperity the Minister mentions the reason the Government have reached such an exceptional peak of popularity at the present time?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lord refers to. There is in my book only one test of popularity. That may well take place within the next two years, and I for one shall wait calmly for the outcome.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the newspaper from which he quoted says today that the British National Health Service is at its most poverty stricken since its inception? However, there is a way in which the noble Lord is absolutely correct. Those who have made money out of the National Health Service through the Griffiths Report, those who have made money from the selling off of great British assets, the nationalisation of which was absolutely approved of in the election of 1945 by British ex-servicemen, have never had it so good. What those who have never had it so good have forfeited is their patriotism.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I must confess that just as the Guardian does not invariably approve of everything I say, I cannot invariably approve of everything the Guardian says.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Lord should tell us now about British patriotism.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, the remark from the Benches opposite encourages me still further to say what I had intended to say. Can the noble Lord please inform me, because I am becoming a little confused: are we in the House of Lords or in another place.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, has the noble Lord excluded the 3¼ million unemployed from his famous comment? Has he forgotten that the unemployed have rather more than one dependant on average, so that 7 million people are living at a subsistence level? How can he talk such nonsense in those circumstances.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am aware of a great deal of nonsense that is spoken from time to time, in particular about the number of people who
752
live at subsistence level or do not, and the number of people who are in employment who have dependants or do not. What I would ask all in your Lordships' House to do is to accept and realise that unemployment is an evil; that unemployment is not a steady state for 3¼million people; that one out of four who become unemployed are back in work within a month; that half the people becoming unemployed are back in work within three months; that two-thirds are back in work within six months. Two out of 10 are still looking for work after a year.
This Government have embarked on a programme unprecedented in the industrial world, in which they are going to reach out to each and every long-term unemployed person, get them back to work, help to get them back to work, help to bring them training and help to tell them that they have not been forgotten by this Government.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am sure I am speaking for the whole House when I say that we welcome the return of my noble friend Lord Beswick to Question Time. The noble Lord the Minister has said that he is proud of the state of our country' at the moment. Is he aware that if he leaves aside the 3 million to 4 million unemployed, in addition to those there are between 6 million and 7 million people who are living on low pay in poverty? Is he proud of that, too?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I at least am proud of my nation, but in saying so I do not mean to say that the nation is as good as it possibly could be. That is why I and my colleagues in government are working towards an improvement. I question very much the basis of the noble Lord's figures. Like all these figures, they are based upon the simple proposition that half the nation is below average and half the nation is above average, and if you keep on moving the average or moving the level you will always vary the number of people.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, those figures are from the Manpower Services Commission.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord attempted to explain the motivation behind this Question. May I put to him that it was simply a reaction against—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I am asking a question. May I put to the noble Lord that the Question was a reaction against a temptation to use selected percentages and statistics instead of what is happening to the people as a whole? The noble Lord said there were many causes of the matters to which I called attention. Is it not a fact that one of the basic causes of our present social degeneration is the Government's upholding individual selfishness as a form of enterprise? Is it not a fact that we are now engaged in a form of economic permissiveness which cannot possibly improve the quality of life?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord perhaps criticises me for selective statistics. Is that any different from a selective quotation, taking five or six

753
words out of an interview lasting 15 minutes—something which has happened before now? It is no good equating selfishness with incentive, the desire to stand on your own feet, the desire to look after yourself. What we must have is a society in which people look after themselves and look after the less fortunate. What we must not have is a society in which Big Brother thinks he can look after all of us.

May Bank Holiday
2.49 p.m.
Lord Allerton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider cancelling the bank holiday at the beginning of May and adding that day to the Whitsun holiday, preferably on the previous Friday.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, a public consultation in 1982 about the desirability of moving the bank holiday on the first Monday in May showed opinion was divided. Accordingly the Government announced in June 1982 that they had decided not to make any changes. We have no plans to reopen this issue.
Lord Allerton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Would he not agree that there are probably many more people who would prefer to have one reasonably long week-end instead of two days rather close together?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the process of consultation through which my department went in 1982 showed that, at the very least, opinions were divided. There were many institutions against a change, many for a change, but in the end no clear opinion emerged. In those circumstances it was thought fit that we should not make a change.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is it possible that the Minister will think again? We keep getting into a situation in which, because Easter moves about so rapidly, we have in a period of six or seven weeks four bank holidays, mostly when it is raining and cold, and then we do not have another through June, July and August, until the very end of August. It seems absolutely crazy to continue with the present distribution of holidays. Everybody would love to have a holiday in June and July, but we have them all in chilly April and May. It is four years since the last consultations. The British public take a long time to change their minds, and would it not be worthwhile looking at the matter again?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will be kind enough to give me a list of the days on which it will be warm and sunny in the next five years, I shall undertake that her suggestion will certainly be considered.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we can give the Minister some probabilities.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, would it not be possible for Her Majesty's Government to declare a bank holiday for the Royal Wedding?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, an announcement has already been made; there is no precedent for such a holiday.
Lord Parry: My Lords, before we leave the subject, will the Minister tell the House what he thinks of the weather, both quantitatively and qualitatively, since the Government have been in office?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have learnt to have a very selective memory. For the past week it has been perfect.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it would help the situation if Easter was fixed and not moved about over a whole month?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is another question.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, in amplification of what has been said by the noble Baroness, does the Minister not appreciate that Easter Monday can occur as late as 25th April? If we keep the May Day holiday where it is, that will bring those two holidays much too close together. Surely that provides a good reason for implementing the Easter Act, which has been on the statute book since 1928 and which confines Easter to the first half of April.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believe that there are other considerations concerning the date of Easter, but I shall certainly look at the legislation. I am not sure when it will be that Easter and the May Day holiday will come so close, but as luck would have it, I am sure that when it does happen, it will be a fine, warm spell.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, have the Government ever considered making a bank holiday of 1st July, which was the day on which we attacked on the Somme in 1916? It was rather tragic, I quite agree, but it is a memorable day in the military history of this country.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, in a nation of the age of ours I suppose that there is cause to commemorate or remember every day in some way or another. We must find days that are suitable and sensible, and for which there is a clear body of opinion in favour. At present there is no clear view for a change. Until there is, I do not see how I can take this matter any further.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the representatives of the Church of England have repeatedly expressed themselves in favour of a fixed Easter? Does he not agree that if there is to be a Whitsun bank holiday, it would be more logical to have it at Whitsuntide than at some other period?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I hope that all in your Lordships' House are beginning to appreciate the complexities of this apparently simple question.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, will the Minister say whether there is any chance of this House rising before the next bank holiday?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord should speak to those who are more learned than I in these matters.

Extradition Arrangements
2.53 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: 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 with how many countries they would like to improve present agreements on extradition, or to conclude such arrangements for the first time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the Government's priority is to improve our extradition arrangements with those countries with which we have regular extradition traffic. We have published proposals for the reform of our extradition law that would bring us closer to the practices followed by our European partners and enable us to accede to the European Convention on Extradition. In the case of those countries with which we have no extradition treaty and potentially little extradition traffic, we propose to adopt new powers to extradite on an ad hoc basis, as necessary. We have no present plans for entering into new bilateral agreements.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Will he confirm that today is the day when the new extradition treaty with Spain enters into force? Will the Government act quickly to bring to an end the haven that exists there for Britons who are wanted for trial for serious crimes? As regards another country, is my noble friend aware that there is much satisfaction in Britain that the United States Congress is now more willing to sanction extradition where persons are accused of terrorism and there is a prima facie case?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The new treaty with Spain comes into force today and replaces the former treaty that the Spanish denounced in 1978. We look forward to working closely with Spain to make a success of the new treaty in the way that my noble friend hopes. As for the United States supplementary treaty, again we are pleased that that treaty has obtained the support of a substantial majority in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The treaty represents an important advance in ensuring that those who have committed crimes of violence cannot evade justice by claiming that their crimes were political.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in view of the grave concern that there has been in the past that difficulties
756
of extradition have interfered with prosecutions for serious fraud and drug offences, may I ask whether the Government are experiencing difficulties in that connection now? If they are, is it so wise to give up the idea of bilateral agreements in certain cases?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Extradition Act 1870 certainly does not meet modern conditions. The huge expansion in recent years in international crime, such as drug trafficking, fraud and terrorism, has presented new challenges that our extradition arrange-ments must meet. Hence the need for the changes. So far as concerns new bilateral agreements, as I said in my original Answer, we do not have plans to enter into any new agreements, but I am sure that should any particular change be needed in the light of the legislation that it is to be hoped will follow, that view will be taken into account.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend give the House any information about when there are likely to be further developments following the White Paper on criminal justice to which he referred?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we published a White Paper and the hope is for legislation at the earliest suitable point. I cannot of course anticipate the Queen's Speech.

Essex Institute Planning School
2.57 p.m.
Lord Alport: 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 it is intended to close the planning school at the Essex Institute of Higher Education.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the matter has not yet been referred to the Secretary of State, but we are aware that a recommendation to close the Planning School at the Essex Institute of Higher Education has been made to the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education by the Transbinary Town and Country Planning Group.
Lord Alport: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Answer. Will she ensure that when he considers this matter, the Secretary of State remembers that this school specialises in rural planning, is the leading school for that particular subject in the country, is extremely important to the rural areas of East Anglia and to the local government authorities that depend on it, and that its loss would mean a great defect in the whole of the planning policies for our part of England?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government are aware of the school's high reputation in the area of rural planning. In fact, there is a special Government-sponsored study of rural deprivation. Therefore, we will not lose sight of that fact in future deliberations. We are well aware of the geographical location of the school and will bear that in mind also in future deliber-ations.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, while it is true, as she said, that the Secretary of State has not yet considered this matter, will the noble Baroness confirm that those proposals, and all the proposals of the NAB, are forced upon it by the Secretary of State through his restraint of public expenditure? Is the noble Baroness aware, for example, that the polytechnics in the North-East of England have been threatened with disproportionate cuts in addition to the cuts already made in the two universities there? Will the Secretary of State look very carefully at those proposals before he agrees to them? Will he receive representations from those of us who are concerned with those institutions?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a number of questions and I shall deal with some of them. The transbinary working group was set up in response to discussion and consideration of the need to have proper manpower forecasts in certain specialised fields. I remind your Lordships that for the three institutions recommended for closure an alternative was offered in that instead of a four-year planning course, in this case for the Essex institute, they were offered the alternative of instituting a three-year general environmental degree course. The noble Lord's allegations are not, therefore, entirely well-founded.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the supplementary question asked by my noble friend has not been answered by her? My noble friend was referring to the polytechnics in the North of England.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in that case, it was very wide of the original Question.
Lord Alport: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that although I am well aware of the problems of the North-East of England, this Question relates to Essex and East Anglia? This is a particularly important problem so far as local government, rural planning and the general environment in East-Anglia are concerned.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords, I am well aware of that and, indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will be taking it into consideration.
Lord Walston: My Lords, is not the noble Baroness aware that East Anglia is the fastest growing region in the whole of the country and therefore the need for planning and knowledge of planning in all its aspects is even more important there; possibly more important than even in the North-East?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that was obviously one of the considerations that the transbinary working group took into account, and it will certainly be in the mind of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Viscount Long: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of
758
the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that will be made in another place on the European Council in The Hague. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Caithness who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the EC Transport Council.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Gas Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment five supplementary benefit up-rating orders will be taken.

Agriculture Bill
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 12,

Schedule 1,

Clause 13,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 14 to 20,

Schedules 3 and 4.—(Lord Belstead.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Insolvency Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): 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 recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Protection of Children (Tobacco) Bill
3.4 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
I should like to say a few words on the Bill. I particu-larly congratulate the honourable Member for East Lothian whose Bill it really is on having taken up this particular cause after winning a place in the ballot. I also feel that we should thank the Government for their very helpful approach to the Bill. The Government have been of assistance throughout the proceedings and we express our thanks to them.
I should like to say a little about why we have this Bill. While adults are reducing their smoking, youngsters seem to be increasing theirs. This is quite

759
serious. Thirty years ago 75 per cent. of men smoked cigarettes and 50 per cent. of women smoked cigarettes. Today 34 per cent. of men and 30 per cent. of women smoke cigarettes. Yet a survey carried out in 1984 by the Office of Population Census and Surveys, covering 9,234 pupils in almost 300 schools in Great Britain, showed that 22 per cent. of all secondary school pupils were smokers; that 13 per cent. were regular smokers who were smoking more than 50 cigarettes a day; and that 9 per cent. were occasional smokers. What is worse, a similar survey showed that there was a steady increase in smoking by youngsters. In fact, in every age group except fourth-year pupils there had been an increase. For the fourth-year pupils there was a decrease in smoking by boys but, even there, an increase was recorded in the number of girls who smoked. Therefore, we are dealing with something which is quite serious.
It is estimated that in the same year of 1984 youngsters spent between £70 million and £90 million on cigarettes; yet in 1984 only 45 prosecutions for selling cigarettes to youngsters took place. I notice that noble Lords are concerned about the time, but I need to make some points on this Bill and this is the occasion for me to do so. I hope that your Lordships will recognise why this is necessary. We hope that the Bill will remedy the situation and that there will be more successful prosecutions.
The Bill also amends the definition of "tobacco" to include smokeless tobacco. This will enable the sale to children of Skoal Bandits to be banned. This is a tobacco product for oral use. They are teabag-like sachets of moist tobacco intended to be placed between the cheek and the gum and sucked. They are flavoured like sweets. What is worse, each sachet contains 2.8 per cent. of nicotine, which is very much greater than the amount of nicotine in one cigarette. Medical evidence shows that extensive use of this product can cause cancer of the mouth which, I can assure your Lordships, is a very unpleasant disease which is extremely difficult to treat.
During my Second Reading speech—and your Lordships will now see why I wished to speak at this stage—I said that Skoal Bandits were banned in New Zealand and that the Japanese Government had refused permission to manufacturers of tobacco sachets to open a factory in Japan. I was wrong. The Japanese Government have no power to prohibit the importation of smokeless tobacco which is at present classified as a vegetable. The Minister of Health and Welfare, however, has indicated that smokeless tobacco is harmful to health.
I was also wrong, technically, in regard to New Zealand. The Minister of Health is in the process of having Skoal Bandits banned on the recommendation of the Toxic Substances Board. However, in order to do that the Toxic Substances Act 1979 needs to be amended. The Minister of Health has indicated that he hopes that the appropriate amendment will be put through this year. I was wrong on both counts and I want to correct the error.
I end by thanking the Government for the part they have played in piloting the Bill through your Lordships' House. I also want to ask them to use their influence with the prosecuting authorities to ensure
760
that the provisions of the Bill are enforced. It is no use passing laws which cannot be enforced. We must ensure that this law is enforced. We owe it to the children to do everything possible to prevent them from starting to smoke. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Pitt of Hampstead)
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with an amendment.

Forestry Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill
3.11 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 7 [Persons discharged from hospital]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): moved Amendments Nos. 1 to 3:
Page 13, line 19, leave out ("is") and insert ("are")
Page 13, line 21, leave out ("its") and insert ("their")
Page 13, line 25, leave out ("is") and insert ("are")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, if it is agreeable to your Lordships, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 and speak to Amendments Nos. 4 to 7 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Davidson. These are all drafting amendments. I should like to move them en bloc I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 13 [Disabled persons leaving special education Scotland]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 4 to 6:
Page 17, line 28, after ("child") insert ("or young person")
Page 17, line 30, after ("child") insert ("or young person")
Page 17, line 34, after ("child") insert ("or young person")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 15 [Co-operation in planning]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 20, line 30, at end insert—
("(2) The foregoing provisions of this section extend to Scotland only ")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In moving this Motion, I should like to say just a few words of thanks to everyone who has helped in improving this Bill as it has passed through your Lordships' House. There are two key principles which have been strengthened.
First, disabled people are likely to be able to exert more control over their own lives as a result of more

761
detailed elaboration of their rights to have a represen-tative (that is in clauses 1 and 2) and strengthen their influence over the assessment of their needs (that is in Clause 3); and the introduction of a new clause, Clause 4, confirms the duty on the social services to make an assessment under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
Secondly, the principle of crisis prevention has been enhanced. The arrangements in Clause 7 which need to be made before discharge from mental handicap or psychiatric hospitals have been substantially improved, with separate duties laid on the health authorities and the local authorities. In respect of this clause in particular I should like to pay tribute to the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the National Association of Health Authorities. Their support for the principle of adequate assessment before discharge was crucial to the amendments that were made in your Lordships' House. Even in the original Bill the sponsors had only envisaged a social services assessment. Last Christmas when the Bill was first printed, no one could possibly have envisaged the Bill that we see today.
My last and most deserved tribute for the success of this Bill must go to the Bill's sponsor in another place, Mr. Tom Clarke. Without his good fortune in the ballot, his decision to use that good fortune to advance the status of disabled people and the tenacity with which he fought for his Bill, this Bill would not have been here today. I hope that it will not be long before the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be brought into force, with all the necessary resources. I hope also that it will be extended to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Masham of Ilton.)
Baroness Trumpington: May I first turn the thanks on to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham? I should like to congratulate her on all the hard work that she has done on this Bill and on the skilful way in which she has piloted it through your Lordships' House. On this as on other occasions she has shown herself to be a doughty champion of the interests of disabled people themselves and those who care about their needs. All of them owe her a debt of gratitude.
Finally, I should just like to thank all the noble Lords on whatever Benches they sit who have taken such a positive interest in this Bill and contributed so helpfully to our debates.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I want to do no more than be associated with the congratulations to both the noble Baroness, Lady Masham and the original sponsor of the Bill in another place, Mr. Tom Clarke. It is very rarely that a Bill such as this, which appears in the end to be of such importance, is actually presented by a Private Member's Bill, and it owes a lot both to the Government and to the voluntary organisations which entered into very serious discussion and negotiation with them. To them also I want to offer congratulations and thanks.
Lord Banks: My Lords, from these Benches I too should like to congratulate the sponsors of the Bill: in another place, Mr. Tom Clarke, and in this House the
762
noble Baroness, Lady Masham. We are also grateful for the part which has been played in the piloting of this Bill through this House by the Government, and in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. We on these Benches welcome this measure and look forward to it coming into force.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Gas Bill
3.18 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The Director General of Gas Supply]:
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, after ("shall") insert ("after seeking and receiving the comments of the Select Committees on Energy and Trade and Industry as to the suitability and qualifications of the appointee").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in my name on the Marshalled List. Before I speak to the amendment, perhaps I may just refer to a report in today's Daily Telegraph on page 2 which is headlined "Inflation Curb on British Gas". In the report there is an item which reads:
"The Government has struck a deal agreeing to introduce changes demanded in the Gas Bill in return for dropping amendments when the Bill enters its Report stage in the Lords today.
I was rather suprised to see that. So far as I am concerned, no deals have been done. I certainly have not done a deal; indeed, if it got abroad that I had, that might be misunderstood. I do not know whether the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Ezra, have made any deals, but I doubt it. I feel sure that they would have said something to me about that. I can only assume that a deal has been done with the government supporters. But bearing in mind that they have only a few amendments down, I doubt even that. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, should be allowed to comment on such a report. It may be misunderstood so far as he is concerned. It is a strange report. If he wishes to intervene, I shall gladly sit down and let him deal with what I have said. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gray, is dealing with the amendment.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, I am happy to respond to the noble Lord and add my surprise to his at the article that appeared. I know of no such deal, although during and since the Committee stage the Government have been particularly receptive to the arguments placed before them. As we go through the Report stage the Government will be making a few useful concessions. Together with my noble friend Lord Belstead, I shall be speaking to those in due course. We hope that such a forthcoming attitude by the Government will lead to the co-operation of the House and the speedy passage of the Bill through its remaining stages.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord for his remarks. As I suspected, it seems that the suggestion is a figment of some reporter's imagination. I had noticed, as other

763
noble Lords will have done, that a few government admendments have been put down. I notice too that there are also some alterations to the new draft authorisation, which I saw only this morning. The noble Lord will understand that we have not yet had an opportunity to assess the importance of the amendments and the concessions which have been made, but we shall do so as the Bill progresses through this stage. It will progress with as much expedition as can be arranged, commensurate with our duty to examine amendments properly and thoroughly.
Let me now turn to Amendment No. 1. The noble Lord will remember that during the Committee stage a number of attempts were made to write into the Bill a parliamentary input to the appointment of the Director General of Ofgas. I am afraid that they were to no avail. The noble Lord was not even prepared to take the matter away and look at it before this stage of the Bill. He may say that the amendment is irrelevant as the appointment of a director general has virtually taken place or at least has been indicated. I shall be coming back to that on Amendment No. 4. But although the appointment of Mr. McKinnon has been made, there is still time to seek and receive the comments of both Select Committees mentioned in the amendment; and so it is still relevant and in time.
At Committee stage the amendments referred to consultation. I accept that that could imply a joint decision of the House of Commons through its Select Committees and the Minister regarding the appointment. That may be something which the noble Lord feared and was not prepared to accept. I do not believe that there was any such implication, but he may have thought so and that may have been the reason for his obduracy. In case that was his view, I have put down this amendment, which does not seek consultation between the Secretary of State and Parliament, but merely to provide that the Secretary of State should seek and receive the comments of the appropriate Select Committees as to the suitability and qualifications of the appointee.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this is a mild amendment, which would only slightly extend the role of the parliamentary Select Committees. I see no reason why the Government should not accept it, although I am afraid I am not very hopeful. But if they will not, I hope that the House will. Parliament needs strengthening in relation to the Bill. We must not forget that the gas industry is at present responsible to Parliament and therefore subject ultimately to complete parliamentary control. After the Bill is passed there will be literally no parliamentary control and the consumer organisations will also have been weakened and centralised. I hope therefore that your Lordships will support this mild amendment. It would do good to our parliamentary system and it would do no harm to the Bill or to the Secretary of State's prerogatives. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I assume that the amendment refers to the Select Committees in both Houses; it is not specific on that point. How the system would operate if in either House there were no Select Committees also raises a considerable doubt. The noble Lord did not tell us which House of Parliament's Select Committees were to be involved, nor did he deal
764
with the rather entertaining situation if, as is perfectly possible, they took a different view from each other. By whom then should the Secretary of State be guided?
My unhappiness about the amendment is on broader grounds. It seems to be an attempt—admittedly a fairly mild one—to introduce the American practice under which, as your Lordships know, holders of all kinds of appointments have to be approved by the appropriate committee of the Senate. That is quite contrary to our practice and I think to some extent conflicts with our normal and proper policy of such appointments being made on the responsibility of the Minister concerned.
The noble Lord said that there was no parliamentary control. Of course there is. If he appoints someone who is manifestly unsuitable, the Secretary of State can be called to account in this House or in another place. Indeed, I go further; he pretty certainly would be. I agree with the noble Lord that it is an important appointment. If the Secretary of State made a manifestly improper or unsuitable choice, he would have to answer for it. That seems to me to be the proper parliamentary attitude, and not that the Secretary of State should have his responsibility blurred; not that he should be able to say, "I did not think much of the chap but the Select Committee on Energy in the upper House thought he was terribly good and so I did not like to disagree".
I think that such appointments should be made on the clear, unquestioned responsibility of the Minister of the Crown concerned and that Minister should be answerable to Parliament for the making of the appointment. I hope that this amendment will not be accepted.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the other amendments to Clause 1 relate to a fundamental concern which we on this side of the House have; namely, that the regulatory body proposed by the Government is inadequate for the important task which it faces under the Bill. We believe that there should be a stronger regulatory body to ensure that this new privatised organisation shall, in all respects, do things which are consistent with the interests of consumers and of the public.
We have a number of amendments following this one which return to that point. The ways in which that regulatory body can be improved and strengthened will remain to be seen. It is important at this stage to make it clear to the Government that there are many who are concerned at how the regulation of a privatised monopoly is being introduced. We feel that in the interests of the body itself, the public and the consumer, much greater attention should be paid to how the regulatory body is set up. Whether it be set up on the basis of parliamentary accord or the proposals introduced in later amendments remains to be seen. I should like to emphasise that we are worried by the relative weakness of the regulatory body now proposed.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ezra and other noble Lords who have spoken on this side of the House are not the only people concerned at

765
the inadequacy of the regulatory body. Everything that I have read (and I have read a good deal since the Committee stage) confirms the same point—the deep anxiety which exists among various bodies, including those which are totally unpolitical and objective and concerned with good administration and nothing else. Their anxiety is that the proposals contained in the Bill for regulating this enormous private monopoly will not be strong enough.
I shall not go over the ground that was covered previously. Your Lordships will be good enough to remember our views on this matter. We feel strongly that we must enable the Government to carry out their undertaking that when they privatise gas they will do two things to protect the consumer. First, they will strengthen consumer councils, and, secondly and more particularly, they will monitor the operation of the Act. It is that monitoring with which we are concerned now.
The amendment relates to the qualifications of the appointee, a single person. It contemplates one modestly-paid individual with the responsibility of holding at bay all the commercial drive of a huge commercial organisation which has a monopoly of sales to 16.5 million consumers. That individual must maintain a reasonable balance. All that we are asking for on these Benches is that there should be a reasonable balance between the interests of the shareholder, introduced for the first time, and the interests of the consumer.
It is impossible, in our view, for one person to achieve that. If it is to be one person, as the amendment contemplates, let the Minister have the good sense not to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but to behave as any Minister would—the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, no doubt did so when he was a Minister but he forgets all that in his desire to support the Government through thick and thin—and take the responsibility of consulting everybody who can help him make that vitally important appointment.
A Minister does not do that off his own bat. He does not toss up a coin and say that he will appoint the first person whose photograph and recommendation he sees. He consults his colleagues, and various distinguished and authoritative Members of Parliament privately. He consults widely. All we are asking is that something be put into the Bill to enable the Minister to avail himself of the help which is available to choose the right man. We know that such help is available.
The people manning the Select Committees have a great deal of knowledge and experience of this matter. They have something more which is not so readily available outside politics. As every Member of this House and of the other place knows, a constituency Member meets thousands of people while representing a constituency. He learns quickly—this is one of the arts of a politician—to assess a man in a way in which no technical selection committee ever works. He has a political feel for how that man will react under political pressures and so on. There is no other body of which I know that can supply that valuable selective technique. It is enormously valuable where one
766
individual must relate to the public, to Parliament (in a limited way), to the industry and to the consumer. He must have a very sensitive feel.
I am sure that the opinion of the Select Committees mentioned in the amendment would be of great help. It would be sheer obstinacy by the Minister not to do something along those lines. I hope that if the Government do not accept the precise words—if they feel that they should be sharpened to indicate which House, both Houses, or whatever—they will enable the Minister to do what any good Minister would want to do: avail himself of the best help he can obtain to make an immensely important appointment.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I wish to speak only briefly in support of the amendment and of the speeches made by my noble friends. There are two points which I think should be made. First, this is a Bill which sets up, as has been said many times, a private monopoly. Many of us who are by no means opposed to privatisation believe that some competition is the best guarantee for the public, and that that is absent in the Bill. Secondly, we have some experience of British Telecom, and as the Government will have noticed from the criticisms made on all sides of the House, our experience of that private monopoly has not so far been entirely reassuring.
It has been said that the appointment of this important official should be placed fairly and squarely upon the shoulders of the Secretary of State. That is a proposition with which in a nationalised industry, for instance, I would generally agree. But I am not at all happy that the Secretary of State will be able to take responsibility for the behaviour of this private monopoly.
I am not clear that Parliament, representing the public, who are vitally affected by the supply of gas, will be able to represent the public point of view. The whole onus, as stated by my noble friends, rests upon one man. It is absolutely vital not only that his appointment should be widely accepted but also that he should be without question the right person for the job. The Government may have other ways of meeting the very obvious anxiety that exists over this whole matter. I would ask them to consider this further step which, to my mind, is justified in the peculiar circumstances of a very powerful private monopoly. It will give some extra power to Parliament and might also ensure that the proper person is appointed to this vital job.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who, as always, carefully outlined his ideas as to how this amendment might operate. I listened also with great care to the contributions made by the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Ezra, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, whom I am delighted to see joining our deliberations at Report stage. It is always a great pleasure to have the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, participating in our debates.
None of them, however, was able to produce anything new or anything more than matters with which we dealt at Committee stage when we had a discussion of some considerable length. Indeed. 1 am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, not

767
only for highlighting the deficiences of the amendment in detail but also for pointing out the limitations of the amendment in principle. Of course, it is in principle that I disagree basically with noble Lords opposite in their desire to involve outside bodies—in this case, Select Committees—in the selection process.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, rehearsed yet again the same arguments involving those outside organisations and the appointment of the director. I have already explained at Committee stage, and I would not wish to weary your Lordships by going over the same ground again, our fundamental objections to such a procedure. There is, I am afraid, nothing new. I can only repeat what I said at Committee stage. The Bill sets out provisions for strong and effective regulation of a privatised gas industry under a director general who will be fully equipped with the necessary powers to ensure that the industry continues to operate properly and efficiently in the best interest of gas consumers.
Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy announced on 24th June that, subject to Parliament approving the Gas Bill, he intends to appoint Mr. James McKinnon as Director General of Gas Supply. Mr. McKinnon was chosen by the Secretary of State after a careful survey of suitable candidates by a well-known firm of executive search consultants. His training as an accountant and his last 10 years spent as group finance director of an organisation with a turnover approaching that of the British Gas Corporation provides an exceptionally good background for the issues that will need attention. Moreover, his personal qualities are admirably suited to the role of regulator.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and others rightly pointed out that the Secretary of State has a wide range of advice available to him. I believe that with that advice he is well able to make a selection that will provide a highly suitable and competent person to carry out the role of this very important officer. I believe that the way that we are proceeding is in accordance with precedent. It is a way that we have followed in the past. Indeed, successive governments have always decided that these appointments should be made by the Secretary of State.
I accept that this is slightly different. This is an industry that is being privatised. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, or perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, expressed satisfaction with this method of selection for a nationalised industry but felt that something different was needed for a privatised one. I believe that the way we are proceeding is the right way. I have listened carefully to the arguments, none of which has been new and none of which has persuaded me that we should act differently. I must therefore ask my noble friends to reject the amendment unless the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is prepared to withdraw it.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he clarify and explain this point? Is it the case that one candidate was selected by this particular body—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: A firm, my Lords.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, a firm, a private firm.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, answerable to no one.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is it the case that one such candidate was selected by that firm and submitted to the Secretary of State, which is what the noble Lord indicated? Or is it the case that a number of candidates were put before the Secretary of State for his guidance?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the Secretary of State had available to him a great deal of advice. He asked a well-known consultancy firm to submit names to him. I cannot answer in detail what the noble Lord asks. I have little doubt that if I keep talking for a minute or two that doubt will be removed. Indeed, it has been removed. I am told that a full procedure was gone through and that a number of possibilities were identified. The best choice was then made by the Secretary of State.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I add one further point and ask whether he does not feel that the appointment of persons to regulate privatised bodies of this sort does not raise entirely different issues from all public appointments hitherto; and whether he does not agree that Parliament has a special role in such appointments?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, with great respect, may I remind the noble Lord that we are now at the Report stage of the Bill? It is a quite separate point that he has raised. In any event, I do not accept it. I am making the point that I think I am right in saying that at Report stage I have indeed violated the ales myself because I should have sought the leave of the House before even giving a reply to either noble Lord who has spoken. Noble Lords are not allowed at Report stage to behave as though we were dealing with the Committee stage of the Bill. I shall not read out the rules of order. I am sure that noble Lords are equally as acquainted with them as I am. I think, however, that at this early stage of our proceedings it is right that I should draw the attention of noble Lords to the fact that we are at Report stage.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gray, said that the amendment was not necessary because there were provisions in the Bill for strong and effective regulation. That, of course, is the point. It is the whole point made by the noble Lords, Lord Ezra, Lord Diamond and Lord Grimond. We do not believe, and no other commentator so far as I can see believes, that there are within the Bill arrangements for strong and effective regulation. That is why we are so concerned about the appointment and the personality of the appointee to the post of director general.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—whom I thank for his very helpful contribution—raised a number of points. First, he asked which Select Committee did I mean? Clearly I meant the Select Committees of the House of Commons because we have no Select Committee for Energy in this House, which I think is regrettable. Nor do we have a Select Committee for Trade and Industry. However, I think that the noble Lord has raised an important point. It

769
would be as well, because of the wide and massive experience of Members of this House, that they too should be consulted. It might very well be that if this amendment were carried—because I intend to put it to the vote—we could move an amendment at Third Reading to include the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology as a Select Committee of the House of Lords whose opinions could be sought. I therefore thank the noble Lord very much for that suggestion, which I shall certainly take into account.
The noble Lord also asked this question. What if there is a disagreement? If there is a disagreement it might tend to show that the candidate was not the right candidate. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, knows—he knows it better than me because he has had more experience in the other place and served longer and in a much more senior capacity than I did—the Select Committees of the House of Commons do not disagree and do not come to decisions just for the hell of it. They examine matters very closely indeed. Therefore any disagreement they had with the Minister would be of a serious nature, and their views would be taken very much into account by a wise Secretary of State. That would be the value of the whole system.
With regard to the Secretary of State being answerable to Parliament, yes, I accept that point. But the system which we are proposing through this amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State did not make a mistake in the appointment because he would have additional advice and assistance from the Select Committees.
Time is now getting on. I want to reply to one further point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin. He said that there were no new arguments since Committee stage. With respect to him I must say that this amendment was not moved at Committee stage. It is a different and much milder amendment. We must understand that it does far less than the amendments which were proposed at Committee stage sought to do. This is a milder, different amendment.
I shall leave it at that but I fear that I must press this amendment to a Division because it involves important principles and the House ought to be given the opportunity to decide. I beg to move.
3.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 117.

DIVISION NO.1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Blyton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Brockway, L.

Aylestone, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Banks, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Barnett, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Beswick, L.

David, B.

Birk, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Blease, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

770

Denington, B.

Northfield, L.

Diamond, L.

Oram, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Parry, L.

[Teller.]

Phillips, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Plant, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ezra, L.

[Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Foot, L.

Raglan, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rea, L.

Glenamara, L.

Reilly, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Grey, E.

Roberthall, L.

Grimond, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hampton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Seear, B.

Heycock, L.

Serota, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jacques, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Simon, V.

John-Mackie, L.

Stallard, L.

Kennet, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Leatherland, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Tordoff, L.

Lockwood, B.

Underhill, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Vernon, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McNair, L.

Walston, L.

Mayhew, L.

Warnock, B.

Melchett, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Mishcon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Molloy, L.

White, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mulley, L.

Willis, L.

Nicol, B.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fortescue, E.

Allerton, L.

Gainford, L.

Annan, L.

Geddes, L.

Bauer, L.

Gisborough, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Glanusk, L.

Bellwin, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Beloff, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hailsham of Saint

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marylebone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Halsbury, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henley, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Hives, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Caccia, L.

Hood, V.

Caithness, E.

Hooper, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ilchester, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kemsley, V.

Carnock, L.

Killeara, L.

Cathcart, E.

Kimball, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Davidson, V.

Kinnaird, L.

De Freyne, L.

Kintore, E.

De La Warr, E.

Knollys, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lane-Fox, B.

Denning, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Layton, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Leathers, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Long, V.

Eccles, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Effingham, E.

Lurgan, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mancroft, L.

Elton, L.

Manton, L.

771

Marsh, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Sandford, L.

Avon, L.

Sandys, L.

Merrivale, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Mersey, V.

Shannon, E.

Middleton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Milverton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Monson, L.

Strathspey, L.

Moran, L.

Sudeley, L.

Morris, L.

Swansea, L.

Mountevans, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Terrington, L.

Munster, E.

Teviot, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Newall, L.

Tranmire, L.

Norrie, L.

Trumpington, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Porritt, L.

Vivian, L.

Portland, D.

Westbury, L.

Reigate, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Renton, L.

Wolfson, L.

Rochdale, V.

Wynford, L.

Rugby, L.

Young, B.

Saint Brides, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

European Council Meeting, The Hague
4.3 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on the European Council in The Hague which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the European Council of 26th–27th June, which I attended together with my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
"The conclusions of the Council have been placed in the Library of the House.
"This Council concentrated on five main issues: the situation in South Africa; the creation of jobs within the Community; the completion of the Common Market; the international aspects of agriculture; and concerted action in the light of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl.
"On South Africa, the European Council expressed its grave concern at the imposition of censorship and the reimposition of the state of emergency by the South African Government and more generally at the deteriorating situation in the country at large. It reaffirmed that the goal of the Twelve is the total abolition of apartheid. It also agreed on a concerted programme of financial and material assistance from the Community and member governments to the victims of apartheid, in particular those affected by the disturbances in Crossroads, and to political prisoners, including those arrested under the recent state of emergency.
"In our own case we shall be making available a further £15 million over five years mainly for education and training of non-white South Africans and additional help for transport projects in neighbouring states. This is in addition to the £22 million which we are already giving.
772
"The Council called for the opening without delay of negotiations between the South African Government and leaders of the black people in South Africa. To make such a dialogue possible, it called on the South African Government unconditionally to release Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners and to lift the ban on the African National Congress and other political Parties.
"The Council also agreed that the Community should in the next three months enter into consultations with other industrialised countries on further measures which might be needed, covering a ban on new investment, and the import of coal, iron, steel and gold coins from South Africa.
"Finally, the Council asked my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, in his capacity as President of the Foreign Ministers of the Twelve from today, to visit southern Africa in a further effort to establish conditions in which the necessary negotiations can commence.
"On job creation, the European Council welcomed the programme put forward by the United Kingdom and some other member states for creating the conditions for employment growth. This calls for the job-creating capacity of small businesses to be maximised by reducing the burden of unnecessary regulations; for improved training; and for measures to help the long-term unemployed back into work.
"We want to see greater attention given to the matters within the Community and priority given to them in the operation of the social fund. This will be of particular value to the United Kingdom. Our proposals were clearly reflected in the Council's conclusions. We shall concentrate on implementing them during the United Kingdom's presidency.
"On the Common Market, the European Council urged more rapid decisions if the timetable of completing removal of the barriers to a genuine single market in the Community by 1992 is to be achieved. This will be another priority for the United Kingdom presidency because of the contribution which completion of the market can make to creating jobs. The Council selected some areas for early progress which are of particular interest to the United Kingdom, such as liberalisation of transport and of capital movements.
"On agriculture, the European Council recognised—as had the Economic Summit Seven in Tokyo—the need to look at agricultural subsidies and protectionism on a world-wide basis. It agreed: that the problem of agricultural trade must be dealt with in the forthcoming round of international trade negotiations; that agricultural production in the European Community should be better adjusted to the market situation, so that the share of public expenditure claimed by agriculture can be reduced; and that there should be bilateral discussions with other major agricultural suppliers to try to eliminate the problems of chronic surpluses and competitive subsidies.

773
"The Council discussed the lessons to be learned from the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. It agreed on the need for better international collaboration on nuclear safety under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Authority. It called for general contamination tolerance levels for the Community to be established quickly on a scientific basis. The Council recognised that nuclear power would continue to have a vital role in meeting energy needs in the Community in future.
"The Council also called for rapid progress: on the easing of restrictions on passenger traffic across Community frontiers; on mutual recognition of professional qualifications; and on the action programme against cancer.
"The Council welcomed the intention of the British presidency to hold a Conference of Interior Ministers in the autumn to discuss ways of improving the Community's defences against terrorism, drug trafficking and illegal immigration.
"Mr. Speaker, this European Council set useful priorities for the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Community over the next six months, particularly in the creation of jobs. It also adopted a positive and constructive approach to the bitterly difficult problem of South Africa. We are well aware of the magnitude of the task facing my right honourable and learned friend in the mission on which he embarks. But all who genuinely want a peaceful solution will wish him well".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating that detailed Statement. The meeting of the Council, as the Statement makes plain, was overshadowed by the crisis in South Africa, but as this subject is to be debated in full in the House next Friday I do not propose to go into any detail upon it today. I shall merely say that while we support the Council's general attitude we are deeply concerned and disappointed by the immediate reaction of Her Majesty's Government to the grave situation there.
I wish to ask one or two questions on fact. First, will the noble Viscount confirm that the Foreign Secretary is to visit Washington, or is a representative from the United States Administration to visit this country to discuss the Foreign Secretary's forthcoming visit to South Africa? Secondly, of course we wish Sir Geoffrey Howe well on his mission. Is he planning to see in South Africa Mr. Nelson Mandela and other leaders of the African National Congress? Will he see Chief Buthelezi? Will he specifically try to arrange a meeting involving the Government of South Africa and the African National Congress in the light of what is said in the statement from the Council?
Finally, do Her Majesty's Government support the Council's proposed sanctions? The Statement that the noble Viscount has just read refers to:
"further measures which might be needed, covering a ban on new investment, and the import of coal, iron, steel and gold coins from South Africa".
Presumably those are measures to be taken in three months if Sir Geoffrey's mission is a failure. Can the noble Viscount make plain that the British Government subscribe to those measures?
774
On other matters in the Statement—and there are several—we hope that the British presidency will be a fruitful and successful one, and we welcome some of the decisions made by the Foreign Ministers at their meeting. Of course we regard employment as crucial. Can the noble Viscount say whether the Anglo-Irish-Italian paper on unemployment growth into the 1990s was discussed at the meeting, and whether specific measures were proposed?
We also welcome the new campaign against drugs abuse. Can the noble Viscount say whether any EC moneys will be provided to assist this campaign in terms of treatment facilities, and so on? We note the reference to the Chernobyl disaster. Can the noble Viscount say whether any specific action through the Atomic Energy Authority is to be taken—action which would involve the Soviet Union as well as Western countries? Finally, on the essential and important point of the common agricultural policy can the noble Viscount say whether France subscribed totally to the proposals in the Satement?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the Leader of the House for repeating this important Statement about a full meeting in The Hague covering issues of the highest importance. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I think that as we are to have a debate on Africa on Friday it would be inappropriate to raise a large number of issues, but there are of course certain matters that we shall have to raise immediately as a result of this Statement.
We are glad that the Government went as far as they apparently did, according to the Statement that we have been given, in the total condemnation of apartheid. Can we take it that this means, as was suggested in the meeting that the Minister, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, had last week, that this includes support for one man, one vote, without which I suspect there is precious little chance that we shall be able to establish any confidence in the leadership of the Africans that we really mean business in getting rid of apartheid?
The Foreign Secretary is going to South Africa, and of course we hope that he will be successful. But we must regret that there is a three-months delay period. This is a time in which events in South Africa are moving extremely fast, and it is a time when the moderate, restrained leaders of the African community are under very heavy pressure indeed. Unless they can be convinced that the Western democracies are really behind them in their struggle for the abolition of apartheid, combined with a minimum degree of violence, there is a serious danger that their leadership will pass to people with whom it would be a great deal more difficult to negotiate.
When the Foreign Secretary goes to South Africa after this three-months delay will he really be in a position to negotiate from strength? In order to get the agreement that he wants, is he prepared if necessary to use sanctions of a sufficient degree of severity to mean business? Otherwise, if the South African Government believe that he is negotiating from a weak position, with little determination to take action if he is unable to get a satisfactory agreement, obviously the chance of success on that mission will be slight. Not only do I greatly wish that the Foreign Secretary will be success-ful, but I am also convinced that if there is anybody in

775
the present Government who would wish to make a success of this mission, it is the present Foreign Secretary.
Turning from the question of South Africa to the other matters mentioned in the Statement, of course we are all in support of job creation schemes backed by the Community, but the proposals put forward have a depressingly familiar ring. They are precisely the proposals that we have heard repeatedly in your Lordships' House—the importance of small businesses, and removal of the burdens on business. There will not be economic recovery in Europe simply through small businesses.
It is regrettable that there was apparently no discussion of what is to be done to strengthen the basic industries, the established industries, particularly by seeing that they are able to make the best possible use of the high technology that is becoming increasingly available. Small businesses, without recovery of the major industries, are not going to get us far. One can give only a qualified welcome to the recommendations that have been put forward in relation to job creation. In our view they do not go anywhere near far enough.
We are of course glad that the Government have backed the idea of reducing subsidisation to agricul-ture in order that more of the available resources should be put into industrial development. But we have heard this rather often. We shall be more impressed when we are able to record that there has been a reduction of the proportion of money going to agriculture. So much has been said about this in the past and so little seems in fact to have been done.
We welcome the attack that may have been made on protectionism. This is probably the greatest danger facing the economies of the world at the present time. The EC has not in the past had the best possible reputation in the fight against protectionism, and it needs to set an example in that field. If it was really intended at The Hague to stand up against protectionist forces in the world as a whole, that would be very welcome indeed.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for their reception of the Statement. I am grateful to them both as well for suggesting that we pursue many of the matters concerning South Africa more fruitfully in the full debate that we are to have on Friday. Perhaps for once I may say that maybe in the discussions through the usual channels, in which both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness took part, we have chosen rather a good time for our particular debate on that account, following the European Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said he was disappointed at the reaction. I do not quite see why he should be; after all, it was made abundantly clear unanimously by all the nations in the Community that they totally abhorred apartheid and wished to see it ended at the earliest possible moment. It was made very clear that every effort should be made to that end. Of course there are differences about how that may best be achieved, and these can be argued, but of the need to achieve it there was no doubt at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me about my right honourable and learned friend's visit. First, will
776
he visit Washington? Secondly, was he planning to see Mr. Nelson Mandela and Chief Buthelezi? At this stage the plans for my right honourable and learned friend's visit on both counts are still being discussed and I cannot give that information this afternoon. Perhaps by Friday I may be able to give the House a little more information. I shall certainly ask my right honourable and learned friend to give as much information as possible to both me and my noble friend Lady Young so that we can acquaint the House on Friday if there is more to be said. The arrangements are being made as urgently as possible.
As to the position of the British Government on sanctions, it was made very clear in the communiqué, to which all the Twelve subscribed, that exactly what happens will depend and must depend on the outcome of the mission. On employment the reference to "our plans" in the Statement refers to the Anglo-Irish paper. With regard to the question on France and agricul-ture, yes, France did subscribe to the agricultural part of the Statement. On Chernobyl I was asked whether the Soviet Union will take part in any action. I can perhaps stray from my brief for a moment to say that when I was in Russia I found Mr. Gorbachev extremely keen to take some part and I am sure that if he is approached by the Community, he will be most anxious to do so. He took a positive attitude towards that. If I have strayed from my brief, I hope that I may be forgiven my Lords.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, wanted to know more about the debate; she wanted to know whether the condemnation of apartheid went as far as the one man, one vote question. At this stage I must stick to the terms of the communique and make it clear that it was totally for the abolition of apartheid. The noble Baroness was extremely generous about my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary. I am extremely grateful to her and so will he be for the remarks she made. He undertakes an extremely difficult and touchy task and many there are who simply prophesy that it will fail, which is a very disappointing attitude. I am all the more grateful to the noble Baroness. She regretted that there was to be a three months' delay. This was decided no doubt on the basis that it was very important fully to explore the possibility of dialogue. After all, that is what is to be done.
On the question of job creation proposals, the noble Baroness was disappointed because they were very much the same plans as before. One can say with some reason that the other countries of the Twelve have in many cases decided to fall in with the efforts that the British Government are making; and that is some credit to what the British Government are seeking to do in an extremely difficult world situation.
When it comes to the question of reductions in agricultural expenditure, the noble Baroness will know, if she visits some parts of the country, that there is already evidence of reduction in agricultural expenditure which has not proved comfortable to those who are suffering from it or who are probably having to endure it. I hope I have answered most of the points made by the noble Lord and by the noble Baroness.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Leader of the House accept that if there is to be the achievement of a full Common Market by 1992, the European Council will have to urge greater priority for this aim? Can he comment on the apparent paradox of a gathering of the Heads of Governments of the Twelve urging the Twelve to meet their own aims? On whom were they urging the desirability of greater priority? Is the European Commission not the Civil Service of the Community? Is it not the government of the Community, when all is said and done? Would it not have been more appropriate for it to instruct its own governments to co-operate at all levels ever afterwards to achieve this priority?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful for the first comment of the noble Lord. On his second point, I think it is a clear declaration of intention. Perhaps when one wants those who work for one in a commission or civil service to do something the first thing one should do is give them a declaration of intent. That is what I think the leaders of the countries concerned have done.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Leader of the House agree that the EC Statement seems to be at some variance with the views of members of the British Commonwealth of Nations? Does he not further agree that in so far as all of us wish sincere best wishes to the right honourable and learned gentleman the Foreign Secretary, is it not possible that when Pretoria learnt that Sir Geoffrey Howe was going it stated that there was not much point in his visit? In view of that is it not fairly absurd for the British Foreign Secretary to visit a country that does not even wish to talk to him? Ought we not to try to secure from South Africa an agreement that it will be prepared to speak to our Foreign Secretary?
Viscount Whitelaw: In reply to the noble Lord, first, we have the communique from the Community. As yet we have had no meeting of the Commonwealth and no communique from the Commonwealth. The only judgment which the noble Lord has, to which he is entitled, is based on various statements made by various members of the Commonwealth, perhaps in relation to Pretoria and other matters. If everything in the world were governed by immediate statements by people all over the world, and perhaps by ourselves, before anything happened, we should not get very far. It is good to try to see what one can achieve and in some cases it is better to seek it that way than to go down the road of instant statements of one sort or another. I know the noble Lord will appreciate that it is important to do everything we can to try to overcome some of the prejudices. No doubt statements will be made which may not be the whole truth when it comes to the moment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the noble Viscount agree that if certain political figures in South Africa refuse to meet his right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary, there is a great deal to be said instead for trying to meet as many ordinary members of the public as possible, particularly members of those ethnic groups who currently have the vote and are therefore in a position to influence events, so as to
778
assess their hopes and fears—I stress the word "fears"—rather than trying to meet politicians whose views are already well documented?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, if I were to respond to the noble Lord in too much detail I might fall into the very trap I was previously lecturing the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, about. It would be unwise for me to make any other comment except to say that 1 very much hope that when the plans are made for my right honourable and learned friend's visit, those whom it would be profitable for him to see will be prepared to see him and to discuss the problems in a very difficult situation. Many problems face all the people in that country.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the measures discussed by the EC about sanctions against South Africa can be represented as a feather duster. As the noble Viscount well knows, new investment in South Africa virtually does not exist. Is he telling the House that the Foreign Secretary is going to South Africa even without the feather duster in his baggage? Is he saying that the British Government are not committed to take any new measures if this mission fails?
Furthermore, the Foreign Secretary has said that he has major weapons in his armoury, and he described them as commonsense and moral justice. Have not commonsense and moral justice been present in relations with South Africa for 70 years? Have they ever worked? Certainly, they were present during the visit of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group. What reason have the Government to suppose that where the Eminent Persons Group found that there was no desire and no intention on behalf of Pretoria to move away from basic racial discrimination, another visit by the British Foreign Secretary can have any more positive results? Is it not just a means of procrastination and delaying the inevitable?
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, first of all, I do not accept the noble Lord's description of the measures proposed as a feather duster. Secondly, I think I should make it clear that my right honourable and learned friend is going with the full authority of the whole Community as the Foreign Secretary of the country which has the presidency at this time. It is very important to say that. It is therefore their view that there is value in this visit; otherwise, they would not have unanimously backed it.
Therefore, I must say simply to the noble Lord that the difference between his attitude, the attitude of the Community and that of the Government is perfectly simple. He believes the mission will fail; he has made up his mind in advance that it will fail. I reject that as an extremely defeatist point of view and a very serious point of view, because if the opportunities for dialogue are not going to succeed I am not at all sure—and I do not believe that the noble Lord either is sure—what is likely to succeed in the very difficult situation that we face.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I was not quoting my words. I was not saying that I believe that the mission would not succeed. I was quoting the words of

779
the Eminent Persons Group. They said virtually that there is nothing more to be done because Pretoria has no intention whatever of changing the basic racial discrimination of the country. Those are their words, not mine. The noble Viscount has not answered the question as to whether the British Government are committed to further measures if this mission does not succeed.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, first, I must make it perfectly clear that we wish to see what will be the outcome of the mission. That was made very clear in the communique and that remains the position of the British Government. As to what the noble Lord believes or does not believe, or as to what the Eminent Persons Group believe, my experience of politics over a long period of time is that when people quote somebody else they usually mean that they agree with that point of view. That is what I assumed the noble Lord did.

EC Transport Ministers' Meeting, Luxembourg
4.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement about the meeting of transport Ministers which took place in Luxembourg on 30th June and which discussed road haulage and aviation.
"In advance of the Council, I submitted to the Select Committees on European Legislation last week an explanatory memorandum about a Community standard for drive axle weights. I was most grateful to them for their speedy response and this Statement responds to the suggestion that, following the Council, I should report progress to the House.
"On road haulage, the Council agreed on a Community standard of 11.5 tonnes for the drive axle of 5- and 6-axled vehicles, to apply from 1992. As the House may recall, a 1984 directive set agreed standards for most of the weights and dimensions for road haulage vehicles operating between Community countries. The drive axle weight for these larger vehicles was left outstanding with a requirement that it should be agreed as a matter of urgency. This is the decision which has now been taken.
"As in the case of the earlier directive, which set some overall vehicle weights which exceeded our maximum of 38 tonnes, we successfully negotiated a derogation of unspecified length for the United Kingdom, to enable us to keep our current drive axle weight maximum of 10.5 tonnes. The directive states categorically that the duration of this derogation will be decided by unanimity, which means that our agreement is needed to what is decided. As my predecessor made clear, we remain committed to the undertaking that there should be
780
no increase in the maximum weight until Parliament agrees and our roads are suitable.
"To accompany the agreement on a drive axle weight standard, we successfully obtained Council agreement on the main lines of the way forward to full international road haulage liberalisation within the Community. First, and most important, the Council agreed on a cumulative increase in the Community quota of 40 per cent. per annum between now and 1992. Community permits are valid throughout the Community giving road haulage vehicles valuable freedom to travel in any Community country. This will therefore provide new opportunities for our hauliers to compete freely on equal terms, and will progressively liberate them from the cumbersome bureaucracy of the present bilateral permit system.
"Secondly, it was agreed that, while bilateral quotas exist, they will be adjusted to meet traffic needs, including the full requirements of transit traffic. Thirdly, the Council confirmed that from the end of 1992 the bilateral permit system will disappear altogether. The detailed arrangements to implement these principles will now be worked out within the Community, and our aim will be to finalise the necessary Community instruments so far as possible by the end of our presidency.
"On aviation, the meeting confirmed that there remains a wide divergence of views. But the Council did agree on two important principles. First, there needs to be a package of measures to promote increased competition, covering market entry, air fares and the capacity that airlines can operate. Secondly, these measures are elements in the process of completing the internal market by 1992. As with road haulage, there will need to be a gradual movement to fully liberal arrangements, but the need to complete that process by the end of 1992 has been established.
"These are useful starting points. There remains a great deal to do, and we must not underestimate the difficulties that lie ahead. My aim, in the British presidency which starts today, will be to build on these basic principles and, if possible, to reach agreement on the content of a first stage in the process towards the 1992 target. But success in this will depend on whether member states collectively are willing to put aside the restrictive practices to which they are accustomed. I put this question to the Council but did not get a clear answer. I shall need to pursue it during the British presidency. If the answer is that, despite the principles agreed yesterday, member states are not willing to make the effort, then they will have to accept that the alternative is increasing court action and other steps to seek direct application of the Treaty of Rome, particularly its competition rules."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement, which covers three very important points. On the question of road haulage, I am pleased to note that the Transport Minister negotiated successfully the continuation of United Kingdom derogation for our

781
lorry maximum of 38 tonnes and for the drive axle weight maximum of 10–5 tonnes. The Statement says:
"We remain committed to the undertaking that there should be no increase in the maximum weight until Parliament agrees and our roads are suitable".
The Opposition stands quite clear against 40-tonne lorries. Will the Minister confirm that that opposition also remains the view of Her Majesty's Government?
Although welcoming the second part of the document regarding road haulage, referring to the proposed cumulative increase in Community permits, there are a few questions that I should like to put. Will haulage vehicles coming into the United Kingdom continue to be confined to a maximum of 38 tonnes, as are our own lorries? What account was taken of any effect that the increase of Community permits may have on the British road haulage industry and job security?
Reference was also made in the document to opportunities for our hauliers to compete freely on equal terms. Was regard paid to the social conditions of haulage crews, bearing in mind that one of the complaints of your Lordships' own EC Committee in one of its reports was that social conditions are never taken into account by the Community in determining directives?
On the failure to agree on aviation fares and competition policies, I note that the Statement refers to implementation of "fully liberal arrangements" by 1992. What do the Government mean by "fully liberal arrangements"? Does the Minister recall the use by your Lordships' Select Committee of the term "controlled liberalisation"? How far do the Government really intend to go, bearing in mind the consequences and bankruptcies which have followed deregulation in the United States of America? How will full liberalisation, if achieved, affect clauses of the Airports Bill, which is still before Parliament, particu-larly with regard to the Secretary of State's powers to make directives on traffic distribution rules, limits on aircraft movements, allocation of aircraft capacity at certain airports and, also, the development of civil aviation throughout the United Kingdom?
Although everyone would like to have lower fares, will the Government in future negotiations keep in mind certain aspects which happen to be Labour Party policy? These are the sensible use of capacity, the maintenance of a network of services, the highest possible safety standards and the development of employment on terms and conditions which will enable investment for future development? Finally, how far does the Minister believe that fares could decrease? What effect would such a decrease have on British airlines and, in particular, on the possible British Airways flotation?
Lord Kennet: My Lords, on axle weights the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has asked questions that we would ask. They can all be summed up in one: what is the maximum permitted weight of lorries from now on? Has it changed? Has the future prospect for that figure changed? Will the Government bear in mind that, in order to achieve a unified market, you do not need to have absolute uniformity of regulation throughout the area of the intended market? We do
782
not at the moment have absolute uniformity of maximum weights for vehicles throughout the United Kingdom, which is, we commonly suppose, a unified market; there are bridges and so on where there is a maximum weight. That being a fact of economic and social life, it is surely just as readily applicable to the larger unified market that we intend to create in the Community, so that we could forever, without infringing commonsense, stick out for lower weight limits for lorries which come to this country.
On air fares, are the Government aware that we at least shall strongly support them if they go even faster than they say in the last sentence of this Statement, about bringing suits before the European instruments of justice about getting on with it? Can the Government confirm that it is at least 20 years since the cheapest available return ticket to Brussels has been mile for mile, about eight times the price of the cheapest available return ticket to New York? This is no way to treat a serious project like establishing a European Community.
Is it not the case that governments which resist change and liberalisation are shown by that mere fact to be quite flippant about the future of the European Community? Can the Government hold out a hope—even a corner of a hope—that we, in the exercise of our presidency, will be a little more ruthless on this point than the Statement says we will be?
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome to the Statement that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, gave. I will pass on his remarks about what good news it was that we still maintain our derogation to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. that the maximum weight of 38 tonnes or 10.5 tonnes drive axle weight will be the limit for this country, unless Parliament decides otherwise and until our roads and bridges are in a satisfactory condition to bear other lorries, should Parliament decide that those are the lorries that would be suitable for this country.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that we will continue our monitoring of lorries coming into the country, either at ports of entry or roadside checks in the normal fashion, as we have been doing up to now. That will continue to make sure that other countries are not bringing in heavier lorries than 38 tonnes or 10.5 tonnes drive axle weight. With regard to the social conditions, these are always borne in mind. The directive that we are talking about related to the drive axle weight of the lorries and was an extension of the directive of 1984. The noble Lord will remember that a 1985 directive dealt more broadly with the points that he mentioned.
With regard to aviation, we will proceed to achieve a more liberal market, which we believe to be beneficial. I can tell the noble Lord that this Government would like to see four key ingredients that cannot be taken separately: first, scope for real competition on fares, covering types of fare as well as fare levels, so as to give the consumer a better deal; secondly, scope for airlines to mount capacity on a basis of commercial judgment; thirdly, airlines should be able to enter the market so as to compete on routes

783
already served, or to start up new routes much more easily; and, fourthly, there should be a proper application of the competition rules.
If I may follow on by answering a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who said that we should make progress faster, we should indeed like full liberalisation as soon as possible. But we believe it is more practicable to achieve this on a basis agreed by all the members of the Community than by a court case, and now that we have the broad parameters of 1992 we hope to make major strides during the term of our presidency. I am pleased to be able to report to the House that, since I answered a question of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, last week, a new service has been set up by British Midland between London and Amsterdam, increasing the potential opportunity for passengers at a low fare.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us on this side also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in welcoming the Government's firmness on the weight of vehicles and axle weight? Can he confirm—because one's own observation does not always appear to confirm this—that effective steps are taken at the ports to prevent vehicles which exceed these weights coming into this county from the Continent? Are there really effective steps taken to ascertain the weight of these vehicles and, if they are found to exceed it, are they sent back?
Secondly, on the air side, did the Ministers discuss the very recent decision of the European Court to the effect that restrictions both on fares and, as I understand it, on entry into European countries were illegal under the Treaty of Rome? In view of the fact that the Court decided this just before the Ministers' meeting, did the Ministers ignore this and are we indeed the only country in Europe which hustles and hurries to implement the decisions of the European Court? Surely, when we have a sensible one with which we agree, we ought to be insisting on its application.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter gave to the derogation that my right honourable friend successfully negotiated on axle weights. I will pass that message on to my right honourable friend. With regard to enforcement, I can confirm that this is undertaken in a very serious manner and will continue to be undertaken in the same vein. Lorries that exceed the weight will not be permitted on our roads and enforcement action will be taken not only at the ports of entry of the country but in roadside checks by police and traffic enforcement officers.
As regards the point made by my noble friend about aviation, the Court decision made it clear that the competition rules of the treaty apply, but left it primarily to governments to decide the details of the application. That was a great help and was certainly not ignored during the discussions yesterday; nor was it ignored that the Heads of Government had agreed at their meeting in The Hague last week that the liberalisation of transport should apply to aviation by 1992.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, with reference to that part of the Statement which referred to civil aviation, can my noble friend tell us whether he is satisfied that the commissioner in Brussels responsible for transport has his heart in the deregulation of air fares, or does he occasionally look over his shoulder at the sort of policies which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, told us reflected the views of the Labour Party in these matters?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that the commissioner is taking the matter extremely seriously and should like to see greater competition. Indeed, the Commission has indicated that it will wish to take action under Article 89 of the Treaty of Rome if there is not action by the member states themselves.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, perhaps I may make a short comment. I regret that a consumer conference elsewhere prevented my being in the Chamber until now. Having seen the papers today, is the Minister aware that I am glad that Mr. Moore said that he did not feel he had received a very clear answer? I hope that means that he will press for one. May I ask the noble Earl whether I was right in hearing him say that we did intend during our presidency to make easier the entry of new airlines into the European competition. I think the Minister will agree that that was the one great detail that was missing from the famous Memorandum Two of the Commission.
Secondly, I was glad to hear the noble Earl say that the competition rules of the Treaty of Rome would apply. I should like to ask him whether the Commission members who had been preparing cases, if these were necessary, against those states which did not keep to the competition rules of the Treaty of Rome will now be enhanced. I hope with him that long before 1992 we shall have made much greater progress on the matter of air fares in Europe.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, notwithstanding the noble Baroness's absence earlier, we welcome her to our discussions, particularly as she is a keen liberaliser. Yes, I did say that we would be pursuing the point of easier entry of airlines into the market place. But this cannot be taken in isolation. We are looking for four points, and we want to move forward on all four together.
With regard to what action the Commission will take under Article 89 of the Treaty of Rome, I think it is too early for me to say, not having spoken to the Commission in the immediate past. But having indicated before that it would take action, I am sure that it will be looking carefully at the present position.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: My Lords, I share the view of other noble Lords on the Minister's successful decision in maintaining the 38-tonne limit. Can he give an assurance that this limit will be carefully checked on vehicles coming through ports from the Republic of Ireland? Surely if they are carefully checked at ports coming into this country, there will be no need to check them on the roads while they are travelling in this country. Can he give us a firm assurance that in no cases will vehicles over 38-tonnes be allowed to land at our ports anywhere in the United Kingdom?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to heavy lorries coming in from the Republic of Ireland, it too has a similar derogation to us which it put in the 1984 directive and indeed had confirmed yesterday. It is similar to that which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State achieved. We will check with our usual thoroughness vehicles coming into the country. I think it would be impractical for the Road Haulage Association and commerce in general to have every single lorry vetted every time it came in, but we will indeed check up in our usual thorough fashion.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, will the noble Earl the Minister remind his noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne that it is not really agreeable to cast aspersions, in however veiled a manner, against one of our commissioners in Brussels? After all, some of us do not like the other one either; and if we were all to carry on like the noble Lord, where would it all end?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords, I regret that I shall not remind my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne of that point because I saw that he was taking careful note of it himself.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House further, but the noble Earl listed the four points which he said will be taken in a package together to achieve liberalisation. The one question to which he did not reply was whether or not the Secretary of State or the Transport Minister kept in mind in the discussions the possible effect on the four points in the Airports Bill to which I referred and which seem to conflict with complete liberalisation.
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords, I regret that I beg to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I do not think it conflicts with the Airports Bill. It is all part of the same process. Of course my right honourable friend bore it in mind during the discussion. But if we can increase the opportunities for civil aviation and air traffic—this was so powerfully argued by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and I believe that the noble Lord supported it as being one of our success industries—we must do so without delay.

Gas Bill
4.55 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, after ("shall") insert ("after consulting Parliament in whatever way he considers appropriate").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if this amendment were coupled with Clause 1 the Bill would read:
"The Secretary of State shall, after consulting Parliament in whatever way he considers appropriate, appoint an officer to be known as the Director General of Gas Supply".
This is clearly not as desirable an alternative as the previous amendment on which your Lordships' House showed a considerable measure of understanding and sympathy. It is not as satisfactory as that. But the duty of an Opposition is, if it cannot get its first proposal accepted, to put forward a fall-back position in the hope that the Government will at all events accept that
786
lesser proposal. This is indeed a lesser proposal, but a very valuable one.
It is valuable for the reason indicated on an earlier occasion: that it is sensible for a Minister to regard Parliament as an ally rather than as an opponent and to consult where that would be helpful. Indeed, I see sitting on the other side of your Lordships' House a former Member of the other House whom I consulted in a sense when I was a Minister. I mentioned a very sensitive matter to him so that he should be aware of it and received a very encouraging and understanding reply from him. It would be inappropriate for me to identify the noble Lord in any way. I am saying it only to show that, immediately, wherever one moves, one is reminded of the fact that in the normal carrying out of his duties a Minister tries to consult his colleagues, Members of Parliament and Parliament generally wherever he reasonably can and regards Parliament as a possible ally in the event of future difficulties.
This is a positive and creative suggestion. There is really no alternative left. I hope the Minister is not going to say, "Ah, but Parliament is in a sense consulted because the Minister is responsible to Parliament for making the appointment". That has been put forward in the debate—I forget who put it forward. Perhaps I may deal with it for one second.
Just imagine that I am dissatisfied—I am not saying I am—with the proposed appointment that has already been made. We understand that an individual has been appointed as director subject to this Bill going through Parliament. The terms of his contract will have been worked out and written down. Of course nobody is going to appoint either the appointor or the appointee without going through all the terms. That is all that will have been done. Suppose I am dissatisfied and the appointment is ratified, what can I do about it under the system that is being suggested—that of Ministers who are responsible to Parliament? I can put down a Question. A Member in another place can put down a Question. One gets an answer. If there is disagreement, there is disagreement, and we pass on to the next Question and that is virtually the end of the matter unless it is one of such vital importance that there is a huge debate on it, which I cannot imagine. The Government will not be influenced in the slightest degree if they do not wish to be so influenced. They hear after the event. Whatever an MP or a Member of this House thinks about it, it is of no real value.
In terms of determining who should be appointed, it is of no value. It is of no value because Parliament in that sense has no opportunity of questioning the Minister until after the appointment has been made. We are talking here about consulting before the appointment is made. We are talking about the Government altering their pattern of behaviour and showing that, from time to time, they are prepared to consult Parliament in advance.
I am bound to describe the situation in those terms because one of the major difficulties about this Parliament, with the enormous majorities that the Conservatives have in both Houses, is that the Government have shown themselves to be completely unwilling to consult and have got themselves into trouble as a result, starting with Chelmsford and going on. I hope therefore that the Government will not rely

787
upon that pattern of behaviour and will have regard to the fact that it is wise and helpful to consult Parliament from time to time, and that there is no alternative method by which Parliament can express an opinion before the appointment is made.
We tried to make an alternative suggestion and it was voted down. I do not complain. There was a fair vote and many Members of your Lordships' House took an interest and expressed their views. That amendment having been voted down, and that proposal having been voted against, we are left with this minimum proposal, that Parliament should be consulted in whatever way the Minister thinks appropriate. I could not have used lighter, less burdensome language than that, could I?
I have not suggested any particular method. Such methods as were suggested evoked a certain amount of criticism: "This would cause delay. That would create difficulties". I have not suggested anything at all. The Minister can consult to a minimum extent, totally informally, or he can consult to a maximum extent, completely formally. He can do whichever he chooses, and there is a whole range in between. He may consult
"in whatever way he considers appropriate".
There is no burden being laid on the Minister.
There is an opportunity of doing something constructive before the appointment is made, to try to secure the good will of Parliament instead of ill will through lack of consultation and to improve, one hopes, the actual act of appointment. I hope that the Government will look upon this amendment very favourably. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, seems to have put down this amendment, as he has put down a great many others, not for any clearly defined purpose. He certainly multiplies the proposals that he puts forward, no doubt as part of his determination to oppose the Government. This particular amendment is a very curious one because of its vagueness and imprecision. There is nothing whatever in the existing law or in the Bill to prevent the Secretary of State, when making an appointment of this kind, from consulting anyone he chooses. He may consult people who happen to be Members of either House, and it would be perfectly proper for him to do so. However, the amendment would lay on him a statutory duty, failure to comply with which would presumably either expose the Minister to penalties or give rise to the possibility that the courts might rule that the appointment was irregularly and improperly made.
What on earth is meant by the phrase "consulting Parliament"? It must mean a great deal more than consulting individuals. Let us take a purely fantastic example. Let us first have the fantasy that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is a Minister and that he desires to appoint to this vacancy Mr. Arthur Scargill, shall we say? If he discussed that matter with one or two selected Members of your Lordships' House, or still more likely Members of another place, he might receive an enthusiastic response. If he consulted some other noble Lords or other Members of another place, he might receive a different response. Therefore it is clear that individual discussion with individual
788
Members, which seems to be the drift of the noble Lord's argument, would not comply with the terms of the amendment if it were put into the Bill.
One can consult Parliament only either through a Motion or by means of some procedure that involves fully both Houses and which involves taking the view of both Houses. The noble Lord did not suggest—and I am sure he is too sensible to suggest—that before making an appointment of this kind there should be a Motion moved by the Minister that Mr. X be appointed director general. On the other hand, unless some parliamentary procedure is evolved by which Parliament can express a view about a particular appointment, it does not seem from my reading of the amendment, and it may not seem so to other noble Lords, that the Secretary of State will have consulted Parliament.
There are in the amendment the words,
"in whatever ways he considers appropriate",
but the essence of the proposal is that the Minister must consult Parliament. I know of no way of consulting Parliament other than by an Adjournment Motion or by various other procedural gambits. What is plainly involved when one wants to consult Parliament is some discussion in both Houses. That would seem a most unfortunate way of seeking to make an appointment of this nature.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I wholly support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. These days we are apt to think that everything we do must be the subject of consultation with Parliament. If the Secretary of State wishes to appoint a director general, then for goodness sake let him consult somebody who knows about the matter. In 99 cases out of 100, probably, Parliament as a whole will know nothing whatsoever about it. It is not necessary to consult Parliament over even a new appointment such as this.
For instance, does the Prime Minister consult Parliament before appointing a member of the Cabinet? I am not saying that she always makes the right choice, but she does not have to consult Parliament before doing so. Why should such consultation be required in a case such as this?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I support this amendment. I suggested an amendment of my own, which has been rejected by the House. This amendment is even weaker. It has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and provides another opportunity to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, to respond in any way that he likes. To give the House his own ideas as to how Parliament should be consulted.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that many of us believe that at the present time Parliament is not consulted enough. It is a case not of Parliament being consulted too much but of it not being consulted enough. Were Parliament consulted rather more by the Government of the day, it may be that the Government would not slip up on so many banana skins. I would say also to the noble Lord that I believe it is true that when the Prime Minister appoints her Cabinet it will be subject to the approval of the House of Commons, one way or another. In fact, the Prime Minister has to get the approval of the House in the

789
appointment of the Cabinet. If she does not get the approval, the Cabinet will not be formed in the way that she wishes.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, seemed to believe that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, had tabled his amendment for no particularly defined purpose. I feel confident that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, tabled his amendment because he believes, as I believe, that Parliament is increasingly being ignored by the present Government who are fast becoming the elected dictatorship that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor warned us against. Indeed, there is much evidence of this. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, adduced such evidence when he spoke. Only yesterday in the House of Commons the attitude of this Government towards Parliament was very plainly shown in relation to the European Communities (Amendment) Act. It is a constitutional Bill which the Government sought to guillotine by a Motion allowing for only two hours debate on eight major groups of amendments. That would have left insufficient time to have voted on each amendment, let alone discuss them. Further, the guillotine Motion would have allowed only one hour for Report stage and Third Reading.
That is why we are worried. That is why we want more consultation with Parliament. That is why we believe, particularly in relation to matters affecting consumers and where, in fact, Parliament's role of protecting consumers is being lost, that there ought to be some way in which there is a parliamentary input into the appointment of the person who is to act as the surrogate for Parliament; namely, the Director General of Ofgas. So, there are very good reasons why we should do this. There are very good reasons because we are worried about parliamentary democracy and the way in which Parliament is being ridden over roughshod and its opinion not sought, or ignored, on so many issues. That is why the amendment has been tabled.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, mentioned Arthur Scargill. It is not very often—in fact, I have never heard him do so before—that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, strays into the realms of fantasy. Clearly he did so in relation to the possibility of Mr. Arthur Scargill being appointed as the director general. I think the noble Lord was trying to move us away from the real point at issue. That point is that we believe we should make progress in ensuring that Parliament is properly consulted about this type of appointment.
We are not referring to the chairman of a nationalised industry. That is completely and utterly different. If that is raised, it is a red herring. We are talking about a director general of a regulatory authority which is supposed to act—indeed, we hope will act—on behalf of consumers. That is why I support this amendment. If the Minister will not accept the amendment—though I hope he does—and it is pressed to a Division, I trust that it will be carried.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, we have yet again had an interesting and short debate on this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will not be surprised
790
to hear that I cannot accept his amendment. Some of the words are different—and I accept that—but his basic intention remains the same as that which he explained in Committee and we remain firmly and utterly opposed to it.
There have been a number of suggestions about parliamentary democracy. I think that parliamentary democracy is working extremely well at the moment, particularly as regards this Bill. We must look at what happened in another place on this Bill. Hours and hours of debate took place in Committee, both before and after the guillotine. When the Bill came to this House we had no less than seven days debating it in Committee. We now have Report stage and eventually we shall have Third Reading. There does not seem to be very much the matter with parliamentary democracy.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I must correct the noble Lord. He said that we had seven days debate on the Committee stage of this Bill, but he will recollect that it was not seven full days. We were interrupted on several occasions and were not able to reach the Bill until late in the afternoon on a number of days. On two occasions because the Government could not maintain a quorum we were unable to reach the stage we had hoped. Therefore, it is not true to say that we have had seven full days on this Bill. We have not had enough time on the Bill. Only this afternoon we lost at least an hour because of other business. I accept that that must happen. Nevertheless the Minister is slightly misleading the House in saying that we have had seven days when really we have had only six..
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I do not think that I am misleading the House in the slightest. If my memory serves me correctly, we were here until half-past nine the following morning on one occasion. That made up for a fair amount of time that we may have lost during the day. I am not complaining about that. That is what Government Ministers are for. We are prepared to stand at the Dispatch Box and listen to the arguments put to us and answer them to the best of our ability until whatever hour the House decides to sit. I am not criticising that for one moment. I am merely pointing out that in the view of most people in this House parliamentary democracy is working pretty well on this Bill.
I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, had to say. He made a useful point. He asked whether Parliament is necessarily the right place or the right group of people to decide on an appointment of this sort. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, rightly pointed out that the Secretary of State has a wide variety of people available who can advise him. I am not at all certain that it is either necessary or desirable that such an appointment should necessarily be the subject of deliberation by Parliament. Parliament's job is—I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, I am much interested in what he said about the breadth of consultation. Some of us were a little puzzled and possibly perturbed about what he said

791
earlier—that the Secretary of State had gone to head hunters. It was not very clear that many alternative names were put before the Secretary of State by either head hunters or anyone else. It may be difficult to consult Parliament, but many people would be unhappy if they thought that head hunters, who may be admirable people for finding executives for a particular purpose, were now looked to by the Government in order to appoint a person of totally different character whose job has a different aspect from that of an executive and which, indeed, involves political decisions.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. He makes a very valid point. I merely suggested that that is one of the sources which are available to the Secretary of State. He does not have to accept a recommendation. He does not have to accept any of the names which are presented to him. He might decide that the names submitted from other sources of advice are more suitable. This is just another of the examples of those sources which are available to advise the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, seeks to require consultation with Parliament before the director can be appointed. In my view he has not put forward convincing arguments on why the appointment of the Director General of Gas Supply should require the approval of Parliament when hundreds of other such appointees—such as the Director General of Fair Trading, and the Director General of Telecommunications—do not require such approval. What is so different about the post of director of gas supply? In my view it is not sufficiently different to merit any different method of selection. In my view the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has certainly not identified any such difference.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, really went over the same ground again—as he rightly said, he had moved an earlier amendment which the House rejected—but he is lending his support to this amendment as a fall-back position. That is a perfectly reasonable course for a member of the Opposition to take; but he did not produce any new arguments, and those arguments that he did produce certainly did not sound convincing to me. I think that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as he so often does, has highlighted many of the weaknesses of what is proposed by this amendment, and I do not think that I need take any further time in outlining the Government's position again. I merely reject the amendment and hope that perhaps the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw it. If he insists on pressing it, I must advise my noble friends to vote against it.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, that is a very unhelpful answer. The noble Lord is quite wrong when he says that this amendment is the same as a previous one with just a few words left out. Obviously he has not taken it seriously at all. He has taken the view that he does not want this Bill to be altered, so whatever amendment comes forward he will reject. That is the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, apparently does not understand the reason for my amendment
792
and he tries to impute unhelpful motives to me in putting this amendment down, so I shall explain once more. Having gone through the matter at some length on a number of occasions during the Committee stage and having spoken on the earlier amendment, I had hoped that it was perhaps unnecessary to explain; but apparently it is necessary to do so. The Government are creating a private monopoly out of a public monopoly and therefore they are denying the protection of Parliament to the people of this country and the consumers of that particular service. That is what the Government are doing. One of the reasons given for it is that privatisation will stop government interference. That has been said time and again by Members of the Government—those who have apparently been doing the interfering.
What do those words really mean? They mean that nationalised industries are responsible for major policy through Ministers to Parliament, and Ministers have to exercise their responsibility because they administer the taxpayers' funds for running these nationalised industries and for adding to the capital. That is what has happened with nationalised industries. There is here a nationalised industry from which the protection to which I have just referred will be totally removed. It will become completely a plc, a public limited company, in the private sector. It will be removed from the public sector.
What therefore are the Government proposing? The Government themselves are proposing that the consumer should be protected as is proposed by this Bill and that there should be the additional protection of monitoring. That is the main answer of the Government to this vacancy—this absence—of parliamentary representation of the subject, who is the consumer. There will be monitoring and there will be a strong individual to do that monitoring who is duly supported by staff and funds. It is a very important apppointment and I think—and I hope that the House thinks—that a minimum provision would be to say, "As we have removed the protection of Parliament completely"—because as I have explained, the only opportunity that is left to a Member of either House is to ask a Question after the event (not before the event) and to receive an Answer, whatever it may be, which is the end of it—"so the only protection is to have some form of consultation with Parliament before the appointment is made".
I have specially provided for the minimum of consultation so that nobody on the Government side can allege that there is any delay or burden involved. The Minister can decide whatever he thinks is appropriate in the circumstances. That is the minimum protection, and if the Government are not prepared to help to that extent, then of course I must press the issue.
The Minister says that it is the same as with Oftel so what are we complaining about? We are complaining because it is the same as Oftel. From all sides of your Lordships' House and outside in the country at large there are continual complaints about Oftel—not against the individual in particular but against the lack of power which the director (and this office is comparable to the one we are now discussing) has to monitor that industry. For that to be quoted as an example of why we should not depart from the

793
practice seems to me to be very extraordinary indeed. Questions are raised in the other place day after day about that very topic, and dissatisfaction is voiced from all sides of your Lordships' House.
It is because, as I indicated at Committee stage, the Oftel appointment shows that the director has inadequate power to protect the consumer that we think more ought to be done in this case. I repeat that I am suggesting something which is the very minimum and I hope that the House will support this view.
5.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2). shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 121.

DIVISION NO.2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Amherst, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Attlee, E. [Teller.]

Lockwood, B.

Aylestone, L.

Longford, E.

Banks, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Barnett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Birk, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blease, L.

McNair, L.

Blyton, L.

Mayhew, L.

Brockway, L.

Molloy, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Monson, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Nicol, B.

Chitnis, L.

Northfield, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Oram, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

[Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Denington, B.

Rea, L.

Diamond, L.

Rhodes, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ennals, L.

Roberthall, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ezra. L.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Serota, B.

Fitt, L.

Shepherd, L.

Foot, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gregson, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Vernon, L.

Heycock, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Walston, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jacques, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wigoder, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kaldor, L.

Willis, L.

Kennet, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ypres, E.

Kirkhill, L.

794

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kintore, E.

Allerton, L.

Knollys, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Auckland, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bauer, L.

Layton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long- V.

Bellwin L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beloff L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bessborough, E.

Manton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mar, C.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Broxbourne, L.

Avon, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caccia, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Middleton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnock, L.

Norrie, L.

Cathcart, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Colerame, L.

Orkney, E.

Craigavon, V.

Portland, D.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Davidson, V.

Reay, L.

De La Warr, E.

Reigate, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Derwent, L.

Richardson, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rochdale, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Rugby. L.

Eccles, V.

Saint Brides, L.

Ellenborough, L.

St Davids, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elton, L.

Sandford, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Fortescue, E.

Shannon, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Geddes, L.

Somers, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glanusk, L.

Strathspey, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swinfen, L.

Greenway, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint

Terrington, L.

Marylebone, L.

Teviot, L.

Halsbury, E.

Tranmire, L.

Hampden, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Tryon, L.

Hood V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Vickers, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Vivian, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Inglewood, L.

Wolfson, L.

Ingrow, L.

Wynford, L.

Kemsley, V.

Young, B.

Kimball, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.36 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 3, I should explain that if it is agreed to, Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be called.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("appoint") to end of line 11, and insert—
("three officers to be known as the Commissioners of Gas Supply (in this Act referred to as "the Commissioners") for the purpose of performing the functions assigned to them by this Part.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, which provides for the appointment of,
"three officers to be known as the Commissioners of Gas Supply…for the purpose of performing the functions assigned to them by this Part"
of the Bill. Those noble Lords who were good enough to be present at our Committee proceedings will know that an amendment embodying the essential point here, but including a number of others as well, was moved by my noble friend Lord Ezra, who shares my strong feelings on the matter, in order to put before your Lordships the possibility of protecting consumers in the way that the Government have undertaken that they should be protected. It would do that so as to meet their purpose but in a way that they have not provided for.
As your Lordships know, this is the regular practice in the United States. I think that I would be right in saying that it is the universal practice where such utilities have monopolies in the various states for a body of commissioners to be appointed to protect the consumer interest. That is vital when one has a private monopoly such as that which the Government are creating by the Bill. We think that that is a good precedent to follow. We know that the Government have tried to pour scorn on it several times by saying that it leads to shortages of supply. The short answer to that is, notwithstanding whatever difficulties and growing pains the Americans may have experienced, their view—indeed, I think that I am right in saying their unanimous view—in all the separate and independent states is that they should continue with the principle of having a body of commissioners to protect the consumer interest wherever a utility is being run as a private monopoly.
That happens in a country whose philosophy can only be described as one of making itself the apotheosis of private enterprise. Nothing that this Government can say in favour of private enterprise is half as strong as the belief that is accepted in the United States. There they believe that what we are doing now should be accompanied by the appointment of commissioners, as the amendment suggests. I repeat that I regard that as an excellent precedent. It has worked; it is not theoretical. The provision is to replace the protection of Parliament which this Bill is removing by turning gas supply from a public monopoly into a private monopoly. I repeat that the provision works. I hope that the Government will regard it with favour and realise that this is a sensible way to protect the consumer, whom they claim they wish to protect.
It is not an additional burden on the public gas supplier. It ensures that what the Act says should be done, will be done. Our point is that it will not be done. The terms of the Bill will not be carried out if we have one officer of the kind proposed in the Bill, because one such person cannot possibly have the weight to withstand all the commercial pressures that will come from this huge organisation. That might happen with a commission of an appropriate size.
When my noble friend moved an amendment of this kind previously, we put forward a number of suggestions to assist the director general. Those suggestions were not liked so they have been left out. The words of the amendment have been left as:
796
"for the purpose of performing the functions assigned to them by this Part".
That makes the matter clear. It does not particularise. It does not make one commissioner responsible for one aspect and one for another, though we know in. practice that that is what would happen.
As at the moment Oftel is divided into branches, so would the commission divide its work into branches. There would be one commissioner at the head of one branch and one at the head of another. There is no need to put that in the Bill. They would do that of their own good sense. We hope that with that improvement which to that extent meets the Government's point, the Government will look kindly upon the proposal. There has been practical experience of it. There is solid precedent in support of it. It should therefore work well to achieve what the Government claim they want to achieve—the protection of the consumer in a private monopoly. I beg to move.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, on my list of groupings there are many amendments in the noble Lord's name. I think there are 12 or more. Was he talking to them all?
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am as usual most grateful to the noble Baroness. I was talking to the following amendments, without straining your Lordships's patience: Amendments Nos. 6, 10, 20, 23, 25, 28, 30, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44 and 45. Why? To save time.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I am opposed to this Amendment. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. My experience is that the moment any concern has three directors it is practically impossible for them to agree on any subject. By all means let the director have as many assistants as he wants, but there should be one supreme director.
The noble Lord is anxious to maintain and preserve the voice of democracy. He seems to forget that the voice of democracy, in other words the voice of the people, includes every conceivable opinion in this country. I cannot think such a mixture would be an efficient guide for any concern.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I do not suppose that any noble Lords opposite will be surprised that I oppose the amendment. We have almost been here before. I recall a great deal of discussion earlier. It was not about the wording of this amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said at the last stage of the Bill that he had rolled such an amendment round in his mind. I have also done that. I see the suggestion coming up again. I could not agree more with what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said.
We now know a little more about the director designate of Ofgas. If one man with such experience as the man in control will have cannot deal with the chairman of the newly-privatised British Gas plc, I do not know who can. If there is one thing about watchdogs (and we are talking about three watchdogs) it is that if they are all equal they usually bite one another's ankles. I am anxious that they should not bite one another's ankles because Sir Denis Rooke could then descend upon them from above and get the better of the argument. This amendment should be rejected by the House.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, we discussed the substance of the amendment at considerable length in Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, admitted. I thought that we had sufficient discussion about it. It seems rather a pity that we should take up the time of the House to discuss it once again on Report. The only argument which emerged then and has perhaps emerged now is the sympathy felt by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for the director general, for a lone man put up against this enormous industry. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, knows as well as anyone that the director general would not be a lone man. He would have a proper staff which included properly qualified assistants. Some would be of considerable seniority, and there would be a proper organisation. I hope that on Report we shall not feel it necessary to go over again and again this idea of three commissioners. As I say, we discussed it at considerable length in Committee.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has much alternative but to go over and over again the arguments, on this matter, because this is a revising Chamber. We are looking at a piece of important legislation. The difficulty that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and his colleagues face is that the Government are unable and unwilling to accept that there is genuine anxiety about the ability of the organisation that they propose, to meet the basic difficulties and problems of consumers in relation to a private monopoly.
For many years, I had the privilege of serving with the chairman of British Gas, Sir Denis Rooke. He is a man for whom I have considerable admiration. I know that he paid special attention to British Gas and its relationship with the consumers. Occasionally he had major battles with the Government, because the Government were seeking to impose upon him certain proposals which he felt were contrary to the interests of the industry and contrary to the interests of, and unfair to, the consumers. Sir Denis Rooke will not always be there. We are considering a piece of legislation that will have to see the passing of time.
The idea of three commissioners is no different from what they have in the United States. That has worked extraordinarily well there. Speaking from memory, I believe that even Australia has a similar system. I have all along shared the axieties of the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Stoddart, about the machinery which the Government have in mind to deal with this large and complex industry.
We need, to think about the position of the director general and his ability to be independent and achieve a fair hearing. We must remember that although British Gas will be privatised there will be no way in which the Secretary of State for Energy will not, in one way or another, be interested in the policy of British Gas, not on a day-to-day basis but in how reserves and investments are made. So there will be a developing relationship—a changed relationship—from now. But if the director general is to be appointed by that Secretary of State, he could well find himself under considerable pressure as to the line that he may be taking in fulfilling those duties that fall in Part 1.
798
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, knows as well as I do that departments and particularly civil servants can exert considerable pressure upon those they have appointed. I give an example. I did not want to, but I shall. I had an executive director at the National Bus Company who had given a lifetime of service to the bus industry. He was a main board member, and he no longer had a service contract. He was appointed by the Secretary of State for five years. After that time, his appointment would be up for renewal. We were having some difficulties with the department.
That individual came to me, as chairman, in a state of considerable alarm and despondency. A senior official had said to him, "Look, your reappointment is coming up for consideration". All that the executive director was doing was fulfilling the wishes of the board. But, here, pressure was being put upon a person that if he did not become more amenable to the department he should bear in mind that his reappointment was up for consideration. I am not suggesting that this is usual. I have no doubt, however, that it does happen because departments wish to have their way. What the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, seeks, I believe, is not only the independence of the director general but also the independence of the employees of the director general. In my view, it is as necessary to establish that as the independence of the director general.
The Government have not so far been willing to go along the lines proposed in Committee. So the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has come forward with what I consider a very practical and sensible solution. It is the appointment of three commissioners who, together, would be able to ensure their own independence more easily and more satisfactorily than if there was only one appointee; that is, a director general. The staff of the office, who will be involved in difficult and complex issues and who will be working under considerable pressure and constraints, will at least feel that there are three to whom they are answerable, three who have been able to establish together their independence with the department and with the new private monopoly.
This has worked in the United States. There, monopolies are dealt with in a much more radical way than is even now proposed in this country. I see no reason why we should not try it here. It seems that the Government are deeply entrenched, taking the view that if they were to make any changes to the Bill this would appear to be a reflection on what they had included in the Telecommunications Act. Whether they were right in that regard, only time will tell. I see no reason why we should not look for a new way to establish this new regulatory board. I recommend strongly that the suggestion moved with considerable skill by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, should be accepted by the House.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has made some telling points in support of the proposal moved by my noble friend Lord Diamond. I have been a little surprised to hear the views expressed by noble Lords on the othe side about the need to have a single person making all the decisions in organisations of this kind. I would remind

799
them that under the Companies Act every single enterprise in this country has to have a board. Every single nationalised industry has a board. In this way, carefully selected persons between them can impart strength to one another. We are now venturing into a new order of things—the creation of regulatory bodies—that we have never had in this country before, for the purpose of regulating the activities of private monopolies. I do not see why, in doing that, we should depart entirely from previous practice in all other fields.
The United States has adopted the same principle of having a collegiate system. We run all enterprises in this country on a collegiate basis. Of course, that does not mean that they are all equal. In other words, one has to be appointed chairman. But it would enormously strengthen the body if we applied the same collegiate principle to the regulatory bodies that we are now having to introduce as a result of government legislation that we have applied to running the normal commercial, industrial affairs of the country. This needs to be examined carefully. The issue is very simple. We on this side of the House, and a large number of people in the country, I believe, are concerned about the way in which this new arrangement will work. One reassurance that the Government could give would be to strengthen the regulatory body.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I find it difficult to accept that the number of people at the head of the Office of Gas Supply—I am sorry I have pre-empted the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that is quite all right.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall continue then. I cannot accept that the sheer number of people at the head of the Office of Gas Supply is vital to regulation under the Bill. I should have thought that what really matters is the statutory powers and rights provided in the Bill. I have been interested, in listening to this short debate, to observe that none of the noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd or the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—has said anything about the powers and duties of regulation in the Bill. None of those three noble Lords has even glanced at Clause 4, which sets out the general powers and duties on my right honourable friend and on the director from which flow the many other duties and powers in the Bill.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords; I shall not give way for the moment. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he talked about undue interference. All of us know that, over the years, governments have felt it necessary to give their views as to how a nationalised industry should conduct itself. I put it to your Lordships that one of the advantages of privatisation is that departments will no longer be able to exercise the kind of undue influence on the affairs of the gas industry to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred.
800
With respect to noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment, I really believe that what is crucial is to look at what the powers and duties of regulation are, not the way in which the actual office is going to be organised. I should have thought that any director worth his salt—and certainly the director designate, subject to the agreement of Parliament to the Bill, is a very highly qualified man indeed—will not want to be told how he should organise his office. That is what this amendment is about. That is why the Government are opposing it.
6 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to say a brief word. I had hoped to intervene before the noble Lord got to his feet. I wish to say that the Opposition support the amendment. It is, we believe, a modest amendment. I am surprised that the noble Lord has not accepted it. The noble Lord says that the director would be a strong figure and would not want to be messed around by commissioners.
As we see it a single director would be a lonely figure carrying the whole burden of regulating this huge and complicated industry. There is absolutely no reason why a commission—as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, explained when he moved this amendment—could not so organise itself as to be responsible for various areas of work. I reject the view which has been put forward on a number of sides of the House that commissioners never agree on anything.
We have a Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I understand that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission comprises about 50 commissioners. They agree on a lot. They were praised by the Government for their report on the gas industry. They were praised for their report on the coal industry. Quite clearly therefore they can do the job even though they have 50 commissioners. However, they organise themselves in such a way that they can do the job properly. That I think gives lie to the view that has been put forward that three commissioners could not agree on anything. If 50 commissioners can agree, I am quite sure that three commissioners can agree.
I merely want to say in conclusion that if we had a commission, it would show to the country, and indeed to the gas corporation, that the Government meant business on regulation. I believe that is the message which should go from the Government and from this House: that we mean business on regulation. By passing this amendment the House would show that that is exactly what we intended to do because we had set up a commission which had the power, the duty and the will to make a good job of regulation on behalf of the consumer.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is right in one matter. He identifies one of the differences between the two sides of the Committee as the belief on this side that one person acting on his own is no match for a huge organisation like British Gas plc will be with its great variety of board members all acting in unison and providing added strength to one another. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is right in identifying that as one of our differences. But he thinks

801
that one such person will be able to protect the consumer. I do not think that he will. All those who have spoken on this side do not think that he will.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, not only misquoted me but was unwilling to give way when I sought to correct the misquotation. In the other place it is the golden rule that if anybody misquotes a Member then they have to give way immediately if that Member asks them to. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, probably did not intentionally misquote me and he therefore did not think that I was merely seeking to correct a misquotation. The noble Lord suggested that I had not dealt with powers and duties. I made this special point that we were not talking about the powers and duties; we were talking about the inability of one man to carry out those powers and duties. That was the whole point.
We have been told by two members of your Lordships' House—one a well-known Member, an ex-director of a famous company, who spent most of his business life as a member of a board very competently and successfully—that it is impossible for a number of adult individuals with the same purpose in mind to work together in a group of three or in a group of members of the board. I find that such an absurd argument as not to be worth replying to. If the noble Lord will forgive me, his experience of his own life tells him how absurd that is.
Of course when one has three people working together for the same purpose they will have no difficulty in reaching conclusions. Every committee, group and board has that problem. They add to one another's wisdom and strength. Without that strength the powers and duties in this Bill will not be given effect. It is not only I who am saying this. I wish that the Government would realise that this is the general comment of non-City views throughout the country. I say "non-City views" because the City is very anxious to get this very profitable flotation—part of the business of the City—going as soon as it reasonably can. They are very anxious to support it.
But the views elsewhere are quite the reverse. I have already indicated that I have done a lot of reading. I do not want to trouble your Lordships with a number of extracts from various learned magazines all pointing to the same conclusion. I shall read a short part of the transcript of a programme on Channel 4 on 27th May of this year. There were a number of interviews with people concerned with British Telecom, and the way in which the watchdog Oftel was working. I read their conclusion:
"This is an unhealthy precedent, and bodes ill for consumers when British Gas, British Airways, and the Water Industry are privatised. When drawing up any final legislation, we hope the Government will ensure"—
this is summing up the programme—
"that any consumer body created to monitor these newly privatised monopolies will have more teeth than Oftel, the telephone watchdog".
"More teeth than Oftel"—in three words that is saying what I have been trying to say. We want here three commissioners to have the strength which they find necessary in every state of the United States of America where one has a private monopoly running a business of this kind.
802
If the Government are not prepared to meet us on this we must test the opinion of the House yet again.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can I ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, why it is right to have a multi-member board to run the gas industry but wrong to have a multi-member commission to run the regulatory body?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if one is running a plc one needs to bring together on the board different expertises to achieve success. One needs to bring together the technical, engineering, marketing and finance expertise on a board. If one has a regulatory authority, one needs a firm hand in which the industry and people generally will have confidence. One does not need to bring together the different expertise on the board. That is not to say that the director is not going to need to have, and want to have, skilful and well-qualified people in his office. But it is a matter for the director to decide how he deploys it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can he appoint other commissioners if he so wishes? If he finds, faced with a multi-member board of expert people working in a number of different fields, that he himself does not command the degree of expertise that is required to deal with this wide range of expertise with which he is confronted, will he be able then to appoint commissioners—people with power?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, may I refer the noble Baroness to the schedules? The noble Baroness will see that obviously there will be quite a free hand. On the other hand, the Treasury is written into the schedules. But I do not think I would depart from what I have said. If the House will give me leave to say this once again, I think that it will be for the director to decide how his office ought to be organised.
6.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 108.

DIVISION NO.3

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ardwick, L.

Ezra, L.

Attlee, E. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Aylestone, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Banks, L.

Fitt, L.

Barnett, L.

Gallacher, L.

Birk, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Blease, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Blyton, L.

Grey, E.

Brockway, L.

Grimond, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hampton, L.

Chitnis, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

David, B.

Hooson, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jacques, L.

Denington, B.

Jegar, B.

Diamond, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Donoughue, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

803

Kirkhill, L.

Seear, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Serota, B.

Lockwood, B.

Shepherd, L.

Longford, E.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mayhew, L.

Tordoff, L.

Monson, L.

Underhill, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Vernon, L.

Nicol, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Whaddon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

White, B.

[Teller.]

Wigoder, L.

Raglan, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rhodes, L.

Willis, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Roberthall, L.

Ypres, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Ingrow, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kemsley, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Killearn, L.

Allerton, L.

Kimball, L.

Annaly, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Knollys, V.

Auckland, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bauer, L.

Layton, L.

Beloff, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mar, C.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Caccia, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Caithness, E.

Avon, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Middleton, L.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cathcart, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Coleraine, L.

Norrie, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Colwyn, L.

Orkney, E.

Cowley, E.

Peel, E.

Craigavon, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Davidson, V.

Rankeillour, L.

De La Warr, E.

Reay, L.

Denham, L.

Reigate, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Renton, L.

Eccles, V.

Richardson, L.

Ellenborough,

Rugby, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sandford, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Somers, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Glanusk, L.

Sudeley, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Teviot, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Trefgarne, L.

Marylebone, L.

Trenchard, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Vickers, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vivian, L.

Hood, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Hooper, B.

Windlesham, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Wynford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Young, B.

Inglewood, L.v

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6. 18 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No 4
Page 1, line 8, after ("officer") insert ("with intimate knowledge of the gas industry, of finance and consumer interests").
The noble Lord said My Lords, I beg to move No 4, which stands in my name on the Marshalled List The amendment seeks to ensure that the person appointed as the director general of Ofgas has intimate knowledge of the gas industry, of finance and of consumer interests As we said during the Committee stage, the director general of Ofgas will have to be an exceptional man, well-versed in the intricacies of the gas industry as well as in finance and consumer affairs He needs those qualities and to be a strong personality if he is to stand up to Sir Denis Rooke and his board of experts.
We have tried unsuccessfully this afternoon to strengthen the regulatory authority by the appointment of three commissioners rather than a single director general We are now seeking to ensure that the person appointed is the right man for the job and holds the relevant qualifications to perform his functions efficiently and to the benefit of the country and the customers.
I suppose that the Minister will tell me that it is a bit late in the day to be moving this amendment as the Secretary of State has already intimated that he intends to appoint Mr James McKinnon to the post of Director General of Gas Supply I must acknowledge that the Secretary of State had the courtesy to recognise that this House is still considering the Gas Bill because he said that the appointment was subject to Parliament approving the Gas Bill The fact that the Secretary of State acknowledges that is certainly a step forward The Secretary of State was also good enough to say that the appointment was full time—and that was something that we raised at Committee stage and to which we got no real answer—and would be for a period of three years So we really are making progress now We are getting some information out of the Secretary of State for a change.
What the Secretary of State did not mention was the salary attached to the post Nor did he give any indication of the extent of the short list of possible appointees from which Mr McKinnon was selected Again this afternoon when noble Lords on this side asked for that information, the Government refused to give it, although it is relevant to this debate and past debates.
Perhaps the noble Lord will inform the House of the salary that will be paid to Mr McKinnon As we pointed out at Committee stage, this is important information that we ought to have, because there is, or should be, a relationship between the salary for the post of director general and the salary that will be enjoyed by Sir Denis Rooke, who of course has also been appointed as the chairman of the new board when British Gas becomes a public limited company As we have seen in the case of the chairman of the Post Office Board, salaries of the chairmen tend to rise three-fold, or around three-fold, once the industry is privatised.
Under those circumstances it could well be that Sir Denis Rooke will be paid a salary in the region of

805
£ 160,000 after a year, or perhaps a couple of years, in office as the chairman of the privatised British Gas plc. Therefore it is important that we know the salary relationship between the director general and the chairman of British Gas plc. I hope that we can have some information about that this evening. It was not forthcoming at Committee stage. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, who is going to reply will be able to give us that information. I cannot believe that the noble Lord is unable to give us it, because I cannot conceive that Mr. McKinnon would have been offered the job without also having been offered the salary attached to it.
Good, I understand that the noble Lord is going to give us that information. I shall not dwell on that any further. We look forward to having the information.
My amendment refers to three qualifications for this post. Mr. McKinnon certainly has one—that of considerable experience of finance. In its press release the Department of Energy described Mr. McKinnon thus:
"Mr. McKinnon is an accountant with considerable experience in commerce, and until recently was finance director of the Imperial Group. His background is ideally suited to assessing the financial information needed to carry out his duties in safeguarding the interests of consumers".
I must accept, and I think we would all accept, that Mr. McKinnon is an accountant of high calibre. Were he not so, he would not have been appointed as financial director of Imperial Group. There is no question about his qualifications in finance. Therefore, he meets one part of the criteria set out in this amendment. However, he has no background in the gas industry, which is a completely different industry from those controlled by the Imperial Group. I think that the noble Lord will accept that.
His experience with Imperial may perhaps have had more to do with protecting the interests of the shareholders rather than those of the customers. I imagine that is probably what the Imperial Group appointed him to do, and the Minister might like to comment on that particular aspect. It may well be that through his experience in private industry Mr. McKinnon will have learned a thing or two as to how customers are exploited by large organisations, and will bring his inside knowledge to bear on the gas industry; but of course that is to argue against myself and I do not want to do that.
The amendment is perhaps a little late; nevertheless I would welcome, as I feel sure the House would welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, on it, and we shall be much obliged if he gives us the information that I have requested. I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, this is an attempt to specify the qualities of the winner after the race has been won. Nevertheless, I should like to support this amendment because it gives us an opportunity— which indeed we have had before—for discussing further this important post and its functions. I was unable to be present at some of the earlier debates on the Bill because I was in hospital, which may excuse me for repeating arguments that have probably been heard.
806
This amendment highlights the arguments for the previous amendment—that the Government are unlikely to get somebody who is an expert in the gas industry and finance and who can represent the consumer. I wish to concentrate on the representation of the consumer, because there the danger lies in this Bill. I would suggest that the ideal officer so far as the consumer is concerned is a woman—a bloody-minded woman, if one can find such a person; a woman who has been at the sharp end of paying the gas bills, arranging her cooking and so forth; and a woman who is not likely to be taken in by either the hierarchy of a big industry or the arguments about the technical difficulties, the finance, and so forth. After some experience in politics I have found that understanding is a splendid but rather dangerous thing. One begins to understand all the difficulties, one begins to sympathise with the head people, with Ministers and others. Every now and again it is necessary to have someone who says, "I do not pretend to be an expert about this, but I can tell you that it is all going wrong. Gas is too expensive, it is not supplied in the right way, and the consumers are getting a bad deal".
I know nothing about Mr. McKinnon, and he may well be capable of doing that, but it requires a different quality from that of an accountant, a tycoon, or even knowing about the gas industry, although I certainly accept that these things, too, are necessary. Even if the Government have made a decision, I hope that when it comes to appointing extra staff for Mr. McKinnon the points I have made will be taken into account.
I find it a little alarming that he should have emanated from a headhunters' office. I find it a little alarming, too, that he should be nominated now—admittedly subject to the passing of the Bill—because this seems to me to be jumping the gun. Parliament still has the right to amend this Bill and put into it all sorts of qualifications, and yet we are told that the decision about the man who is vital to the Bill has already been made. I believe that it is the consumer interest that is important, that women are the best representatives of consumers on the whole, and that it would have been much better to have had three commissioners who would have been expert in the different forms of expertise mentioned in this amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, did not in any way feel that my earlier remarks suggested that he should have been with us in Committee when he was not. I certainly had no intention of imputing that.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I hope I detected a note of regret.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, there was a genuine note of regret, but I am delighted that the noble Lord has made such a good recovery and is with us for Report.
There was no question of any sex discrimination in the selection of the appointee in this case—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, my noble friend's point is that there should have been.
Lord Gray of Contin: Yes, my Lords; he thinks that there should have been. I am not aware whether any ladies were on the short list, but there may have been some.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, moved this amendment, which has a striking resemblance to one tabled by him at Committee. As I said to him then, we fully accept the importance of the character-istics identified in the amendment. Such qualities are clearly important, but they are (I am sure he will agree) not the only important qualities. One of the most important will be the ability to make effective judgments on the basis of assessments of all the relevant factors in a particular case, be they technical, legal, economic or otherwise.
The person who has been selected, subject to Parliament approving the passing of this Bill, will meet those requirements aptly. In making judgments and decisions he will have the expert advice provided by his staff who will be working closely with the industry, consumer organisations and other bodies. The director will also need other skills if he is to be an effective protection for the interests of consumers. He will also of course have to manage his office effectively and ensure that all the tasks assigned to him by the Bill are properly carried out.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked me about salary. I said I would be able to give him this informa-tion. During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, suggested that somebody in this position would merit a salary somewhere around that of an Under-Secretary in government service. We have gone a little better than that and the salary is based at the level of a Deputy Secretary. The salary will be £47,000 per year. We are extremely fortunate to have found somebody of the calibre of Mr. McKinnon for that figure. It is an excellent salary, but it is nothing more than someone of the ability of Mr. McKinnon merits.
While I fully recognise the importance of the characteristics which are picked out in the amendment, I realise that there are also some other equally important characteristics, and to list them all is both inappropriate and unnecessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, had a useful point when he suggested his preference for a lady to fill this post, but as I explained earlier the Secretary of State had a wide range of advice available to him. Having considered the various suggestions put to him, he has decided that Mr. McKinnon is the most appropriate person to be appointed and, subject to Parliament approving the legislation, that will be his choice.
I return to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. From his remarks and in view of the situation which has now developed in which there is an appointee, I do not think he expected me to accept his amendment. Therefore he will not be too disappointed if I suggest that perhaps it might be as well if he were to withdraw it.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, we on these Benches are very interested in this amendment and are anxious to ascertain in what direction it points. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, hopes to find somebody with intimate
808
knowledge of the gas industry, of finance and consumer interests, and all for a salary of £47,500. Perhaps the figure I have given is £500 too much.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the sum is £47,000.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, my figure was too much; it is £47,000. As an ex-Chief Secretary, I approve of the reduction of £500. So we have a salary of £47,000, which the Minister will recollect is almost spot on what I suggested in Committee it would be. The salary of £47,000 is available for a man or woman who has intimate knowledge of the gas industry, intimate knowledge of finance and intimate knowledge of consumer interests. What a paragon; what a modest person; how very much he understates his own value! In particular, what chance has one person at that known salary level in standing up against a man who is known to have or will at that time have three times the salary level, supported by board members many of whom will have a greater salary than the director himself? What chance has a single individual of protecting the consumer, ensuring efficiency and, in certain cases, requiring British Gas to alter course? What chance has one man of doing that?
I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that I have agreed with a great deal of what he said. I think he will agree that I have supported him on many occasions and been persuaded by his arguments. This only shows that it is quite impossible, in the strategy that the Government have, to find and appoint a person who will do the essential job without which the consumers will not be protected in the way the Conservatives stated in their manifesto would result from competition being introduced into this industry. It is that charge I level against them and I cannot see that we shall get much sense out of this.
It has been demonstrated already that the person who is likely to fill the job has one great qualification in his favour in that he is a chartered accountant. That is a very good start indeed. I say that with all the objectivity of which I am capable as a long-practising chartered accountant. That is in his favour, as is the knowledge of industry and finance, but I doubt very much whether he knows more about consumer affairs in practice in having to deal with them with sensitivity than does the woman who is the chairman of the Gas Consumers Council. We have at least one noble Baroness in office in this House at the moment, indicating how right my noble friend is in suggesting that women have special abilities in this area. But I doubt whether the individual in question can combine all those qualities. I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to press this to a Division. He said that what the Government are doing is inadequate for the purpose.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, my Lords. I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. It is impossible to get somebody of the calibre we need for the price that the Government are prepared to pay. If I may say so, there is only one man in this country who could do this job adequately, but he would not do it for £47,000 a year. I refer to Sir Denis Rooke. He is the chappie who knows the industry inside out. Nobody could fool him, but he is not available. He would

809
certainly not be available at that salary, but he is not available because he is to be the chairman of British Gas plc. His salary will undoubtedly go up to about £160,000 a year. He would not accept this job at £47,000 a year.
There is one question I should like to ask the noble Lord, and perhaps the House will give him leave to answer. At the present time the salary of £47,000 is about two-thirds of the salary paid to Sir Denis Rooke. Will it keep its relationship? In other words, will it go up and keep the two-thirds relationship with the salary of the chairman of British Gas plc? I think that he might expect that and I think that the Government really ought to be expecting to pay it. Perhaps the noble Lord can give an answer. I am not going to press this amendment. I think it would be wrong for me to press the amendment; although I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and he really put his finger on the point. Why not a woman? Why have we not considered a woman for this post? The noble Lord opposite did not tell us who had been considered. I should like very much to hear whether or not a woman was considered by the Secretary of State. I bet not. We should like to hear whether a woman was considered.
All this could have been avoided—and I say this for the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, for I so much agree with him—and without the positive discrimination that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, apparently wanted or indicated that she might like. We could have solved the problem. If we had appointed three commissioners, then one of them could have been a woman. But all is not lost because the amendment following this one will give the opportunity to the House once again to appoint not commissioners but assistant directors so that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, with his persuasive tongue may be able to persuade noble Lords opposite—and he does not have to persuade those on this side of the House—that the next amendment would give the opportunity to the Government to save themselves.
They would give themselves this opportunity of having much wider experience, including female experience, on the regulatory authority. I shall say no more for we really must get on. Does the noble Lord, Lord Gray, want to invervene to tell us whether a woman was considered?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, by leave of the House—and I always try to be helpful to the noble Lord—he asked me about the salary in the future of the director. The director is remunerated at the level of a deputy-secretary and that salary will rise as the salary of a deputy-secretary rises in due course. So far as Sir Denis Rooke is concerned, that will be a matter for British Gas plc.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, there is no doubt that the director general is going to be the poor relation. There is no question about that. In those circumstances, I can do no more than to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 10, after ("Director)") insert ("together with two Assistant Directors of Gas Supply").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move Amendment No. 5 which stands in my name and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. It may be for the convenience of the House if, with this amendment, we discuss Amendments Nos. 7,9,21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 33, 36 and 40. I do not intend to speak for very long because we have had a debate on the question of commissioners. As was shown in the previous debate, there are great merits because of the possibility of diversity in having more than one director.
The noble Lord, Lord Gray, argued against the appointment of commissioners. He does not like a commission. He believes that it would be unwieldy. We do not accept the arguments that were put up. We believe, as we said on Amendment No. 3, that a commission would be a more relevant regulatory authority. But the House in its wisdom decided that we should not have a commission.
What this group of amendments does—and it does not seek to appoint commissioners—is to call for the appointment by the Secretary of State of assistant directors. They will have the status, having been appointed by the Secretary of State, of not being dismissed by anyone other than the Secretary of State. That gives them a particular status in relation to the job and in relation to the director general himself.
Assistant directors, because of their special position, would not be in the subordinate position of employees, but they would be part of a team where the director was (I suppose the right phrase would be) primus inter pares. That would be the situation. It is not the ideal position. The ideal position, as we have said already, is the commission and commissioners. But this gives the House the opportunity to consider the possibility of giving the director general more expert assistance and a wider view of the whole business of regulation. He would also be enabled to assign the roles to the assistant directors and therefore would still be able to maintain his overall control of the regulatory machinery and how he wanted the regulations to proceed.
It would be possible under this amendment to appoint a person who had intimate knowledge of the gas industry and another with experience of consumer interests (as was mentioned in the previous amendment) and the director, Mr. McKinnon, could concentrate his mind and main effort on finance and co-ordination. But the beauty of this amendment is that while it does not form a commission, it gives the government the opportunity of diversifying and it would give the opportunity to place a woman within the regulatory machinery.
She could be one of the assistant directors. I think this amendment really has merit. I said that I would not speak very long on it and I do not intend to do so; but it does have great merit. I think it gives the House probably the last opportunity to give the director general the assistance which he should have (and which he will need) to deal with the chairman of British Gas plc and the expert board that he will have.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, as no other noble Lord is going to address the House, I think that it would be highly discourteous of me to remain silent after the very kind invitation expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on the last amendment that I should support him on this matter. I am very glad to support him. He has eloquently moved his amendment and he has outlined the main arguments. I do not intend to go over them again. However, I should like once again to point out to the House that in my view we are asking for a director who has not only to have diverse qualities but actually contradictory qualities. He has to be experienced in big business, in accountancy and finance. That means that he looks at the world from that point of view. He is accustomed to a secretary; he is accustomed to a car; he is accustomed to a high salary and a share in the profits. And he is no doubt interested in the prestige of his post. We have heard already that he may consider £47,000 merely a pittance.
I suggest that most gas consumers do not consider it a pittance and nor are they accustomed to have a secretary. They have to pay their own gas bills and write out a cheque or put in the money themselves. The consumer's interest is quite different from that of the tycoon. I am not sure that we can get a director who is both a tycoon and an anti-tycoon. That is what we are asking for. But that is a very powerful argument for having two assistant directors. I do not deny for one moment that it is necessary to have either an assistant or a director who knows about the gas industry and about finance. But this amendment would give us the opportunity to divide the post to some extent and have, I suggest, a woman who has practical experience of consumer affairs and who is an acerbic personality, and not likely to give way simply because of the prestige of those who have been longer in the industry. Therefore, I am very happy to support this amendment, because it is our last chance to make a great deal more of this post than we have done up to now and to write in more protection for the consumer.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, after all this sexist talk, I wonder whether the noble Lord might think that we should also be racist. As we have the good news that the director-designate is a Scotsman, we might make sure that the assistant directors were English and Welsh.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Government agree with the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Grimond, in wanting to see effective regulation, but I think we part company as to how best to achieve that aim. The noble Lord in moving the amendment saw beauty in it. They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and all I can say is that I do not see how it can be right to spell out in this Bill the structure of the Office of Gas Supply. It is not something that Parliament thought it was right to do with the Office of Fair Trading, it is not something that Parliament thought it was right to do with the Office of Telecommunications, and I do not think it is right to do it with the new ofgas.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, if I may say so, that is a wholly inadequate answer. I am sorry that the noble Lord has once more shown that he is not prepared to
812
take an amendment seriously. There is nothing at all here about an office. There is something here about assistant directors. There is already power in the Bill about an office and we have no need to say any more. I shall read it out to the noble Lord, in case he has forgotten the contents of the Bill. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 states:
"The Director may, with the approval of the Treasury as to numbers and terms and conditions of service, appoint such staff as he may determine."
We are not talking about staff. We are talking about the lack of stature of a single person in trying to achieve the monitoring of the huge organisation which the Government have provided under this privatisation measure.
What the amendment refers to is two assistant directors, so that together you will get a triumvirate. I do not know the sexless word for triumvirate; I suppose it is triumpersonate. I do not know how it is dealt with today, but everybody knows that it means a group of three who would strengthen one another and be available, respectively, to take on major tasks. One of them could be a person who had vast experience in consumer affairs and, therefore, could handle problems with much more sensitivity than a person whose experience was purely as a high-level account-ant and director of a commercial company, who might know very little about the problems of consumers in the gas industry, which are very sensitive, as every Member of Parliament knows full well from his postbag.
So I am saying to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that I am sorry he has taken the attitude that none of these amendments is worth serious consideration— because that is what he has done. This is a very solid amendment. It enables us to do the minimum that we can do because the Government have rejected out of hand every other proposal for strengthening the monitoring to an adequate level and this is the last one that is left to us. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will pursue his views on this amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, should have been so dismissive of this amendment. I think I gave good reasons why the Government should think again, and I prefer to believe that the noble Lord himself was not being dismissive, because that is not his style. The noble Lord is much nicer than that. He does his best to consider things reasonably and rationally and I prefer to think that his reply to my amendment was so dismissive because he has had his orders from the Secretary of State and not because he listened to the argument and decided himself, with that good mind of his, that this was not a good amendment. The Secretary of State knows his own mind, but we do not agree with his mind and I feel obliged, particularly in view of the cavalier manner in which this amendment was treated, to pursue the matter and press the amendment to a Division.
6.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 95.

DIVISION NO.4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Amherst, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Attlee, E.

Lockwood, B.

Banks, L.

Longford, E.

Barnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blease, L.

McNair, L.

Brockway, L.

Mayhew, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Chitnis, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Crawshaw of Amtree, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

[Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Raglan, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L,

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ennals, L.

Seear, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Serota, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Shackleton, L.

Fitt, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Gallacher, L.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gregson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Vernon, L.

Heycock, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hooson, L.

Walston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Whaddon, L. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Willis, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kagan, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ypres, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Allerton, L.

Greenway, L.

Annaly, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Auckland, L.

Marylebone, L.

Bauer, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Henley, L.

Beloff, L.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Bessborough, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Inglewood, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Ingrow, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kimball, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Kintore, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Layton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Craigavon, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Davidson, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

De La Warr, E.

Mancroft, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Mar, C.

Drumalbyn, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Elton, L.

Avon, L.

Fortescue, E.

Merrivale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Mersey, V.

Glanusk, L.

Middleton, L.

814

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Munster, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Sudeley, L.

Norrie, L.

Swinfen, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Teynham, L.

Onslow, E.

Tranmire, L.

Pender, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Trenchard, V.

Reay, L.

Trumpington, B

Reigate, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Vickers, B.

Rochdale, V.

Vivian, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Sandford, L.

Windlesham, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Wynford, L.

Shannon, E.

Young, B.

Sharpies, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.4 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, the next amendment is Amendment No. 8. I should point out that if this is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 9 to 15 inclusive.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 7.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I gather that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15, although not all of them are in my name. This amendment refers to the resignation of the director, either voluntary or involuntary. At the Committee stage we drew attention to the fact that the director could resign his office by notice in writing without the period of notice he had to give being denned, and obviously he could create havoc by resigning at very short notice. Therefore, various amendments were put forward, of six months and so on. The Minister said that he would consider those amendments. He has been good enough to do so, and has down a proposal as Amendment No. 15. Therefore all I need do is, as it were, open the batting and leave it to the Minister to continue. 1 beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to come back to the House on the matter of the length of notice to be given by the director if he wishes to resign from office. Noble Lords may recall that we had a constructive debate on the issue under Amendment No. 9 on 29th April on the second sitting of the Committee stage. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, that amendment which sought to impose a time restriction of six months on the director when giving notice of resignation would have imposed an overly-rigid requirement which could have caused difficulty.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, expressed concern that the director could resign at extremely short notice and thus create difficulties in finding a suitable replace-ment. Both the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested a revision requiring reasonable notice to be given. We have studied this point carefully and we agree that the proposed revision would be an improvement to the

815
Bill. Our amendment would therefore require that "reasonable notice" be given, and I hope therefore that the House will support it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, my Lords, of course I am tempted to support it, but I happen to think that my Amendment No. 13 is better than Amendment No. 15 of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. In effect, my amendment would read that he would resign, "by reasonable notice in writing". But the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would merely allow him to resign with "reasonable notice". There is a difference, and I think it is an important difference.
In a post paying £47,000 a year I do not think we would expect the director general to pick up the telephone and say to the Secretary of State, "I say Peter, old boy, I think I don't like this job. I am going to resign in three months". I feel sure that that is a relevant point and that the noble Lord would expect notice to be in writing. Therefore I urge him to accept my amendment, No. 13, and drop his amendment, No. 15.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, by leave of the House, I am not suggesting that the noble Lord is looking a gift horse in the mouth, but I can give him a perfectly reasonable answer to his query. The Government amendment removes the words "in writing" because the phrase is already defined in Clause 48 of the Bill. Line 22 on page 48 of the Bill states:
" 'notice' means notice in writing".
It is therefore unnecessary to specify that the director's notice under Clause 1 should be in writing. I can assure the House that it is merely a technical drafting amendment.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, the Government have been good enough to meet the substance of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the substance of the amendment moved by myself. All that remains for me to do is to thank the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 14 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("notice in writing") and insert ("reasonable notice").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 7, after ("may") insert ("after such consultation with Parliament as the Secretary of State considers appropriate").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is in the context of subsection (3), which states that:
"the Secretary of State may remove any person from that office on the ground of incapacity or misbehaviour".
When we last considered those lines, there was a good deal of discussion about the meaning of the phrase "incapacity or misbehaviour", about any legal precedents that there might be for such words, and about what the effect of those lines might be. There was a general feeling that the Secretary of State
816
removing a person from an office of that magnitude, and of such public relevance and sensitivity, was something that should not be done lightly.
Therefore, we are proposing in this amendment that the Secretary of State, before removing any person on such ill-defined grounds, should first consult with Parliament to the extent that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
I hope that we do not have to go over the argument all over again, as to how on earth one can consult Parliament in whatever way one considers appropri-ate. The power is given in the Bill to leave the matter entirely to the discretion of the Secretary of State. Secretaries of State are responsible individuals with wide experience. They are not expected, except on very rare occasions, when they immediately resign office, to act in an unusual and irresponsible way. Therefore, the Secretary of State knows how to consult Parliament as far as may be necessary.
It is wise that he should do so in advance of removing the director from office; very wise indeed, because there is bound to be a row afterwards, and it will be of great benefit to the Secretary of State to be able to say that he has consulted in some measure—in whatever measure he may consider appropriate. If the person who is to be removed is found guilty of a criminal offence, then obviously the Secretary of State will not need much consultation with Parliament to satisfy himself that the director ought to be removed from office. There may be other cases that are marginal and in a shadowy area, where the Secretary of State would be well advised to attempt to ascertain the feeling of Parliament in whatever way he considers necessary before taking the drastic action involved.
I hope that this amendment will be seen as a constructive and sensible suggestion. It probably merely puts into words that which the Secretary of State would anyway do. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I support this amendment, which is really very mild, and one that the noble Lord would do well to consider. It asks that the director be removed,
"after such consultation with Parliament as the Secretary of State considers appropriate".
It may be that the Secretary of State would read the word "consultation" as meaning information, but even that would be better than the situation we have at present. Usually when somebody is dismissed or resigns, the press get hold of the story and put their own construction on that dismissal or resignation. There is then a row in Parliament. I suggest that it ought to be the other way around. We had an example only this afternoon, at the beginning of our proceedings, when I quoted a news item from the Daily Telegraph which the Government were able to say had no truth in it at all.
As I have said, what happens is that there is a huge news story and the public and Members of Parliament get the wrong end of the stick. There is then a huge row about it that could be avoided if only the Government would take Parliament into their confidence, tell Parliament about it, and explain the reasons for it, before the story appears in the press and a great meal is made out of the incident, when perhaps there is no meal to be made out of it at all. That is why I support this amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords. I understand why the amendment has been moved. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has made very clear the case for it, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has supported him. I will put two points to noble Lords. The first is that if the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is concerned, as I believe he is, about Parliament having some oversight of such matters, then the Bill provides that the Secretary of State will have responsibility for the director, as well as having the power to remove him. He receives an annual report from the director on the director's activities. That report must be laid before Parliament. That ensures that the director is accountable through my right honourable friend to both Houses of Parliament.
The second point arises from the main reason for the amendment, which was shown when the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, stated it was very important that the director should not be removed lightly on grounds that might be frivolous. The grounds are incapacity or misbehaviour, and I suggest to your Lordships that those grounds are stringent.
In order that I might reply to this amendment, I examined statutory precedents. Going back 16 years, to 1970, it was easy to find 16 different examples in statute of cases where bodies had been set up under statute and where members of those bodies could be removed on the grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour. I was delighted that the last precedent I found was the Taxes Management Act 1970, which was passed at a time when the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, held high office as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. In that statute it was the Lord Chancellor who could, if he thought fit after consultation with the Lord Advocate, remove a special commissioner of income tax on the grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour.
I am simply saying that the grounds are not grounds that can be taken up lightly for the removal of a director. Parliament will have an oversight of what is happening because through the Secretary of State the director will, by laying his annual report before Parliament, be responsible to Parliament. And the Secretary of State is responsible, as all ministers are, to Parliament.
Therefore, I do not believe it is right to seek, as this amendment does, to set up a form of direct parliamentary oversight of the removal of the Director General of Gas Supply in a way that would not be the same as the precedents that I have discovered, nor the same as the precedents for the Director General of Fair Trading and the Director-General of Oftel, which are more recent examples. It is on those grounds that I resist this amendment. I quite see that there can be different points of view about the amendment, but I think that the grounds for removal in Clause 1 are the right ones.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister who on this occasion has given the matter careful thought and explained the reasons why the Government do not think that this is a happy amendment. He said that there was room for two points of view. I take a slightly different point of view
818
in the sense that it would cost the Government nothing to accept this amendment which provides the minimum kind of consultation—consultation only to the extent that the Secretary of State considers appropriate. He could gain medals and lose no time by carrying out a procedure of this kind, and I should have thought that the Government would have been well advised to accept it; but they prefer not to.
I am not going to speak about incapacity because that is dealt with in the next amendment, but I repeat my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for having considered this matter carefully. If no other Lord wishes to contribute to the discussion, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("incapacity or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall discuss at the same time Amendment No. 18. We are now dealing with the question of incapacity and I recognise immediately that there is considerable statutory precedence for the words in the Bill. Nevertheless, I am not all that happy about them. It is a great penalty to be removed from office and it carries obloquy as well as lack of salary. To remove a person from office on the ground of misbehaviour is something that one can understand; it has happened in the past. By his actions the individual in question, the director, is not in the view of the Secretary of State fit to continue to hold office because he has misbehaved.
But the ground of incapacity is a much more difficult concept. It is not on the ground of incapacity that it has taken place. Incapacity is an assessment of what the individual will be doing in the future. It is an assessment that he will show himself—continue to show himself, if you wish—incapable of carrying out his duties. "Incapacity" should be defined as "incapacity that has persisted" for some time. I have suggested three months, and if the Government want to suggest two months or four months, that is neither here nor there. At all events, it gives the Secretary of State the security of knowing that he has solid ground on which to move, whereas "incapacity" as it is shown at the moment could be subject to considerable difficulty and could well be a matter of opinion. My amendment introduces an element of certainty into the matter and is therefore helpful in legislation of all kinds. I beg to move.
Lord Marshall of Leeds: My Lords, I do not want to prolong this discussion, but surely the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, should take account of the strict meaning of the word "incapacity" which was not quite the meaning he was ascribing to it a few moments ago. The word "incapacity" refers to a series of happenings which incapacitate a person from carrying out a contract of employment. I do not want to recite them all because, frankly, I do not remember them; but three important ones are: first, that the person in question has been made a bankrupt; secondly, that he has become of unsound mind; and, thirdly, that he has been committed to prison for the commission of a felony.

819
It would be unhappy if this amendment were to find favour because one would then be in a position of having to tolerate a director who could come under one of the three instances I have just given. For those purposes of course it is preferable that the decision should be immediate and not delayed for three months.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks on these matters with immense authority, as I recognise. He has given examples which are straightforward and the Secretary of State would have no difficulty in deciding on his action. However, I ask the noble Lord to turn his mind to the more marginal problem of where the individual has a physical incapacity and is for the time being incapable of carrying out his job. For example, he may be bed-ridden and cannot carry out his job but, as I mentioned on a previous occasion, he may have recovered in a fortnight's time or may consider that he will have recovered in that time.
If the Secretary of State removes him from office on the grounds of physical incapacity—and I assume "incapacity" includes, in law, physical incapacity as well as the other kinds of incapacity to which the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, referred—it would be much easier if this is defined in some way as to introduce more certainty than is in the Bill. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord whether he will help us by saying what he thinks would be the situation with regard to marginal physical incapacity.
Lord Marshall of Leeds: My Lords, with permission, the situation generally is that the question of ill-health is quite separate from the word "incapac-ity" and is dealt with in a separate clause in every contract of employment where one can find that the most generous leeway is given to someone who is ill. Certain periods are laid down which generally have nothing to do with the particular clause and have nothing to do with the word "incapacity".
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I recognise that in the second of these two amendments the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is endeavouring to make more specific an amendment which he moved in Committee. However, for reasons which have been deployed by my noble friend Lord Marshall of Leeds I prefer to stick to the wording in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Marshall was good enough to intervene on this point in Committee and he has done so again saying, as I understood him, that the expression "incapacity", and, indeed, "misbehaviour", are expressions well known in contracts of employment. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is worried as to where one draws the line. I hope that I am not going to be so foolish as to try to wade into what should be a matter for the courts if there is a disagreement, except to say that my understanding and advice is that if there were to be a case which is contested, the courts would take all the relevant circumstances into account.
Why am I worried about the second of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond? I am worried because if there were circumstances where a permanent incapacity suddenly
820
arose, and the specific time limit which the noble Lord puts forward in his amendment of three months were included in the Bill, there could be a real impediment upon anything being done; and that would not serve the interests of the proper discharge of the functions of the director or, indeed, the interests of consumers of gas generally.
Therefore, if I may say so, I think that to leave the words "incapacity or misbehaviour" in the Bill is a reasonable thing to do, and it has of course appeared reasonable to governments of different political complexions for many years now, as I said when I spoke on the previous amendment.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he is able to tell us as a matter of fact if the present draft contract which is no doubt being prepared for the prospective holder of the office includes a separate clause dealing with the problem of physical incapacity.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I cannot answer that question. All I can say to the noble Lord is that I have no doubt that the draft contract will mirror the provisions in Clause 1 of this Bill, provided that Parliament agrees with Clause 1.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, all I can say at this time of day is that I very much hope that the Minister will be good enough to bear in mind the reason why I thought fit to put forward this amendment for discussion and probing. I am very grateful for the helpful attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Leeds. One expects anybody coming from Leeds to be very helpful, and I am very grateful to him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think that we have reached a suitable moment to adjourn consideration of the Bill on Report. In doing so, I suggest that we do not return to this Bill until half-past eight. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Supplementary Benefit Up-rating Regulations 1986 Family Income Supplement (Computation) Regulations 1986 Child Benefit (Up-rating) Regulations 1986 Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order 1986 Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1986
7.33 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1986,

821
which was laid before the House on 8th May be approved. This order is accompanied by a report from the Government Actuary on the effects of the proposals on the national insurance fund and by a statement on mobility allowance.
With your Lordships' permission, I will deal also with the other four Motions in my name on the Order Paper, which are the draft Child Benefit (Up-rating) Regulations 1986, laid before this House on 8th May; the draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1986, laid before this House on 8th May; the draft Supplementary Benefit Up-rating Regulations 1986, laid before the House on 5th June; and the draft Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order 1986, laid before the House on 8th May.
These statutory instruments put into effect the up-rating of social security benefits announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place on 24th February. They also provide for the payment of a £10 Christmas bonus.
This is in some ways an unusual up-rating. As your Lordships already know, we are changing the date of the up-rating from November to April in order to bring the tax and benefit years more closely into line. This will also have the effect of giving beneficiaries an increase at a time when many of them may have bills such as rate demands to meet. To introduce this change smoothly we brought forward the 1986 up-rating to July, which means that this up-rating comes only eight months after last November's 7 per cent. up-rating and is therefore based on only eight months' movement in prices. The next up-rating will be from April 1987, again after only 8 months. This, coupled with the fall in inflation, accounts for the relatively low level of the increase.
It might be helpful to your Lordships if I outlined some of the main features of the proposed up-rating. Most benefits, including retirement pension, widows' benefits and unemployment benefit, are going up by 1·1 per cent., which accurately represents the increase in prices between May 1985 and January 1986, the measurement period for this intermediate up-rating. This means, for example, that a married couple's retirement pension will go up from £61·30 to £61·95 a week; the pension for a single person will go up from £38·30 to £38·70 a week. The long-term rate of supplementary benefit will go up by the same cash amount as the relevant contributory benefit. Child benefit will go up by 1·4 per cent.—from £7·00 to £7·10 a week. Mobility allowance will be increased in line with the retail price index to £21·65 a week.
Not only does it cover only 8 months' price rises rather than a year; it is 8 months of a period when inflation was falling rapidly. This up-rating is a demonstration of the success of our policies—a success that I believe even noble Lords opposite grant us. Inflation is now at its lowest level since 1968. This is good news for the whole country, but it is especially good news for pensioners and others on low or fixed incomes. Pensioners no longer have to go into shops and see prices going up almost before their very eyes. Nor are they forced to watch as the value of their savings is inexorably eaten away, as when—and I have to say it—under the previous administration the real
822
value of a pensioner's savings invested in a building society fell by a third. We should therefore welcome the small size of this up-rating as a sign that inflation is under control and that we have managed to get off the treadmill of massive increases in public expenditure generating massive increases in prices which in turn fuel further increases in public expenditure. We do not propose to get back on that treadmill, and we certainly do not agree with the unusual economics of those who would like inflation to be higher so pensioners can appear to get a bigger increase because it is inflation-linked.
One reaction to the level of the uprating has been to say, "If it matches the retail price index increase then the retail price index must be wrong". That is not the case and I am sure that some people have erroneously been comparing the increase with annual rates of inflation. The retail price index is a generally reliable indicator of the effects of inflation, and it is certainly the best we have. There are indeed some circumstances when variants of the whole retail price index seem to be better measures for benefit increases, but, on the whole and for most benefits, the retail price index remains the best measure for inflation.
The retail price index minus housing costs—which I believe is known as the Rossi index—is the measure which has been used to up-rate supplementary benefit since 1982. We have decided to vary the measure this year and to keep the up-rating in line with the cash increase in the relevant contributory benefit in order to minimise the problem of people being floated on and off supplementary benefit by tiny variations of 5p or lOp between the supplementary benefit scale rates and the rates of other benefits received by supplementary benefit recipients. I do not claim that we have acted here out of anything other than pragmatism. But with three up-ratings in 16 months it is not sensible either for claimants or for the administration of the system to shuffle people on and off supplementary benefit, possibly on each occasion.
For similar pragmatic reasons we do not propose through these regulations to up-rate most of the additional requirements in supplementary benefit. We have to balance the administrative effort of Carrying out the up-rating against the advantage to claimants of the extra 5p or at most l0p. Again I remind your Lordships that the transition to a new up-rating timetable means that this is the second of the up-ratings in a very short period. Up-ratings mean a tremendous additional burden on local offices, which hampers their ability to deal with other benefit issues expeditiously. We took the view that so far as possible we should simplify their task, and these up-rating regulations therefore provide only for increases in the adult and children's scale rates, the various personal expenses rates, and a limited number of additional requirements. The recent announcement of a 3½ per cent. cut in electricity prices from July will, of course, give further help to beneficiaries.
It is appropriate to make a special mention of the increase in child benefit, which, though small in itself, at l0p, demonstrates the Government's commitment to child benefit as an important feature of benefit support for families with children. We remain anxious to concentrate more resources on low-income families with children, as we shall be doing in the new income-s

823
related benefit structure set out in the Social Security Bill, which, as we know all too well, is currently being considered in your Lordships' House.
Child benefit is an essential feature of our benefit system, and we have reaffirmed that in this up-rating. In general, these instruments set out to achieve price protection of all main social security benefits with the minimum of administrative effort and disruption for claimants. As usual, increases in prices taking place between the end of the measurement period—in this case January—and the implementation of the up-rating from 28th July will be taken into account for the next up-rating, on which an announcement will be made in the autumn.
As your Lordships are aware, the next up-rating will take place in April 1987 and will be based on price rises between January and December. From then, we return to a normal up-rating track but with benefit increases aligned to the time when most other financial changes affecting households take place: in April. I remind your Lordships that even this interim up-rating will cost some £420 million in a full year in addition to the £2 billion cost of last year's up-rating. Total spending on social security will thus stand at almost £43 billion in 1986–87–31 per cent. of all public expenditure. That is a massive sum in anyone's book and a convincing demonstration of our commitment to the welfare of those dependent on social security benefits. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Supplementary Benefit Up-rating Regulations 1986 laid before the House on 5th June [25th Report from the Joint Committee]; the Family Income Supplement (Computation) Regulations 1986 laid before the House on 8th May [23rd Report from the Joint Committee]; the Child Benefit (Up-rating) Regulations 1986 laid before the House on 8th May [23rd Report from the Joint Committee]; the Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order 1986 laid before the House on 8th May [23rd Report from the Joint Committee]; and the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1986 laid before the House on 8th May [23rd Report from the Joint Committee] be approved.—(Baroness Hooper.)
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her audible reading of her brief. As an old-age pensioner, I look forward to collecting 40p a week extra very soon. I must set that off against the fact that a cup of coffee in your Lordships' establishment costs 25p. That means that I can have only an extra one and a bit cups of coffee for my 40p.
To be serious, the noble Baroness said that the up-ratings were especially good for pensioners. I cannot agree with her. At present, the perception of people on low incomes and pensions is that the retail price index is irrelevant to their spending patterns. People who go out shopping and looking at prices complain constantly that the prices they pay for those things on which they spend most of their money are not coming down. That happens because, as we know—the Institute of Fiscal Studies has made it clear—poorer people spend more on essentials such as heating and food, and 10 per cent. of householders in the lowest income groups have an expenditure which has risen 17 per cent. above the average prices paid for goods by the
824
top 10 per cent. of income recipients. That is because the poorest people do not spend a great deal of money on petrol, gin, jewellery and many other such items which come into the retail price index.
The thought that I want to leave the noble Baroness with tonight is that it is essential that there be some revision of the retail price index. It is based on a basket of purchases. It does not relate to the purchases of the poorest people.
I was interested to see in Hansard a Question about the retail price index put to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham. He said:
"My Lords, the weighting of the index is revised as a matter of routine at the beginning of each year. I have no immediate plans to change the way that this is done. However, I expect to receive shortly a report from the RPI Advisory Committee and will be ready to consider making changes in the light of its recommen-dations".— [Official Report, 10/6/86; col. 115.]
It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could tell us tonight that we can look forward to hearing something soon about that report and knowing whether the Government will make some changes which will help people whose expenditure does not reflect the RPI. They know it. Their pattern of spending is completely different.
I must refer to child benefit. I cannot understand why it is not index linked. Indexing of child benefit would maintain a tax equity. If the Chancellor increases personal allowances, for instance, it is the only way to ensure that the tax relief benefits not so much the single and the childless as the family with children, and thus we can ensure a tax free benefit for the family. Child benefit was cut by £175 million last year. That has not been reinstated. I cannot see how the noble Baroness can apparently rejoice in an increase in child benefit of lOp. That is disgraceful.
There was agreement in Parliament that child benefit was the best way to deal with family poverty. When family allowances and child income tax allowances were abolished, child benefit replaced them. There was a cut of £175 million last year. We now have this pitiful increase of lOp. That does not restore the 35p cut which was made last year. I do not know what is the Government's real thinking on child benefit. It is now worth less than the previous combination of family and income tax allowances. It is not making the impact on poor families that we envisaged.
I wish to mention housing. I wonder how much the Government will save by the removal of the non-householder rent addition from young adults aged 21 to 24. That will hurt poor households which are not claiming supplementary benefits or housing benefit. It will further erode the independence of young adults. That is another question.
I am worried and puzzled—I am not very good at figures—because I have looked up the Government Actuary's report on up-ratings and I find in paragraph 10 (I would not trust myself to do other than quote):
"The new estimate for 1986–87 shows a surplus of £108 million compared with the estimated deficit of £80 million in the November 1985 report".
If the national insurance fund is doing so well that it has a surplus, I cannot understand why there is such meanness particularly with child benefit. We must go back to the fundamental political point.

825
I do not propose to detain your Lordships much longer tonight on the subject of social security, to which we shall return again and again. When we had a policy of linking the up-ratings to earnings, people on social security were much better off. Because they are now linked to the RPI, which itself arguably does not reflect the spending habits of the poorest people, less money is awarded. Time after time under this Government we are having up-ratings which are inadequate on the Government's theory of relating them to the retail price index. They do not even relate child benefit to the retail price index.
The situation is unsatisfactory. We are glad if anybody gets a halfpenny more, but for people needing child benefit to receive only 10p a week extra is unacceptably mean. I do not know what old-age pensioners will do with their 40p a week! I trust that they will respond when they have a chance at the next general election.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for explaining some of the content of the orders. We on these Benches agree with the moving of the up-rating date. We think that it is sensible to align the benefit year and the tax year, but I do not think that what the Government are doing is fully understood in the country. That is one reason why they have received a great deal of hostile criticism about the smallness of the increase. Nevertheless, previous experience has shown that when the period of reference is altered beneficiaries can suffer.
If we look at this case, from July 1986 to November 1986 claimants will be 1.1 per cent. better off than they would have been had the alteration not been made. But it seems to me that from November 1986 to April 1987 they are bound to be worse off, since the annual rate of inflation to May 1986, which would have determined the rate of benefit paid during that period, is unlikely to be 1.1 per cent. Indeed, it is likely to be in excess of that. Will that not almost certainly mean an overall loss for beneficiaries? If so, how much will that overall loss be? Would it not have been better to increase the up-rating by a higher percentage than the particularly low rate of inflation in the shorter reference period in order to ease the transition?
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, pointed out that the real value of child benefit was cut last November. In this up-rating that cut is not made good, but at least there is no further cut in real value. Can the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, say that there will be no further cut in the real value of child benefit in future up-ratings? I should be most grateful if she could direct her attention to that question. Is it the Government's intention to maintain the real value of child benefit? It would be helpful to us if she could give a direct answer to that question. Will the Government make good last year's cut in the real value at some point in the future?
There is to be no increase in the basic pension, although it is falling behind earnings. What do the Government propose to do about that? When will be a suitable time to allow pensioners to catch up with earnings? If nothing is done, the basic pension will form a lower and lower proportion of the state
826
pension. In due course the bulk of the state pension will be earnings-related. Must not that affect the poorest adversely?
Looking at the £10 Christmas benefit, I note that it is not intended to increase that in this up-rating and it remains at that sum. Is it never to be increased? Is it to be allowed to decline in value year by year?
Paragraph 8 in the Government Actuary's report is a little disturbing. It says:
"Statistical information from different sources does not appear to be consistent and therefore the figures contained in the current report have a higher margin of uncertainty than usual".
But it says that further work is under way to reconcile the data. What progress has been made with that work?
Finally, today is 1st July. These rates in the main become operative this month. The Government must have made all arrangements on the assumption that the House will agree to the orders this evening. I wonder what the Government would do if we were to reject them today, as we have a right to do. Is it right that the Government should rely on our being bound by convention not to do so? Does not the House being asked for its approval at this late date make the whole process a mere formality?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, this has been a short but interesting debate. I am sorry that it has been necessary to limit the discussion of these important instruments and that they have arrived so late in the timetable, but noble Lords will appreciate the difficulties that the business managers have been experiencing of late. Nevertheless, I believe that the quality if not the quantity of the debate has shown that your Lordships' scrutiny of the instruments is in no way affected by the timing.
With your Lordships' permission, in view of the time, I do not propose now to deal with any of the points raised in the debate which could best be taken up in the context of our consideration of the Social Security Bill. However, I shall do my best to respond to other issues directly related to the up-rating.
First, I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the increases in the up-rating will for most beneficiaries be free of tax for this financial year. This easement was announced in his Budget Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and will not only mean that pensioners and others receive the full benefit of their increases but also that they do not have the disruption of a tax recoding in the middle of the year. From April next year when we move the up-rating cycle to its new starting point, there will no longer be any change in tax codings during the year on account of benefit changes. I am sure that your Lordships will welcome that sensible move, which will be a convenience both for claimants and for administration.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for welcoming the need for the change in the up-rating cycle. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, referred to the fact that the increase would buy only one more cup of coffee, but I remind your Lordships that the cost of that cup of coffee is the same as it was a year ago. The

827
noble Baroness is therefore much better off than she would be had it doubled in price as a result of a higher rate of inflation.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked about the basis and level of up-rating for pensioners. We are all accustomed to finding individual items of expenditure that have increased by a greater percentage than the RPI, but we never look at the items which have increased by less than the RPI or not at all. The RPI attempts to balance out such variations according to the weight of their impact on the individ-ual household. As noble Lords know, the composition of the RPI is the responsibility of technical experts advised by the Retail Price Index Advisory Committee who regularly review the weights used and other issues. It is at present sitting and is due to report shortly. Its recommendations will, I understand, be incorporated into the RPI in January next year, as is normal practice with any revisions.
The committee is also reviewing the special pensioners price indices which are designed to reflect specifically the exchanges in expenditure experienced by pensioner households heavily dependent on state benefits. Those indices, which exclude housing costs, show that pensioners have experienced lower rates of inflation than the population at large. For example, in the period from November 1978 to November 1985 the RPI rose faster than the pensioners' price indices by more than 6 percentage points and the rate of retirement pension rose by 16 percentage points.
It has been proved both that the RPI is more favourable to pensioners on the whole than the specialised index and that if the RPI or the special pensioners' price indices should understate in any way the true level of inflation experienced by pensioners and other social security beneficiaries, as claimed in the recent report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, that is cushioned by the real-terms increases that the pensioners have received.
The noble Baroness, and indeed the noble Lord, also made specific reference to child benefit. The noble Baroness, in particular, referred to the index linking of child benefit. These instruments provide for an increase in child benefit in line with prices. I shall not repeat the arguments about the permanent indexation of child benefit given by my noble friend last night during the debate on the Social Security Bill. I confirm, as my noble friend did, the Government's commitment to this benefit.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Baroness. What exactly is the commitment if it does not entail indexing? Could it mean that the value is allowed to decrease to the point of extinction? The commitment requires some definition.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we can I believe assure the noble Lord that the Government's commitment is not to see any decrease or suffering in real terms in respect of child benefit. I can perhaps refer the noble Lord to the statement made by my noble friend Lady Trumpington in the course of the debate last night. No doubt this point will be discussed at further stages of the Social Security Bill.
828
The noble Baroness referred to the level of the national insurance fund. A working surplus in the national insurance fund is necessary to ensure that benefits can actually be paid. Referring back to child benefit, this is not of course paid out of the national insurance fund. I can go further in respect of the noble Lord's supplementary remarks and say that our commitment is to maintain child benefit as a major and valuable contribution to all families' incomes.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves the subject of child benefit, can she explain to those of us who have no actuarial knowledge or experience how it is worked out that there should be an increase of 10p a week? What is the underlying mathematics of 10p? Could it not have been 12p or 20p?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, no doubt it could have been more or indeed less. I shall have to do a little more research before I can give an actuarial definition, as I do not claim in any way to have the knowledge of an actuary in the matter. I shall certainly be happy to refer back to the noble Baroness on that point.
The noble Baroness asked how much was saved by removing the non-householder addition from young people's benefits. She asked how much the Government were saving by removing this supplementary benefit from the 21 to 24 year-olds. The gross 1986–87 savings will be around £8 million a year. We have never made any secret of this. But this change is not within the scope of the Motions before the House tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked about the effect of the change of date in terms of what people were going to receive. Trying to compare pensioners' incomes under the new up-rating with what it would have been if there had been a November up-rating in line with former practice is akin to an exercise in leapfrogging. A further up-rating will take place in April 1987 during the period that would have been covered by the November up-rating. It is more or less a case of swings and roundabouts. What you may lose in the short term, you will gain in the long term. I see that the noble Lord shakes his head. I apologise if I have not been able to deal sufficiently fully with all the questions or indeed all of the points raised. After reading Hansard carefully, I shall, if necessary, write to noble Lords to follow up any outstanding points.
I have already referred to the tremendous burden that a benefit up-rating places upon the staff of the Department of Health and Social Security particularly in local offices. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to their efforts in carrying out this task. I must repeat that this up-rating fully honours the Government's pledges to protect the levels of pensions and linked benefits and further demonstrates the successes of our economic policies in defeating the evil of inflation. I commend the regulations and the orders to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.6 until 8.30 p.m.]

Gas Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert ("such removal, without prejudice to the Appellant's other remedies, being subject to appeal to an industrial tribunal established under Section 128 of the employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment standing in my name. The word "removal" in the amendment refers to the removal of the director. Your Lordships will remember that this point was subject to some discussion and inquiry during Committee stage. We elicited the fact that the director was not going to be an employee for the purposes of the Employment Protection (Consoli-dation) Act and that therefore if he felt himself to have been unfairly dismissed from his office, he could not appeal in the same way as every other employee could appeal. He could go to the courts and he would get his answer there if he lived long enough, but the courts are a very slow process, while the tribunal is a very fast and inexpensive process. Therefore it seemed to me that it was only fair, that it was, indeed, an essential part of the freedom of the individual, that he should be entitled to appeal to an industrial tribunal if he felt himself to have been unfairly or improperly dismissed.
During the course of the discussion in Committee it was also suggested that the director might prefer to go to court in search of damages. That is why the amendment proposes that the appeal to the industrial tribunal should be,
"without prejudice to the Appellant's other remedies",
namely, his remedy of going to court if he prefers. Whether he can do both I know not, but it matters not so long as he can choose whichever he wants to do. Certainly I think that he ought to have the right, which is the main purpose of this amendment. I hope that the Government share that view. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is quite correct in recalling the proceedings which took place in Committee. The 1978 Act extends only to employees and not to office holders. I have to make the point that this was not an Act which was passed by a Conservative Government; it was passed by a Labour Government. If the government of the day thought that it was right that the legislation should extend only to employees and not to office holders, I think that we are in a position where, if there is to be an amendment, it needs to be made to the 1978 Act and not in this way to this Bill.
Having said that, there is more than a technical problem here. As I understand it, there are reasons why the 1978 Act extends only to employees. The
830
noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has not addressed himself to that problem. He simply wants to see the director in this particular case covered by the Act. That would be an exception which would not be possible. One could not possibly legislate in that way. It is on that ground that with regret I must resist this amendment.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I certainly have not considered all the provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act. Naturally I assumed that the Government with the resources and advice at their disposal would be in a better position to do that than a single Member of your Lordships' House such as myself. I have listened to what the Minister has had to say. I recognise that it is not wise to legislate for a particular difficulty in this way. We ought to address the Act itself, but the Act is not to come before us and this is therefore the only method we have of dealing with the problem. I think that what the Minister has said has force and therefore with your Lordships' permission I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 20 to 23 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Director General of Gas Supply]:
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 64, line 3, leave out paragraph 1.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment. I do so in order to probe the contents of paragraph 1 of the schedule. Although we have been given a certain amount of information, this is an excellent opportunity for the Minister to give the remaining information which I know he was anxious to give in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, earlier but he was not sufficiently informed at the time. On further reflection I remember that the Minister recollected the information in question and gave it to the noble Lord. Unless the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, wants to pursue any further question on this I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords. I do not wish to pursue it any further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 24 to 28 not moved.]
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 64, line 12, leave out ("it appears to the Secretary of State") and insert ("the Secretary of State determines")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in the debate on his Amendment No. 16 in Committee, raised a point about the drafting of paragraph 3 of Schedule 1. Although we were unable to accept his amendment, we looked very carefully at this point and in the light of what he said we decided that something ought to be done in the interests of clarity. We believe that this amendment effects a significant improvement and achieves the clarity which we were seeking. I therefore recommend it to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having taken on board the daring suggestion that the drafting was not perfect. I am grateful to the Minister and congratulate the draftsman on a very neat piece of redrafting.
On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 64, line 17, leave out ("with the approval of) and insert ("after consultation with")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 31 I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendment No. 32. These two amendments are designed to give the director greater freedom as regards the appointment of staff than is currently afforded to him under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1. As paragraph 4 now stands,
"The Director may, with the approval of the Treasury as to numbers and terms and conditions of service, appoint such staff as he may determine".
Amendment No. 31 would simply delete the require-ment to have the Treasury's approval, and would oblige the director to consult with the Treasury, but no more than that. Amendment No. 32 would allow the director to be the judge of the number of staff which he deems necessary for the fulfilment of his functions.
In broad essence, the amendment seeks to draw attention to the importance of Ofgas and in particular to its having sufficient resources in terms of staffing to be effective in its role. Treasury consultation would still be required under the amendment, but it would remove from the Treasury the power which it now has to give approval to proposals for staffing.
In view of the discussion which we had on previous amendments regarding what I call the "top echelon" of the directorate, it is equally important that in the matter of staff in general, the director should be the judge rather than require Treasury approval for what he is seeking to do. It is understandable that the Government want to involve the Treasury in the matter because it concerns finance. However, as Ofgas is to be financed by a fee on public gas suppliers, funding in that connection should not be an insuperable problem even though the Treasury may have a legitimate interest in it. Therefore, for that reason I feel that the argument about the supremacy of the Treasury in matters of finance should not apply in this case.
In addition, as regards both the privatisation of British Gas and the privatisation of British Telecom, much has been made of the suggestion that one of the objects of the exercise is to free the private statutory monopolies—the plcs being created by Parlia-ment—from undue supervision by Ministers of the Crown and by senior civil servants. I do not accept that argument since it only took the stage, as it were, when the Government of the day decided to privatise successful public corporations. Although it may be a supporting argument for what they are doing, it is not one to which we on these Benches attach a great deal of importance. Nevertheless, if there is any merit in it, it rather supports the proposition in Amendments
832
Nos. 31 and 32 that if this public company—British Gas plc—is to have this magnificent freedom, then some minor degree of freedom might be afforded to the director of Ofgas the better to discharge his duty of protecting consumers in accordance with other provisions in the Bill. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, we have already debated in Committee the necessity for the involvement of the Treasury in approving the number, terms and conditions, of Ofgas staff. As we made clear then, Ofgas will be a non-ministerial government department manned by civil servants. It is therefore inevitable that the Treasury will be involved. It will not be sufficient for them merely to be consulted; they must specifically give their approval to these matters to ensure that funds are properly spent. As to the second amendment, it is certainly the Government's intention that Ofgas should be properly staffed. Since the director and Ofgas will be creatures of statute, they will be required to ensure that their statutory duties and functions are properly fulfilled and to employ sufficient staff to achieve that end.
These amendments are really inappropriate and, without in any way being disrespectful to the noble Lord, I think that they are also unnecessary. They go over well-trodden ground. We could not accept amendments of this kind in Committee and I am afraid that we are still not persuaded that they are of value. I must therefore ask the House to reject the amendments.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can help the House by giving some indication about the size of the staff. Obviously that is a matter which is troubling those of us on this side. There has been the tentative appointment of a director. There have presumably been discussions with the director about the tentative size of the staff. Is the noble Lord able to give us an indication of what size of staff is contemplated? We know the size of the staff of the Oftel. In this instance is it to be similar, greater or smaller? If the noble Lord could help us in that respect, it would remove a great deal of anxiety.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the present estimate for 1985–86 is up to approximately 30 staff. It will then be a matter of seeing how that number works out. It may be necessary to increase it slightly, but that is the present estimate.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am rather puzzled by the noble Lord's reply. I thought that the case put forward by my noble friend Lord Gallacher was very reasonable. The case which he is putting is rather different from the case which was put forward in Committee, because it seeks to continue consultation with the Treasury and I feel quite sure that that would be sufficient, bearing in mind new Condition 15 of the authorisation. I may be misreading it, but new Condition 15, concerning the payment of fees, appears

833
to relate the licence fee directly to the staff and the running costs of the director general and of the Gas Consumers' Council.
It seems to me that here we have a situation where the costs of those organisations are being raised directly—and it is implicitly so in the authorisation—from the gas suppliers themselves. Therefore, the Treasury ought not to be able to put a veto on the amount of money which the director general and the gas council need because it is being paid not by the Treasury—although it may very well be being paid through the Consolidated Fund—but, under Condition 15 of the authorisation, by the suppliers themselves. The amounts of money about which we had no idea in Committee, are specified here and, I am glad to say, they are specified very clearly. Indeed, this is new information which I welcome. However, it poses a different position from that which appertained when we were discussing the matter in Committee. Perhaps the noble Lord will address himself to that aspect.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, with respect I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is mistaken. By leave of the House, perhaps I may say that, as I explained when I originally answered the amendment, Ofgas will be a non-ministerial government department manned by civil servants, and it therefore is inevitable that the Treasury will be directly involved. That is something that we just have to accept, because the Treasury itself, as is its custom in government, would insist that it was involved in order that it could have direct sight of how the money was being spent.
The licence fee will be calculated to cover the costs of the council and of Ofgas and any MMC investigations under the Bill. I should like to correct one thing. When I answered, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, I said that the estimate of staff was up to about 30 for 1985–86.I should have said 1986–87. I am sorry that that mistake was made. The points that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has made, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, do not really make the position any different from that which existed when we debated this matter in Committee. The position so far as the staff is concerned is unchanged.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I found the Minister's reply somewht disappointing, because it is obvious on this side of the House that the structure of the staff of the director is to be a Civil Service affair. That means establishments and all that jazz, and it allows very little flexibility from the point of view of the director in recruiting people with specialist skills to discharge specialist tasks. Let us imagine within the framework of the establishment a situation in which immediately under the director—who, as I understand from information given previously, is to have the rank of a deputy secretary in the Civil Service—the No. 2 in the department is an under-secretary, and that that is virtually the only under-secretary that the Treasury is prepared to authorise within a staffing complement as low as 30 people.
834
Then let us assume that the director, who is a qualified chartered accountant, discovers early in his career that he is no lawyer, and that he badly needs a lawyer not merely to give legal opinions in due course of time but quickly in order that he can respond to the pressures upon him. The job is advertised, but it will have to be advertised within the Civil Service range. If it cannot be advertised at the under-secretary's rate because there is already an under-secretary, it may have to be advertised at the assistant secretary's rate. Whether that will attract someone with the necessary legal experience and capabilities in a highly specialised field of law is open to question.
I make this point by way of illustration to show how inflexible is paragraph 4 of Schedule 1. Those of us on this side have previously expressed doubts about the balance of ability. Whoever is the lawyer in the office of the Director General of Ofgas, he will certainly be up against some fairly highly-skilled legal people in the employ of British Gas plc, to whom these restrictions on salary will certainly not apply. For this reason the competition is beginning to take on a rather one-sided appearance.
I feel that the Government are wrong to resist these amendments, and the arguments they have advanced in defence of their position are somewhat anaemic, to say the least. Nevertheless, I do not propose at this time of night to divide the House, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 64, line 17, leave out ("Treasury as to numbers and") and insert ("Secretary of State as to numbers and of the Treasury as to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment all the more strongly in view of the discussion to which we have just listened. May 1 read the paragraph with the amendment which I propose? It would read:
"The Director may, with the approval of the Secretary of State as to numbers and of the Treasury as to terms and conditions of service, appoint such staff as he may determine."
This is related to a discussion we had previously but is a quite different proposal, and is much strengthened by what the Minister was good enough to say to me a short time ago.
The proposal in this amendment is that the Treasury should continue to be concerned with what is its proper business; and the proper business of the Treasury is the terms and conditions of service. The numbers are not the proper business of the Treasury, and I say that with knowledge that from time to time it has not been the business of the Treasury to determine numbers in cases like this. The Treasury has to have oversight of expenditure, but the numbers from time to time are not part of the Treasury's responsibility.
Ministers opposite will know that this responsibility has gone to and fro from time to time. I am suggesting therefore nothing very novel or revolutionary when I suggest that the Treasury should do the part it is best capable of doing, and that the Secretary of State

835
should do the part that he is best capable of doing. The Secretary of State will know what is required. He will be advised by the director as to what is required, and he will act responsibly in terms of numbers, and then the Treasury will perform its usual job in terms of the financial side. That is the first point I want to make.
The second point is that the numbers which have so far emerged show that it is proposed to run this enormously important establishment with approxi-mately half—half, my Lords!—the staff that Oftel has. It is 30 as against the last authorised number I have of 58, but it is probably about 60 by now. I am open to correction, but that is the information that I believe is accurate and that I am putting to the House. The proportion is about a half.
In my view that is quite impossible. The responsibilities resting on the office of Ofgas will, if anything, be greater and not less than the responsibilities on Oftel. A much bigger task; many more consumers involved; and much more important in the standard of living of the consumers concerned, quite apart from the problem that with Ofgas there is no competition whatever. There is nothing to help the monitor, as competition would, in securing efficiency, whereas in Oftel of course there is. There is Mercury, and we all know that that is designed to encourage—and does in fact encourage—a measure of competition.
Both on grounds of theory and of practice it seems to me superficially—because naturally I have had no opportunity of examining it; we are on the outside and we depend on the Government for advice—that far from the staff being half the size, it should be considerably larger than the staff of Oftel. That is my second point; the anxiety I have as to the question of numbers. If the numbers were to be at the final decision of the Secretary of State, it would still be a very responsible decision but it would be much more objective and have regard to the true need in carrying out this important service of monitoring.
The third point I want to make is that we have been told time and time by the Front Bench opposite that of course there are important responsibilities resting upon the director but that he will have ample opportunity of appointing whoever he wants to do this job and that job. Of course he will not on these numbers.
The first example that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, referred to was that of a legal officer. Of course he would need a legal officer. I have in front of me a copy of the list of Oftel staff and details of the organisation of it. It is divided into branches under the director and the deputy director. There is a director of each branch. Branch 4 is the legal department and there is a director of the legal branch of Oftel. Of course it is necessary to have one such person. All the difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, referred in the discussion on the last amendment would therefore apply.
For those three reasons I think that the director will evidently be in real difficulty if he is limited to the numbers proposed. One can only assume that they have been proposed with a view to saving money and
836
not with a view to carrying out the responsibilities under the Bill. He will be under great difficulty if the provision is left as it is in the Bill. We know that we are not talking about any costs to the Exchequer. That has been made clear. The costs incurred in running the office of director will be recovered from the licence fees charged to the licensed applicants. So no cost falls on the taxpayer at all. Therefore, the Treasury could consider this with a more relaxed mind than might otherwise be the case.
I repeat that I hope the Government will have regard to the needs involved in doing the job, as Ministers have previously mentioned. I hope that the Govern-ment will recognise that the present intended size of staff is wholly inadequate to do a proper job of monitoring, encouraging efficiency and protecting the consumer, and that this amendment therefore is wholly appropriate in an attempt to achieve that. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, once again we are dealing with an area of the Bill which we have already considered in Committee, and which was voted against at that time. However, the noble Lord has raised no new points which have persuaded me that the present provision is in any way likely to give rise to difficulties. As I have explained before, the Government have expressed their clear intention that the office should be properly staffed to meet the demands that will be made on it.
If necessary, the director will have the power to engage staff with special skills. The director will determine the number of staff he needs to fulfil his functions. However, as Ofgas will be a Government department it must be right that the Treasury should be consulted, especially on the Ofgas staffing levels, as part of its overall responsibility for public service manpower. As I pointed out in Committee, the numbers at Oftel have doubled without any restriction from the Treasury, since it obviously takes a realistic view on these matters. I cannot accept the simple comparison with Oftel. For example, the jobs are quite different and the number of staff must reflect the different jobs, but the figure I have given is for 1986–87. If experience shows that this number is not adequate for the tasks, it is possible that the complement will be increased. I can tell the noble Lord that Oftel increased its staff significantly after the first year.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but it would help if the noble Lord could tell us the up-to-date staffing position of Oftel.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I cannot give that figure immediately, but no doubt it will arrive in due course.
There are important differences between telecommunications and the gas industry. Therefore, the two are not wholly comparable. But I use the example for illustrative purposes so that your Lordships will understand the much-maligned Treasury—though it is probably no more maligned now than it was when the

837
noble Lord was Chief Secretary. The Treasury is a department which is maligned because it keeps the tabs on every other department to ensure that they do not spend unnecessarily. I am told that the up-to-date figure for Oftel is approximately 100. So whatever we may say from time to time about the Treasury, it is being realistic in this matter. We have no reason whatever to suspect that it would not be equally realistic with Ofgas. Therefore, I am not persuaded that the amendment is necessary. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider withdrawing it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lord, before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, perhaps I may say that I am becoming just a little confused. I have listened to what the noble Lord has said, but I have also read Condition 15 of the revised authorisation. Condition 15 states:
"The Supplier shall pay the following amounts to the Secretary of State for Energy at the times stated—(a) on 31st March, 1987, or such earlier date as the Secretary of State shall determine upon giving the Supplier not less than 4 weeks' notice, the sum of £3 million, and (b) on 1st April 1987 and on each anniversary thereof (the year beginning on each such date being hereinafter referred to as a 'fiscal year') a renewal fee which shall represent a fair proportion of the costs".
Then it goes on:
"(i) estimated by the Director as being likely to be incurred in that fiscal year in the regulation and enforcement of public gas suppliers' authorisations and in the exercise of his functions under the Act".
And then it continues.
I read that as saying that the director in estimating his costs obviously will be estimating the number of staff that he shall have; and the cost of the number of staff that he shall have will be covered by raising money by way of licence fees from the gas suppliers. Therefore, if that is so under the authorisation, why is it necessary for the Treasury to intervene? In fact, it is explicit in the authorisation that the director is entitled to raise the money by way of licence fee. It is true that it does through the Treasury but the position is rather different from what it was at Committee stage and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, was quite correct to return to it because I think it is necessary, bearing in mind Condition 15, that we should know the position exactly.
Otherwise, it could be that the director estimates a given amount of money and it is raised by way of licence fees and then the Treasury says, "Oh, no! You may have estimated for 100 staff and we have raised the licence fee to cover that 100 staff. But we do not think that you should have 100 staff; you should have only 80. Therefore the money involved in the difference, between 80 and 100 staff, will be paid into the Treasury". The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is quite correct to be a bit cautious and to ask ask for further explanation over and above that which was given to us at Committee in the light of Condition 15.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, by leave of the House, regarding Condition 15, the matter which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has raised, £3 million is the estimate of the 1986–87 costs of Ofgas and the Gas Consumers' Council. For subsequent years, the
838
authorisation fee will cover the costs of Ofgas and the Gas Consumers' Council, but the Treasury has overall control of public sector manpower and costs to ensure that there is no extravagance or unnecessary Civil Service manpower. Is that clear to the noble Lord? Would he like me to repeat it?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I think it is clear. I am wondering what the Treasury will get up to.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I think that the discussion we have had clearly underlines the necessity for a clause of this kind. We are told now—and 1, as usual, have been very modest and have under-estimated the figure—that the figure is not 58 as it used to be at the end of 1984 but is now nearer 100. The Minister says that the proposed staff of ofgas which, I repeat, at first glance would seem to have much more onerous duties than those of oftel, is to be 30—something less than one third of the present staff of Oftel.
I do not know how the Government expect us to believe that this office will be capable of carrying out the duties which are being placed upon it (and on which the Government are relying and asking the country to accept) with a handful of 30 people in staff. It is incredible. It has to cover Scotland, Wales, all the districts of the UK, all the districts into which the gas board is at present divided. It has to cover the whole country, to cover all these responsibilities of improving efficiency, protecting the consumer, with a handful of 30 people looking after the long-term developments of gas—all the problems which we have been discussing for hours at Committee stage. I do not understand it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I am just as puzzled as he is about this staff of 30. Although a figure of £3 million has been mentioned in relation to Condition 15, for the fiscal year beginning 1 st April 1987, the figure shall not exceed £6 million, and after 1st April 1988 it shall not exceed £9 million; so that there is built in here additional costs. I am wondering what is happening to that additional money if we are talking about 30 staff.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am just as puzzled as the noble Lord; but I am, as usual, very cautious about attempting to interpret figures when I do not know what they refer to. All I know is that they refer to more things than the staff of Ofgas. So far as I recollect, they refer to the consumers' council as well, so it may well be that it is contemplated that the consumers' council will build up its responsibilities in the various areas of the country over a period and that the out-of-pocket expenses will be very high. Certainly, if there is going to be only one consumers' council in London, and everybody has to pay fares to get from distant parts of the country to London every time there is a meeting, there will be a huge bill in respect of travelling expenses alone which will run into millions. I do not know how this is made up and I cannot guess. 1 am trained to look at the facts and not to pull them out of the air.

839
If the Minister can help us, that will be fine. Until he can, I am bound to say that common sense means that the staffing of the office of Ofgas, as presently intended, is far too low to enable the Government to implement their undertaking and to enable the director to carry out his enormous heavy responsibilities.
I am asked: what do we do about it at this stage? We are in the difficulty that it is already late at night, but the Government are under this ridiculous pressure of business and want to carry on, no matter how late the night and no matter how few the numbers. As I indicated earlier, I do not want to embarrass the Government by finding out how few supporters they have, so I cannot push the amendment to a Division at the moment. But it may well be that we shall have to come back to this because it is quite impossible to persuade me—and I hope other Members of your Lordships' House—that the director will be able to carry out his functions when he is limited in this way.
I have already indicated that there is no reason for tying the numbers to the Treasury. They have a different and necessary outlook. The Secretary of State is a responsible person and the Government could well accept this amendment without causing embarrassment in any quarter whatsoever. But if the Government are not going to move on this, all I can do is beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, before the amendment is withdrawn, may I say that I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his consideration of the Government's feelings. I can assure him that there is no danger of the Government being embarrassed. If the noble Lord feels that he wants to press this amendment to a Division, then I suggest that he does so. The Government will not be embarrassed in any way. The Government have plenty of people here, and if the noble Lord feels that he must divide then I suggest that he does so.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Presumably, he was not here on the two occasions when the Government did not sustain a House and when, if the matter had been carried to its proper lengths, business would have come to an end earlier than it did. Therefore, I have to have regard for carrying on the business of the Government, even if the Government do not have regard to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32 to 40 and 43 to 45 not moved.]
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 65, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) Any reference in this schedule to the duties and powers of the Director shall be subject to the provisions of section (Directorate of Gas Supply).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 46, with which I think it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 194. This—
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord one minute. May I ask: what
840
about the 20 or so amendments which fall between Amendments Nos. 46 and 194, all of which hang between the two amendments?
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I have already been consulted about this. There are very good reasons why they should be grouped in the way that I invited them to be grouped, and in the way that, so far as I know, they are grouped. We shall have a discussion on Amendments Nos. 46 and 194, a separate discussion on Amendment No. 63, which is a different point; a separate discussion on Amendment No. 109, which is a different point, and then my list does not cover the rest. But there are three more groupings covering the whole of those amendments. That being the case—and I shall have no difficulty in satisfying the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that the most convenient way of dealing with the various amendments is in the way I have indicated and in the way they have been grouped—I am now moving Amendment No. 46 and speaking at the same time to Amendment No. 194, to which this paving amendment leads.
Perhaps I may deal first of all with Amendment No. 194, which is to be found on page 44 of the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 194 proposes a new clause:
"If at any time after the passing of this Act it shall appear to the Secretary of State, whether on representations made to him by the Director or otherwise".
I need not dwell on that. It is obvious that the Secretary of State can either think about it on his own initiative or the director himself can have a word with the Secretary of State or other people can. The amendment continues:
"(a) that in order to protect the interests of consumers or to promote efficiency and economy or to protect the public from dangers or to enable persons to compete effectively, all as described in Section 4(2) above".
In other words, I am not inventing any words at all. I am merely repeating what the Bill—and we have not reached Clause 4(2) yet—provides in terms of protec-tion of the consumer, the promotion of efficiency and so on. I return to the new clause, which reads:
"If at any time after the passing of this Act it shall appear to the Secretary of State …
(b) that in order to enable the Director fully to perform any one or more of the functions assigned to him by this part".
Then I have gone on to list them as they are listed in the Government's annex to their own notes, because I think it is for the convenience of everybody looking at the Bill and considering this to know which duties are being referred to and where they are to be found in the Bill itself. They are listed. So if it appears to the Secretary of State that for either of these two major reasons,
"it is requisite for him so to act, he shall appoint one or more additional Officers of Gas Supply to join with the Director in constituting the Directorate of Gas Supply (in this Act referred to as 'the Directorate') for the purposes referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) above."
One is not inventing any new purposes; they are the purposes laid down in the Bill. They are the responsibility which this Bill puts on the Secretary of State and on the director in protecting the public, encouraging efficiency and so on. Up to now we have endeavoured quite unsuccessfully to persuade the

841
Government that one director will not on his own be able to match up to the responsibilities that are laid upon him and which are repeated here. Those of your Lordships who are good enough to be looking at paragraph (b) of the amendment will see how many duties are laid upon him—a vast number of duties. We believe it is quite impossible for one man to stand up to that total weight of commercialism in order to protect the consumer as is required. We have not been able to convince the Government that that is so.
The Government have said. "No, we believe that one man will be able to do it". But we are then forced back to the position—not that we believe this is right but we know it is all we can do—of saying to the Government, "Just suppose for one second that you can be wrong". It can happen to even the most able of governments that they occasionally make a miscalculation. We are saying to the Government, "Just suppose that you are making a miscalculation in regard to the ability of the director to carry out all the responsibilities that you are laying upon him by statute. Suppose you are wrong, then here is a method of dealing with the situation, at the discretion of the Secretary of State and with no compulsion whatsoever, if, after a period of six months or a year, it becomes obvious that this huge ongoing commercial concern that is British Gas is far too powerful and dynamic for the newly-fledged child of Ofgas to stand up to it, especially as there will be but one officer with a handful of staff who is paid a salary of one-third of the level of the chairman and probably of several members of the board of Ofgas". If it transpires that such is the case, then the Government should welcome the opportunity of putting that situation right.
It is the Government's position that this Bill will not prejudice consumers or gas efficiency. It is the Government's case that, notwithstanding the privatisation of gas, a situation will arise, partly as a result of the appointment of a director to monitor matters and partly as a result of the duties and responsibilities being placed upon him by this Bill, where there will be protection for the consumer; where there will be encouragement and efficiency and all the other duties to which I have referred.
Here is an opportunity for the Government to say, "We thought that there was enough. We thought that we were right in having one person. We thought that we were right in denying the director the help of two assistant directors. We thought that we were right in refusing to consider the American pattern of three commissioners. We thought that we were right in doing all those things, but it has turned out to be the case that the director has insufficient teeth to be able to do his job". I have referred already to writings, to television programmes and to other such points of view joining in the conclusion that we see expressed in many sections of the press that the director of Ofgas had better have more teeth than the director of Oftel if he is to be able to do his job.
That is why I hope that the Government will look kindly upon an amendment that compels them to do nothing but gives an opportunity, if it should turn out to be necessary in the future, to appoint one or more
842
additional officers of gas supplies to join with the director in constituting the directorate ofgas supply. In those circumstances there would be a directorate, that directorate might consist of two people, or three, or four. It might consist of as many people as the Secretary of State was satisfied, on the basis of experience and not of conjecture, there should be.
I hope that the amendment to which I am speaking is seen by the Government as being a thoroughly constructive proposal. However, the amendment that I am moving is Amendment No. 46, to insert at the end of line 10, on page 65 of the Bill, that,
"Any reference in this schedule to the duties and powers of the Director shall be subject to the provisions"
of the section to which I have just referred; namely, the creation in certain circumstances of a directorate of gas supply. The particular reference here is at line 10 on page 65. It is at the end of Schedule 1 and refers to all the duties described in that schedule which are imposed on the Director General of Gas Supply. That is a start.
There are many other duties contained in the Bill. Some of them are of a parallel nature and some are of a separate and extremely onerous nature and require separate discussion and decision. So far as the responsibilities mentioned in Schedule 1 are concerned, I hope that the Government will feel that it may be necessary to give themselves the freedom of action which is provided for in this amendment. It is in that spirit that I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, I appeal to the House to support this eminently sensible and reasonably argued amendment.
The Government are taking the nation into an entirely uncharted sea with this Bill. The argument that we have all heard for decades from the Conservative side and that we all learned in our studies of basic economics is that competition could and should produce efficiency and the best deal for the consumer. There is a strong argument to be made for that.
But we on this side of the House are deeply disturbed at the risk the Government are taking with tens of millions of consumers in feeding them to this new monster of a privately-owned monopoly; or, as it has been called on previous occasions, this Dracula, waiting to get its fangs into the jugular of the housewife. The situation facing the sales managers of the new public limited company must be making the mouths of every salesman water. There is this huge public supply to which millions of households are committed and as soon as they wish to buy any device which depend on gas they must do so from British Gas plc.
Tens of millions of devices will be sold, but who is to protect the housewife? There will be a staff" of only 33 against the many sales points suggested. The odds are overwhelmingly in favour of the company. I beg the Government to reflect on Cromwell's words: "Consider ye might be wrong". This pitiful barrier of

843
33 may prove to be totally inadequate. How ashamed the Government will be if hundreds of thousands of cases are queuing up, unresolved and unrequited.
This amendment very reasonably does not force the Government to increase the number of staff to protect the public, but simply keeps the option open so that any future Minister will not be able to say, "I cannot increase the staff. I am bound by statute". It gives the Minister a little extra power to use for the protection of the poor British housewife whose future is at stake in this Bill. I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the eloquent case made by my noble friend.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, we have already explained at some length why we believe that the right course is to appoint an independent regulatory body which will of course have at its head a well qualified and experienced director. He will be supported by the number of staff necessary for the fulfilment of its functions.
The director of Ofgas will be the head of a non-ministerial government department and will be able to negotiate additional staff with the Treasury on equal terms with any permanent secretary. Therefore it is not necessary to provide for the Secretary of State's intervention. It is of course likely that, as in the case of Oftel, a deputy director will be appointed, but for reasons that we have already fully explored and explained we do not believe that it would be either right or necessary to go further than this.
Perhaps I may again remind your Lordships that the numbers at Oftel have doubled since it was first set up. As I said a little earlier, it would be the Government's clear intention to ensure that Ofgas is properly staffed to carry out all its functions effectively. We believe that we have provided in the Bill for a strong and effective regulatory body with the appropriate machinery for the appointment of staff. Therefore I must invite the noble Lord to accept that the Government have recognised the best interests of consumers in these arrangements and perhaps he will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, before the noble Lord considers whether or not he will withdraw his amendment, I must say that it was quite interesting to hear from the Benches which he occupies the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who said at an earlier stage of this Bill that the position of the consumer under a monopoly has never been solved and nothing satisfactory has ever been devised. My view is that surely we are now moving into the uncharted waters of privatisation of the gas industry, but I should have thought that with the Ofgas directorate in position and the clear guidelines that it is given, we are moving into an area which, with those safeguards, we should do well to explore.
Lord Diamond: Whatever that means, my Lords. The position is, as has truly been stated, that we are moving into uncharted waters. So far as I am aware it has never previously been the case that gas has been a single entity in private hands. It has either been under the limitations of control by its constitution, or under dividend limitations and so on. Price control has been
844
effected through dividend and profit limitation rather than in any other way. So far as I am aware it has never been a wholly private sector business—one single business running the whole of the gas supply industry and serving, therefore, all the 167 million consumers in this country—never.
That being the case, surely one ought to provide for eventualities. That is all I am saying. It is the Government's present view that one person can do the job. That is not our view, and it is not the view held outside this Chamber. Even if we were wholehearted Government supporters, we must not convince ourselves that people outside the Chamber take the same view as Government supporters in this Chamber. Far from it. They take the view that the Oftel arrangement is unsatisfactory and that, as they put it, "For Heaven's sake, if you are going to do the same with gas, then give Ofgas more teeth than Oftel". That is the view that they take.
All that the Government are proposing in substan-tiation of that view is to reduce the staff that Oftel finds necessary by two-thirds. The suggestion is preposterous, however much the number of staff increases in the future—and we have no assurance about that and no assurance that the director will be free to have his and the Secretary of State's responsible views as to increases in staff carried into effect. However, we are asked to believe that that is a possible way to carry out the Government's undertakings to protect the consumer and to promote the efficiency of gas. That is quite incredible.
I am sorry that the Government are so adamant. The amendment puts no compulsion whatsoever on them. It does not require them at any stage to do anything different from what they would have done had the amendment not been in the Bill. The amendment imposes no compulsion. If the amendment is adopted into statute, nobody could ask in five years' time, "Why did you not do so and so?". The Government can say that they did not want to, they thought it best and it was their view not to do anything different. It puts no compulsion whatsoever on them. It gives them a freedom that they may wish they had. More than that, it gives a future government a freedom which they may wish they had.
If the Government continue to insist on privatising gas in a way that is wholly unacceptable to the other half of the country, they must not be surprised if at some future date a Labour Government come to power and say, "This was totally objectionable to us. We shall reverse it".
Lord Gray of Contin: Whose side is the noble Lord on, my Lords?
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am on the side of the Alliance; I am on the side of reason, compromise and good sense. I am on the side of those who believe that no government ought to act as if they had such a steamrollering majority that it entitled them to steamroller every possible opposition and every suggestion. That is the side that I am on.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords—
Lord Diamond: I shall give way in a moment, my Lords. The noble Lord has asked for the view of the Alliance on the problem of the privatisation of gas and other privatisations. Our view is that a government with the enormous power that this one have in both Houses should exercise it with restraint and have regard to the future. They should not force the country into the situation which we have, and of which we are all sick and tired, of nationalising and privatising, nationalising and privatising. That is our position.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords—
Lord Diamond: I shall give way, my Lords. I have not forgotten. 1 do not have such a bad memory. The noble Lord will be patient, I am sure. We have lots of time. It is not yet a quarter to ten. That is the view of the Alliance. I wish that that view could be taken on board by a government who are acting in the most power-sick way that I have ever known any government to act. I shall now gladly give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the noble Lord said that the policy of a future Alliance Government, if such were to happen, would be to renationalise the gas industry?
Lord Diamond: My Lords, if the noble Lord thought that I said that, I can understand why he is incapable of answering sensibly any of the amendments we have put forward. He is incapable of listening to what has been said. I never said one word about that. I was not vague; I was precise. I was talking about a future Labour Government. We have to contemplate that; it is a possibility. Whether or not it is welcome is a different matter. But a Labour Government may come
846
to power and decide that a Tory Government had been obstinate and onesided—indeed, pigheaded—and had insisted in refusing every possible amendment, however reasonable, and forcing down the throats of Parliament a Bill which takes away the protection of Parliament from 16½ million consumers. If the Government are so determined to do that, they must not be surprised if another government take an opposite view.
I said if a Labour Government were to do that. The noble Lord encourages me to say what an Alliance Government would do. The Alliance, as has been said many times, is totally objective about nationalisation and privatisation. Each case must be considered on its merits. The onus of proving it must be on those who wish to change. If an industry were in private hands, and there were a proposal to nationalise it, those who proposed to nationalise it would have the onus of proving the case. That is what happened when gas was nationalised in the first place. There was a huge inquiry. The Heywarth Committee was set up to look into the gas industry as it was then being run. It was not being run within the private sector.
The committee reported in favour of nationalisation and that is what happened. I hope that I have answered the noble Lord. I hope that he is fully informed as to Alliance policy even if he is not fully informed as to the amendments which we are moving. I am sorry that he is not prepared to accept the amendment. In the circumstances, I must await a more suitable opportunity to impress our view upon the Government. In the meantime, if no other noble Lord wants to intervene, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Belstead: Not content.
On Question, amendment negatived.
9.45 p.m.
Clause 2 [The Gas Consumers' Council]:
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 2, line 20, at end insert ("together with the Chairman of the Regional Gas Council for Scotland, the Chairman of the Regional Council for Wales and four Regional Chairmen of the Regional Gas Councils in England who shall serve in rotation in accordance with a scheme prepared by the Regional Gas Councils for England and approved by the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is convenient to take with this amendment Amendments Nos. 48, 56 and 57. Amendment No. 48 is a purely consequential amendment. Amendment No. 56 lays down duties for the regional gas consumer councils, and Amendment No. 57 constitutes the councils. Your Lordships will recall that in Committee we had a significant discussion about regional consumer councils. At that time the Government's view was that regional councils were not appropriate to the new, privatised British Gas, and would in any event be too large and unwieldy. I think that summarises the Government's case in Committee.
I have always tried to be helpful, as noble Lords opposite know. When the Government are in difficulty over something I try to get them out of that difficulty. That is precisely what I have tried to do with this series of amendments. I listened to the Government's argument in Committee, and although I did not necessarily agree with them, I have tried to meet their arguments and criticisms. First, I have limited the number of regional council chairmen who would serve on the Gas Consumers' Council. I have also limited the number of members of regional councils to a maximum of 20 plus the chairman.
In Amendment No. 56 I have identified the duties of the regional councils. One of the duties that I have included is that of appointing local committees or representatives in accordance with a scheme approved by the Secretary of State. I have tried my best to meet all the objections which were raised in Committee.
I hope, having done my homework and drafted these new amendments, that the Government may feel able to accept them. Without repeating all the arguments made at Committee stage, there are very good reasons for maintaining the regional councils. First, British Gas has said that it will maintain its regional organisation intact after privatisation. It seems logical therefore that there should be regional councils to follow the regions that will still exist when British Gas is privatised. Secondly, regional councils can recruit people from a wide range of interests who have knowledge of the regions, because they live there, and of the problems related to the regions. Thirdly, the opportunity is given to people, on a voluntary basis, to assist their fellows, and points of contact can be maintained between the gas industry and consumers at grass roots level. I would have thought that this would commend itself to every noble Lord present.
We should take into account the fact that the regional councils have worked very well without complaint for the last 40 years. Indeed, they have done
848
a valuable and useful job for gas consumers and the gas industry during that time. That is again something that we should take into account. Why sweep away organisations that have done such a good job of work over such a long time? That seems to me quite ridiculous and absurd. We should not do it. That is why I am giving the House the opportunity to reconsider the matter at this stage.
I believe that there is a need for some other body than the national Gas Consumers' Council. It is frankly absurd to centralise in this way. That is what we are doing. We are saying to the regional councils and to the local committees that they are to be abolished and that everything will be done at national level. There is a great danger in having just one central body. There is the danger that a cosy relationship will develop between the national Gas Consumers' Council and British Gas plc, and if we have regional councils with local committees, that simply would not be allowed to happen and could not happen. This is another good reason for retaining regional councils.
Following this amendment, we shall be discussing Amendment No. 49 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, which deals with regional representation on the national council and later, Amendment No. 59, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, which deals with local representation. I must not at this stage discuss those amendments in detail. They are not grouped with mine. I am, however, entitled to say that they are in no way a substitute for what I propose and that they do not reflect the need for a proper regional representative structure.
I have been brief because we must get on with our business. We have much to do tonight. I feel sure that the House does not want to stay up all night. I am prepared to do so, as, no doubt, the noble Lord and also the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, are prepared to do so. We are used to it, but there are others who are not used to it. We must have some consideration for them.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Hear, hear!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, my Lords; I was looking at, and thinking about, the noble Baroness. I appreciate the enormous effort that she puts in, in particular in respect of matters relating to gas and energy. We have consideration for her. I have therefore moved the amendment very briefly. I hope that noble Lords, having listened to the arguments, will accept them and will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment which has been proposed. At a later stage—I hope not tonight—we shall reach Amendment No. 196 in my name, which deals with the regional structure of the organisation. However, tonight we are specifically dealing with the regional structure of the consumer council. While the Bill goes some way to meet the requirements of the noble

849
Lord—that the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of having members familiar with the special requirements—this amendment makes it quite specific that the regions with their own separate problems will have representation in the central body and that the regional councils will continue to exist.
I do not need to describe to the Minister con-cerned—he has just left, although he was on the Front Bench a moment ago, and who was Member for a constituency in the far north of Scotland—the special problems of that area, which are quite distinct from those of other parts of the United Kingdom. I know that Scottish Peers who are present tonight will appreciate this point. It is important that the gas consumer council dealing with these special problems should continue to exist on a local basis. There is nothing revolutionary about this. We are creating a private monopoly in this case. But in the case of state monopolies it is already provided for in the constitutions of British Rail. I had the pleasure of being the Chairman of British Railays in Scotland for a number of years. Why was there a British Railways Board? Because we were close—much closer than Marylebone—to the problems of Scotland and the problems of distribution, transport, rural transport and so on. So we created that separate organisation.
The same is true of broadcasting. They have local regional boards for broadcasting. The IBA and BBC have Scottish boards because they know that they are exercising a monopoly service and that they should reflect local interest and concern. This is true also of the Post Office structure, which has regional consumers' organisations, which make represent-ations to them on local matters. Quite apart from the state monopolies, most of the large building societies recognise that in these areas there are special problems and situations and almost all of them have local consumer boards on representation in their structure. The banks also do it.
We are now creating a private monopoly. In these circumstances it is all the more important that that private monopoly should not abuse its power and that the consumers' organisation—which are already doing a first-class job in this industry—should continue to exist on a regional basis. I would hope that the Government will see the wisdom of this proposal.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, noble Lords made reference to the more remote parts of the United Kingdom and the way in which the problems are different. We do not want to repeat the arguments. I know that the rules of the House are that one does not repeat arguments at length on Report. We have discussed all this already at Committee stage.
We need to remind ourselves that what we are now setting up is not a state monopoly. It does not have the attitude of mind of the state monopolies. The problems of the state monopolies are different from the problems that there will be with a private monopoly. It will be very important to have access to local opinion from time to time. I am interested to see that there are amendments down to do this in a flexible way. It will be the greatest mistake to perpetuate the enormous network of gas consumer councils, excellent
850
though they be. I have never been on one, but they are quite excellent. However, there is no need for them. To create that structure would be a waste of many people's efforts. Personally, I hope very much that we shall not accept the amendments.
10 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, these amendments are seeking once again to maintain the existing structure of gas consumer representation, although they have gone a step further in providing for the regional chairmen, other than for Scotland and Wales, to serve on the national body on a rotational basis, and in defining the role of and a reporting structure for the proposed regional councils.
First, I am grateful that the noble Lord. Lord Stoddart, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, have made it quite clear that the objective of the amendments is to continue with the structure as we know it today. My noble friend Lady Carnegy has put very briefly the argument in the opposite sense; namely, that a rigid regionalised structure, which we debated at the previous stage of the Bill, is something which we believe we can improve upon. Of course. it is right to remember that that is also what the chairman of the Gas Consumers' Council felt She gave evidence to that effect in another place. My understanding is that the existing national Gas Consumers' Council thinks in the same way.
It was very much against the background of that evidence given to the Select Committee by the chairman of the Gas Consumers' Council and after consultation between the Department of Energy and the Department of Trade and Industry (which is and will remain the department ultimately responsible for consumer matters) that we came to the decision that the representation and protection of consumer interests would be more effective under the more flexible structure that we are proposing in Clause 2. That structure would be set up only after consultation with the regional council offices which is currently under way, and as a result of the work being undertaken in the organising committee of the new council.
There is a little more to the story than that. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was characteristically very fair when he mentioned that, in response to views expressed during the Committee stage, we have sought to clarify how the interests of consumers at regional level may best be met. I believe that those interests will be properly protected by the next amendment, which is to be moved by my noble friend Lady Macleod. I am referring to Amendment No. 49. We are also bringing forward, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned, Amendment No. 59, in response to the case made by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes in Committee to provide for local representation of the Gas Consumers' Council.
Therefore, there is no difference between all of us in the House on the importance of a grass-roots link with consumers in all parts of the country. The aim of our proposals is to provide a body which can provide speedy and effective help. However, I have to say that we on this side of the House believe that there are strong consumer arguments in favour of moving away from a rigid, statutory structure. It was my hope that,

851
on reflection, your Lordships would agree that the amendments which we have yet to reach would meet the case and would render this group of amendments unnecessary.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for his support. He has experience of the difficulties which may be caused when there is no local organisation to deal with local problems. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, that the problems that will arise when the gas industry is privatised will be different. However, they will be no less acute and they will certainly not concern local customers any less than they do now. Indeed, the problem consumers will find is that whereas previously they used to be able to go to the regional council or to their local representative and, of course, to their Member of Parliament—there were three avenues of approach—under the Bill they will have nowhere to go other than to the Gas Consumers' Council. The local customers are being robbed in three ways of their representative rights.
The situation is different. I cannot imagine—and I do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, imagines—that the privatised gas industry is going to think better of its customers than the nationalised gas industry does. The privatised gas industry will be compelled to maximise its profits, and it may well do so at the expense of the customers. Therefore, the customers need more protection and not less.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, quoted the chairman of the previous national Gas Consumers' Council, who of course is Mrs. Sheila Black. He said that she was against keeping regional councils. She was about to be appointed chairman of the new Gas Consumers' Council, so "She would be against them, wouldn't she?" After all, it was in her interests to be against them because she was going to be the chairman of the new council, and she knew it.
Even more important than that, the lady spoke for herself. She certainly did not speak for the regional councils because most of them—and indeed my own South Western Regional Council—disowned her. They disowned her in public and in writing by resolution. Therefore, that is no argument that the noble Lord puts up. It is no argument against the reasonable case that I put forward that the chairman of the existing national Gas Consumers' Council is against the retention of regional councils. That is no argument. That is an argument on my side, because if she wants to centralise then we should beware. We ought to beware of centralisation generally. There is too much of it, and far too much of it under this Government. This Government are worse than Henry VII. They seem to want to centralise everything—local government, and now the regional gas consumers' councils. It is not good enough.
There is a good case to be made for the retention of these councils. I believe I made it, and I believe that they should continue. This is an important amendment, and I appeal to noble Lords to have regard to what I have said, to have some consideration for the future needs of gas consumers, and to support this amendment, which I am bound to press to a Division.
10.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 47) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 47.

DIVISION NO.5

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kagan, L.

Blease, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

[Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Simon, V.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ezra, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Gallacher, L.

Whaddon, L. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hacking, L.

Willis, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jeger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Bauer, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mar, C.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Burton, L.

Onslow, E.

Caithness, E.

Pender, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Polwarth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Crathorne, L.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sandford, L.

Elton, L.

Shannon, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Gisborough, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Ullswater, V.

Halsbury, E.

Windlesham, L.

Hives, L.

Wise, L.

Hooper, B.

Wynford, L.

Ingrow, L.

Young, B.

Kimball, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Agreed in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
10.17 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve Baroness Macleod of Borve moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 2, line 22, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 24 and insert ("so far as practicable, ensure—

(a) that the members of the Council include members who, by reason of their familiarity with the special requirements and circumstances of the different areas of Great Britain or of small businesses, are able together to represent the interests of consumers of gas supplied through pipes in all those areas and of such businesses; and

(b) that the interests of consumers of gas supplied through pipes in different areas are represented by different members wherever that appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate having regard to the manner in which the various parts of the gas supply industry in Great Britain organize themselves.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are now on Clause 2. With your Lordship's permission, I feel that I must say one or two words about how this

853
amendment arose in my name. Noble Lords who were here on the Committee stage will probably remember that I moved an amendment to Clause 2, from which I hoped that the Secretary of State would be able to appoint regional chairmen to be members of the national Gas Consumers' Council. My noble friend the Minister in his reply drew my attention to the fact that my amendment was incorrectly worded. He said that he would help to draft something which we all wanted to be put into the Bill; and, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has said, it is absolutely essential.
But, unfortunately, the words that I used were incorrect. The first word was "regional". That was because the word "region" is not on the face of the Bill. "British Gas" is not on the face of the Bill. "The supplier" is what is alluded to on the face of the Bill. It was for that reason that my noble friend the Minister gave me his helpful advice so as to put forward this particular amendment instead this evening. It is more complicated than the one that I put forward. It is not perhaps in my normal language, but it is in parliamentary language. I think it covers completely the ground that I wanted to cover originally in that the Secretary of State will be asked to appoint people who have specialised knowledge of certain areas to sit on the national Gas Consumers' Council.
The reason why British Gas, and anything to do with that body, is not mentioned in the Bill is, as I understand it, that British Gas might alter considerably in the next 20 or 25 years and it is felt—in my view, absolutely rightly—that to tie the future organisers of gas to a word like "regions" might be wrong. They are now called regions, which is why several noble Lords have already referred to the regions of British Gas, and indeed to what is coterminous—the regions of the national Gas Consumers' Council. But in view of the fact that the regions will perhaps not exist in the future and, as I have said, they are not on the face of the Bill, I have tabled this amendment with the help of my noble friend.
I am certain that everybody who has had anything to do with British Gas, or with the national Gas Consumers' Council, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, so very rightly and eloquently said, realises that the regional structure, and the people representing the various parts of this country on that council, do an excellent and necessary job. I am told that it is the intention of British Gas plc to continue with the representation, although it will not be tied and it will be more flexible, and that the representatives from the various parts of the country will be appointed by the Secretary of State.
It is a complicated matter and I felt that I owed it to those who knew that I wanted this structure—if that is the right word—to be part of the Bill, even temporarily, to move this amendment. I hope that the Minister will agree to accept it. I think it is couched in terms that are acceptable to the parliamentary draftsman and that it can be put in the Bill. Noble Lords will notice that the authorisation has been changed very slightly and that Condition 12, which is to do with the consumers' interests, has also been changed. When we hear the Minister I think he will be able to tell us that the codes of practice which are now
854
enshrined in the authorisation will meet all the problems about this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we must be very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, for moving this amendment. She has shown consistently very great interest in these affairs and we must honestly pay her very great tribute for trying very hard to get something acceptable to all sides of your Lordships' House.
I have certain problems with the drafting. I hope that the noble Baroness will excuse me, because I mean no offence, and I am not sure to whom I should address the problems I have on the drafting, but perhaps I should start with the noble Lord. Lord Belstead. I have precisely 11 points which I should like to raise on the drafting of this amendment. First, what is the meaning of the expression "so far as practicable", when the Secretary of State "shall, so far as practicable, ensure"? I wonder whether the noble Lord could enlighten me as to exactly in what circumstances it should be considered practicable, and in what circumstances it should be considered impracticable.
My second point is that in paragraph (a) of the amendment the "members of the Council" shall include members. We are not clear from this—and perhaps the noble Lord can give us some guidance—about how many members: what proportion of the council might be composed from members appointed under this amendment. Arc there going to be 153 members of the council with two members appointed under the amendment? What proportion does the noble Lord have in mind?
My next point is on the question of familiarity. What does "familiarity" mean? The noble Baroness when she introduced her amendment said, I think, that they would come from the areas in question. There is no reference in the amendment to the fact that their geographical origin should be from the areas in question. They should be familiar with the areas in question, and familiarity can take a number of different forms. Some of us would claim familiarity with all sorts of areas and all sorts of businesses on a fairly superficial plane. I hope very much that the noble Lord may be able to enlighten us on that.
Then there is a point of English on the question of different areas. I was always brought up to believe that something was different from something else. You cannot simply say that there are different areas. You can say that there are various areas, there are regions, but for something to be different it has to differ from something. Will the noble Lord ask the draftsmen whether they can possibly correct what I regard as a slight misuse of the Queen's English?
Then we come to the small businesses. As I understand the amendment, it is members who—and I shall paraphrase the amendment for the sake of convenience—are familiar with the special require-ments of areas or small businesses. It is to me unclear whether these members are going to be both familiar with areas and the small businesses; or, alternatively, familiar with one or the other, in which case one would wish to know how many members were going to be familiar with small businesses and how many

855
members were going to be familiar with the areas. I think the noble Lord will wish to comment on that.
My next point is that they will act together. Paragraph (a) says,
"are able together to represent the interests of consumers".
Does this mean that they will act as a body on the council? Does this mean that they will be required in some way to co-ordinate their advice and their votes on the consumer council, or is that an expression which perhaps is a little superfluous? Perhaps the noble Lord will enlighten us on that.
Then there is the expression,
"in all those areas and of such businesses".
Again I come back to more or less the same point as I made before. Are these members required to act together in both those areas and those businesses; or can some members act for some areas and others for some businesses? The amendment is unspecific on the question and we should like to know more about it.
Paragraph (b) uses the expression "different areas" but then it goes on to say that those should be represented by "different members". Does this mean that there is one member for each area? Does this mean that different areas which differ one from another will be represented by members who differ one from another? What is the meaning of this?
My tenth point concerns the "various parts" in the penultimate line of the amendment,
"the various parts of the gas supply industry".
Are we to assume because of this amendment that the gas supply industry in Great Britain is going in some way to divide itself up into various parts? If so, perhaps the noble Lord will be able to enlighten us on what these "various parts" are or might in the course of time become.
Lastly, there are the last two words in the amendment "organise themselves". It appears from the amendment that it is now envisaged that,
"the various parts of the gas supply industry",
will be able to organise themselves. I am quite unclear from all I have heard—and I have sat through a number of debates on this Bill—that we have any authorisation for the various parts of the industry to start organising themselves. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord would kindly illuminate me on these points.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Baroness for moving this amendment. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, reminded me of someone trying to do a Latin unseen, and I must say that I have some sympathy with the points that he has raised. I look forward to hearing the detailed answers from my noble friend Lord Belstead.
I have only one question to put to my noble friend before he replies. In this I believe I have the sympathy of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, because I too have concern for matters north of the border. Am I to understand, among all the difficulties of trying to comprehend the parliamentary draftsman's wording, that we are to have regional representation from all
856
parts of Great Britain? Is that the intention behind all of this? I should like to have confirmation of that. I know that we are not allowed to talk about amendments that are to follow, but if that is the case, then in combination with Amendment No. 59, that seems to satisfy many of the needs that those of us north of the border have so far as concerns consumer councils.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I greatly enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, but more as an entertainment than anything else. I rise to support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Macleod, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will in his reply make clear that he does not wish to define too precisely some of the words and phrases, as requested by the speaker from the Opposition Benches.
Flexibility in the way in which members are appointed, and the choice of those to be appointed, are matters that should be left open so that any individual who may be perfect for the job can be selected. The more that these matters are dealt with in specific terms, the more limited the Minister will be in choosing the right people. Also, the person who may be right for the appointment one year, may be different from the type of person who would be right for appointment some years ahead, when the reappointments are due to be made. I hope that in answering the points raised on this amendment, my noble friend the Minister will accept the amendment and will not tie himself to any inflexible structure of the kind for which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, might wish.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in Committee on 8th May my noble friend Lady Macleod, supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, moved Amendment No. 20 calling for tighter wording on regional representation on the Gas Consumers' Council. In debate on an earlier amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, the Committee had established there was all-party support for such a change. The noble Lord opposite asked the Government to consider also changing the indirect words,
"the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of having members",
to something more direct.
While I was unable to accept the noble Lord's amendment on that occasion, I readily agreed to take away the consensus view that regional representation at a national level was a desirable aim and to consider how that could best be expressed on the face of the Bill.
Also, in Committee on 11th June, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, tabled Amendment No. 133, which also attracted all-party support, concerning advice for the director on matters affecting small businesses. On that occasion my noble friend Lord Gray was unable to accept the amendment as it stood, but he agreed to take that subject away for future consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, made the suggestion that it might be possible to appoint to the Gas Consumers' Council a member with special knowledge of the interests of small businesses.
Amendment No. 49 represents further consideration on those two matters—regional representation

857
and the interests of small businesses. It represents also a certain amount of discussion that has gone on with my noble friend Baroness Macleod and the Government between the two most recent stages of the Bill. However, I must make it clear that this is my noble friend's amendment. She is very much to be thanked, together with the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for bringing forward the original amendment.
I hope, despite the difficult questions that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has posed, that the Committee will feel that Amendment No. 49 fits the bill. Paragraph (a) provides that in appointing members of the council the Secretary of State shall "so far as practicable", and so on. That means he will take steps to secure proper representation if this is practicable, taking into account various factors such as an efficient size for a council of this nature. In other words, he could not be forced to take into account things which were clearly impracticable.
To return to paragraph (a), it provides that my right honourable friend shall, so far as practicable, ensure that members shall include, first, people who are able to represent the interests of small businesses, and, secondly, people who are familiar with the special requirements and circumstances of different areas of Great Britain, so that those members together are able to represent the interests of all gas consumers in Great Britain.
I shall come back later to one or two of the other questions on paragraph (a). As regards paragraph (b), I shall try to answer the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in this way. Paragraph (b) provides that the Secretary of State is to ensure also that he has regard (again, so far as practicable) to the way in which the industry is organised in making appointments so that different areas may be separately represented. This will enable recognition to be given to the particular interests of consumers in specific areas—for example, those with a particular terrain and with dispersed population —where this is reflected in British Gas's regional organisation. In other words, the regions of British Gas in the future can be represented on the Gas Consumers' Council by statutory right on the face of the Bill.
My noble friend Lady Macleod explained why the amendment is tortuous. It is because we cannot, in this part of the Bill, refer to the regions of British Gas. Part I of the Bill does not refer to British Gas. It refers only to public gas suppliers. We cannot, in Part I, start referring to British Gas or the regions of British Gas. However, I assure my noble friend Lord Sanderson that it is the intention of my right honourable friend to appoint separate members to represent the interests of gas consumers in each of the British Gas regions. I repeat what I said a moment ago, that the sum total of this amendment is that by statutory right, if my noble friend's amendment is accepted, the regions of British Gas can be individually represented on the Gas Consumers' Council.
Before I conclude, may I quickly try to pick up one or two of the questions—
Lord Diamond: My Lords —
Lord Belstead: My Lords, may I finish before giving way? Otherwise I am in some difficulty.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked a string of questions. On the issue of how many members, the advice of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes is wise. We want to leave as much flexibility as possible, provided there is the assurance that there will be representation for each of the regions—and that is the intention—on the Gas Consumers' Council.
The noble Lord asked why the word "familiarity" was used, because that means that the person should be acquainted with the special requirements and circumstances of different areas. There are, of course, a number of different areas in Great Britain and this is what the amendment refers to; but it occurs to me that, again, one needs a certain flexibility in the wording. It could be that somebody is familiar with an area because he lives there but possibly does not work there. That might be the reason. The noble Lord asked what "acting together" meant. I think I have already answered that in what I have said.
Finally, on the reference to different areas, the intention is that there should be a member for each British Gas region. I am repeating myself but I believe it is worth doing so. I wish we could have used the word "region", because I think that my noble friend Lady Macleod would have liked it much better, but I advised her in conversations that the word "region" was something which I thought would run us into difficulties. My noble friend accepted that advice when drafting her amendment, and that is the reason why the word "areas" is used in the particular amendment that my noble friend has brought forward.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I am most grateful to him for his response, but does he recognise that in his statement he has more or less completely rewritten the whole amendment? Does he think it possible to take the amendment back again and ask the parliamentary draftsman to look at it and to draft it in slightly clearer terms for Third Reading? Is this not a fair request? The noble Lord has given us a lot of extra information about the amendment which we did not have before. We will take his word as a Minister and accept the assurance that he has given, but I would ask whether it would not be proper to have it on the face of the Bill.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he be good enough to clarify the point that he was making and say what he contemplates or imagines will be the size of the council, having regard to both regional representatives and other interests? Can he give us some idea of the number—between two figures, what will be the total number of the council?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, just before I come to that particular question, may I say incidentally that on the question of flexibility there was a specific question which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked me about small businesses. It was the same sort of question again: what would be the amount of representation?
Here again I must take the question absolutely head on. This point is deliberately left vague by my noble friend. The point is that as of right small businesses should have statutorily on the face of the Bill a

859
representation on the council. Let us not forget that there is statutory representation on the council for disabled people, which results from one of the schedules. I do not think that I have heard anyone complain that there might only be one representative as a result of that. Therefore I do not think that we ought to overplay the fact that small businesses might have representation of only one or two people. My advice is that we would think of the council as consisting of up to about 25 members.
Before I sit down, may I say finally that this is the amendment of my noble friend Lady Macleod? However, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked the Government a direct question as to whether, for our part, we should advise that the amendment ought to be brought back again. I think that nobody knows better than my noble friend Lady Macleod that there has been a certain amount of agony over how to draft what appeared to be a very simple point. I warned my noble friend Lady Macleod during the Committee stage that there was a drafting difficulty. If I remember rightly on that occasion I said that we could not refer in the Bill—at least not in Part I—to the "regions of British Gas" because British Gas is not mentioned in Part I; only public gas suppliers are mentioned, and therefore there was a drafting problem.
In discussions with my noble friend I think she kindly took on board that it was really quite difficult to draft this amendment to get what was wanted. I shall certainly have a word through the official channels with the parliamentary draftsman and draw his attention, so far as the Government are concerned, to what has been said in this short debate. But if my noble friend Lady Macleod wishes to put the amendment to the House, as I very much hope she will, then I hope that we shall get it on to the face of the Bill.
May I end by saying on behalf of the Government that this amendment achieves one simple point, which we promised the House that we would try to achieve? By moving this amendment my noble friend is achieving it: namely, by statutory right there can be regional representation on the new Gas Consumers' Council.
Lord Diamond: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I do not know what the cries of "Order!" are about. I have not spoken so far on this amendment.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the noble Lord has intervened.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I intervened once to ask for clarification while the Minister was on his feet. I do not know if that counts as a speech; if it does not, then, not having spoken, I seek the leave of the House to speak now.
I was merely going to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, that she deserves the congratulations of the House for the endeavours that she has put into this amendment and the hard work that has gone into it.
860
I say to the Government and to my noble friend Lord Hanworth, who is also closely interested in the matter, that, frankly, I well understand the difficulty of the wording. We are pleased that the point has been raised and that the Minister has promised to have another word with the draftsman. I hope that the noble Baroness presses the amendment and that the House accepts it. It is a step, or perhaps two steps, forward. It does not go anything like the distance that we want. But they are two tiny steps forward. To that extent we are grateful to the Government.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I thank my noble friends Lady Gardner and Lord Sanderson very much indeed for their support, and I also thank noble Lords on the other side of the House, despite the fact that, quite rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, did not go along with all the wording of the amendment. He might have done better with the drafting, but I did my best.
I also thank my noble friend the Minister very much indeed for agreeing to the amendment. It seems to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s, or whatever one does. At this time of night, in this dark and gloomy Chamber, it is difficult to know what one is doing. I am most grateful to him for accepting the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 2, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) The Council shall have the power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the performance of any of its functions under this Act")
The noble Lord, said: My Lords, I gather that it would also be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 52, 53, 55 and 60. Amendment No. 51 merely transfers from the schedule to the Bill itself a most important statement about the council's powers:
"The Council shall have power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate — the performance of any of its functions under this Act".
Those are very wide powers indeed. With respect to the draftsman and to the Government, it seems to me that those powers are so important that they should be incorporated in the body of the Bill and not left in a schedule where they might be overlooked or might be thought to have less than their full power. In my experience it is not normal to have powers like that put in a schedule. Details of pay and so on are appropriate to a schedule, but a main statement of the powers of the council should go into the body of the Bill. That is the purpose of the first amendment.
Amendment No. 52 reads:
"if at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that the represent-ation of consumers throughout Great Britain or their ease in voicing individual complaints, can be improved by providing additional facilities, he shall, after full consultation, take such steps as appear to him appropriate for those purposes".
The purpose of this amendment is fairly plain. It is to enable individuals who have complaints to know where to go to voice them, or where to write or to ring up—to have human contact. If at any time the Secretary of State feels that the present representations

861
are inadequate and that they can be improved by providing additional facilities, he shall do so. He shall take such steps as appear to him appropriate for those purposes.
It is not putting an obligation on the Secretary of State to do anything other than to think about it, and he shall do that after full consultation. That means what it says; consulting all the bodies which are relevant and which ought to be consulted. The amendment is necessary because in the future the present arrangements may not appear to be adequate. I do not think that they are adequate. The Government must think that they are, because they are not providing for anything else. As a safeguard, I should have thought that it was asking little of the Government to ask them to accept an amendment which does not compel the Secretary of State but which enables him to improve the representation of consumers, if he thinks that it is necessary. It does not compel him to do so. He may feel, with experience, that he wants to make those changes. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 52.
Amendment No. 53 starts in the same way and is therefore merely an alternative. It goes on to say in the last four lines:
"In reaching a conclusion as to the provision of additional facilities the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to ensure that the gas consumers' voice is heard at local level in all parts of Great Britain.".
Those words are excellent. They describe exactly what we want, and they are the words of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, copied straight out of Hansard. With respect to the prophet, I can do no better than use the prophet's own words. That may be regarded as an unnecessary frill. The Government may think that it is wise to say what the Secretary of State shall have regard to. If they think that is so, they will prefer the second form of the amendment (Amendment No. 53) to the first form (Amendment No. 52).
It is for them to decide whether they will accept either of them. I hope that they will because it is, as I say, mainly an attempt to give flexibility in the future to the Secretary of State, if he feels that something more needs to be done to cope with the problem of individual complaints and if having on the national council somebody who comes from the locality does not completely satisfy that need for those who want to know where they can telephone or to whom they can write if they have a complaint. If the Secretary of State thinks that is necessary in the future, he has powers in the Bill to provide for that without having new legislation. I hope that the Government will look very favourably on either Amendment No. 52 or No. 53.
Amendment No. 54 merely gives the construction of the matter. It states:
"All references to the Secretary of State in this section and in Schedule 2 to this Act shall be construed as references to the Minister of the Crown for the time being having responsibility for consumer affairs".
Normally the Secretary of State would be the Secretary of State dealing with energy matters, but here we are dealing with consumer matters. It is a valuable point. It was suggested to me by a Member of your Lordships' House. When we are dealing with consumer matters, the Minister of the Crown who is
862
responsible for consumer matters should be the Minister to be consulted, amendment No. 54 provides for that. It says:
"All references to the Secretary of State in this section and in Schedule 2 to this Act shall be construed as references \o the Minister of the Crown for the time being having responsibility for consumer affairs".
Amendment No. 60 merely leaves out the paragraph in the schedule which is transfered under Amendment No. 51 to the Bill.
There are a number of amendments, but the one which I have moved is the first one. It embodies in the Bill the powers that the council has. I hope that, in addition, the Government will look in a kindly manner at some way of improving the ability of the relevant Secretary of State—the Minister of the Crown dealing with consumer affairs—if at any time in the future he wants to add facilities in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that they should be provided. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, these are important amendments. I recognise the concern that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has expressed about the adequacy of consumer representation arrangements at local level. I come straight to the point and say that we are bringing forward an amendment about this when we come to debate Amendment No. 59. This has been tabled in response to the Committee stage amendment of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, supported at Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond.
As I made clear in Committee, we believe that the power in Schedule 2, which the noble Lord. Lord Diamond, seeks to transfer to Clause 2—I refer to the first of the amendments—is sufficiently wide to enable the council to do anything necessary for the performance of its functions. However, in response to my noble friend Lady Gardner and to avoid any possible doubt, we are bringing forward Amendment No. 59 to Schedule 2 which will make clear that the council may appoint persons at local level to assist it. This will ensure that the grass roots link with consumers, which we all agree is vitally necessary, will be maintained. Given the broad nature of the existing power in Schedule 2 and the proposed amendment which we shall be debating very soon—Amendment No. 59—I do not think it is necessary to make further provision for additional facilities to enable consumers' complaints to be dealt with. That is my answer to Amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53.
As to Amendment No. 55,I would wish to make it clear that there will be no gap of the type envisaged in that amendment. The national and regional gas consumers' councils will cease to exist as a consequence of the new Gas Consumers' Council coming into existence. This is made clear in subsection (6), which the noble Lord is seeking to amend, by the inclusion of the words:
"In consequence of the provisions of this section".
They make the matter explicit.
In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, spoke to Amendment No. 54 on a rather different point. It was a matter to which the noble Lord alluded in Committee—namely, making clear to which Secretary of State the references are when we talk about the

863
Secretary of State having responsibility for consumer affairs. It is a well established practice in legislation to refer to the general expression "Secretary of State" rather than a particular Secretary of State so that the duties and functions set out under a particular section or schedule can be exercised by whichever Secretary of State the government of the day consider to be most appropriate. Where appointments to the Gas Consumers' Council—one of a number of statutorily appointed consumer bodies—are concerned, it is this Government's policy that the appropriate Secretary of State will be my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who has the responsibility for consumer affairs.
There is obviously a necessity to have some flexibility here in the event of changes of responsibility within government. To tie oneself down on the face of primary legislation to a particular Secretary of State when one can use the now accepted general expression "Secretary of State" would be a pity. I hope that in not accepting the noble Lord's amendments, I have nonetheless indicated that this has been a valuable exchange. It gives the Government for the first time the opportunity to refer in a little detail to Amendment No 59 that we intend to bring forward. I like to think that that amendment meets the local level point made in the noble Lord's amendment, Amendment No. 53.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, before he sits down, I should like to ask the noble Lord to clarify one point. Will he be a little more clear about Amendment No. 51? This is the proposal to transfer the statement of powers from the schedule to the clause. Is the noble Lord saying that the powers will not be increased as a result of putting them in the clause and that these powers—vitally important and very wide, as he says —are adequately placed in the schedule?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do indeed think that the power is adequately placed in the schedule.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank the Minister for having in large measure met most of these points and to delay the substantive discussion until we get to the amendment to which he has referred, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I therefore beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 51.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 57 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Gas Consumers' Council]:
11 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 65, Line 20, at end insert—
("(1A) Any contract of employment with either the National Gas Consumers' Council or a Regional Gas Consumers' Council in force immediately before the transfer date shall become a contract of employment with the Gas Consumers' Council, on the transfer date, upon the same terms and conditions of the said contract of employment. The rights and liabilities of the National Gas Consumers' Council and the Regional Gas Consumers' Council under any agreement or arrangement for the payment of pensions, allowances or gratuities shall be vested in the Gas Consumers' Council upon the transfer date and accordingly any
864
period of employment with the National Gas Consumers' Council or a Regional Gas Consumers' Council shall count for all purposes as a period of employment with the Council.
(1B) Access to the pension scheme of the public gas supplier will be retained following transfer of undertakings.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move Amendment No. 58—the words on the Marshalled List. This is a very simple amendment and I shall be brief.
It refers to contracts of employment with those who are at present employed by the national Gas Consumers' Council or regional gas consumers' councils. On this side of the House we believe that there should be, as is usual in these cases, no rupture in the terms of employment once the national Gas Consumers' Council or regional gas consumers' councils no longer exist, and the Gas Consumers' Council as proposed under the Bill starts to exist. It is a question of making sure that the employment of the people in the consumer councils is protected, that their contracts are honoured and that their pension entitlements are protected. This is in (1B).
I think that this is a relatively simple amendment and I am sure that the noble Lord will have no difficulty in either agreeing to the amendment or explaining exactly how the Government propose to meet this rather important point for the employees of the Gas Consumers' Council. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I think I made clear at a previous stage of the Bill, it is the Government's policy to standardise the terms and conditions of employment of non-departmental public bodies—such as the new Gas Consumers' Council will be—on terms analogous to those of the Civil Service. This policy has begun to be put into effect in the London Regional Transport Act 1984 and the creation of the London Regional Transport Committee.
We think that this is a logical development since the functions involved in representing the interests of consumers have a general application which makes it appropriate for bodies charged with this responsibility to be run along public sector lines. The task that these councils perform, and the responsibilities with which they are charged, are clearly more akin to those of the Civil Service than those of the industry over which they have oversight, whether the industry be in the public or the private sector.
The new consumers' council will be a strong public body for protecting the public interest in this important area and it will carry on the excellent work which has been done previously. I have no hesitation in paying tribute to the services which have been given by the staff of the current councils. Because of the changeover, however, to terms and conditions analogous to those of the Civil Service it will be necessary for some staff redundancies to take place and to have redundancy notices issued to all staff. But staff have already been invited to apply for jobs with the new council, and existing staff—whether or not they are taken on again by the Gas Consumers' Council-will receive full compensation payments on terms analogous to those of the British Gas redundancy scheme. It will be for the new Gas Consumers' Council to decide on which staff to appoint. However, it is clearly a very relevant consideration that staff of the

865
existing councils will be experienced in dealing with gas consumers, and obviously this will carry an advantage for them in applying for jobs with the new council.
So far as pensions are concerned, it would not be appropriate for those re-employed by the new council to stay with the British Gas pension fund. The purpose of the change is for employees of the GCC to be employed on terms analogous to the Civil Service—and this includes their membership of a pension scheme analogous to that for the Civil Service. It would be anomalous to do otherwise.
Current employees re-employed by the new council will thus be able to freeze their existing pension within the British Gas scheme and start afresh with the Civil Service analogous scheme, or transfer across their length of service entitlements to the Civil Service analogous scheme under the public sector transfer arrangements, whichever is more favourable to them. Although I have not met all the points which the noble Lord has made—for, indeed, the main thrust of the amendment is to receive assurances that there will not be redundancies, and that, of course is an assurance that I cannot give—nonetheless I hope that the information which I have given will be both an assurance and of interest to the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I thank the noble Lord for his reponse but, of course, as he admitted, it does not go as far as we should like. However, the noble Lord has explained the circumstances in which those employees who are required to do so will move across, and that goes some way, although, as he says, not the whole way, to satisfying what we want. In the light of that and the fact that it is late, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 65, line 23, at end insert—

("(2A) For the purpose of ensuring that there are persons available in particular localities to assist the Council in the performance in those localities of its functions under this Act, the Council may, without any such approval as is required by sub-paragraph (1) above, appoint such persons to be so available as it may determine.

(2B) Persons appointed under sub-paragraph (2A) shall not be paid any sums by the Council for or in respect of their services except sums reimbursing them for their travelling expenses and such of their other out-of-pocket expenses as do not relate to loss of remuneration.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 59. Your Lordships will recall that in introducing her amendments on local consumer councils, my noble friend Lady Gardner said that the aim was to introduce a statutory basis for genuine grass roots representation. I have now referred to the Government's reaction to that, which is that we are bringing forward Amendment No. 59 in order to try to meet the case which my noble friend made so eloquently at Committee stage.
The amendment to Schedule 2 which I am proposing, in response to my noble friend Lady Gardener, would insert two new sub-paragraphs in paragraph 3. The first of these would make clear that it is within the council's power to appoint persons to be
866
available in particular localities to assist the council in the performance of all of its functions. Your Lordships will note that it will not be necessary to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State as to numbers and terms and conditions; this is because these local representatives will not be employees as such but rather in the nature of volunteers. I believe that it was the voluntary service which has been given in the past to the gas industry at local level which was one of the reasons which prompted my noble friend to move her Committee stage amendment.
The second sub-paragraph provides that local representatives shall be paid expenses. This is a normal practice with appointments of this kind.
I hope that your Lordships will take the view that this amendment gives clear expression on the face of the Bill to the power of the Gas Consumers' Council to appoint local representatives on a clear basis which I trust is acceptable to you. If it is acceptable, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Gardner on creating a situation in which this amendment has been brought forward. I beg to move.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 59: Starred Amendment No. 59:
Line 2, after ("available") insert ("at no addresses").
The noble Lord said: I shall deal with this amendment very briefly. I do not know what has happened regarding the printing, but as it stands it is unintelligible. What I intended to ask was whether the amendment which the noble Lord has moved will make it possible for complainants and other consumers who want to make complaints to get in touch with these individuals who will be local volunteers, as it were, at given addresses and telephone numbers. It is no use unless complainants know how to get hold of their representatives. That is all that I need say about it. Having asked that question. I suppose that I had better move the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, may I address my remarks to the original amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I apologise for appearing in the form of a gadfly on the question of drafting but there are some points in this amendment on which I should like clarification. I do not understand (2A) in the amendment. If I may omit some words which I think are omittable, if I may use that expression, and read it out I think your Lordships will understand why I do not understand it.
"For the purpose of ensuring that there are persons available in particular localities … the Council may … appoint such persons to be so available as it may determine.".
In other words, in order to ensure that there are people in certain localities the council may appoint people to be in certain localities. That is what the words, as I understand them, mean, as opposed to what the noble Lord might wish them to mean or indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
It is a purely drafting question. In other words the council may move people, or pick on people, or may pick on whoever it likes, and say, "You are to be available in a particular locality", whether or not that

867
person actually resides in that particular locality at the time. This is a drafting point. I am not claiming that it is anything else.
The second point on (2B) is a little more serious, and perhaps the noble Lord can help us on this. I do not understand why in the original schedule members of the council may be paid—and this is paragraph 2 of Schedule 2:
"The Council may pay to any member such sums … as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine"—
and yet the person, or persons, who are to be available in particular localities are specifically in the schedule to be prohibited from being paid such sums, and they are only allowed expenses. I wonder whether the noble Lord can explain to us exactly why that is the case. I have two problems. One is the drafting of (2A), because I am not sure that it makes sense, and the second is the problem of payment under (2B).
Lord Belstead: My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, say with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that although we sit on opposite sides of the House I often follow his advice and always listen to him, but I think just for once he is not on to a good point so far as (2 A) is concerned. The difficulty of the criticism that the noble Lord aimed at the Government is that the noble Lord uncharacteristically rather unfairly left a lot of words out. It is:
"For the purpose of ensuring that there are persons available in particular localities to assist the Council in the performance in those localities of its functions under this Act, the Council may …appoint such persons to be so available as it may determine."
With respect, that even to me is absolutely as plain as a pikestaff, and there is no difficulty about it.
I have received advice which says, "Persons should be available in particular localities to assist the council". The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has omitted important words. Therefore, my rather off-the-cuff reply is in line with the official advice I have received, and I am still receiving advice.
Of course I shall look at it again and wait to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has to say, but at the moment I do not go along with the criticisms that the noble Lord aimed at subsection (2A). But I do not want to be hidebound, and I am very ready to have a word with the parliamentary draftsman to see whether we can make it any clearer, though I like to think it is clear.
So far as the second question is concerned, these are supposed to be local representatives who would be in the nature of volunteers, and would not be paid in the same way as full members of the council, but would of course need to be paid expenses. If the noble Lord likes to cast his mind back several weeks, I have no doubt that he and I had a look at the proceedings in another place in Standing Committee, where there were considerable eulogies delivered early on about how the voluntary principle had worked at grass roots level so far as working for the gas consumers' councils in the regions was concerned at district or locality level. It is for that reason that in paragraph (2B) we have gone for the voluntary principle.
868
I think that is enough from me. Perhaps my noble friend Lady Gardner would like to intervene before I am allowed to put the amendment to your Lordships.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am delighted to see this amendment because I feel so strongly that there is need for local availability of people to deal with the problems of local consumers. I should perhaps comment first on starred Amendment No. 59. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said it was unintelligible as printed on the Marshalled List because I have looked at it and tried to puzzle over what it might mean. It does not signify very much as it is printed there. I accept the principle of what he said and I should like to assure him that the way in which these local district committees have operated in the past and the way in which local representatives would continue to operate is that there is always a list published and exhibited in the showroom of the local gas office or authority giving the name, address and telephone number, where that is appropriate if a number exists, where the local person can be contacted. Strangely enough, I found that I had finished on the gas consultative council by the time that everyone started to telephone me. That was because there was delay in printing the lists. I hope that will not happen again. It is important that these lists should be available, and we are hoping that it will be done at an early date.
The essence of my amendment originally was that-speaking basically about London—to have one large Gas Consumers' Council in the centre of London would not help people on the fringes of the metropolis who needed to get in touch with somebody nearby who could pop round to speak to them or see for themselves what the problem was and then report back to the centre. In this way the amendment as it stands ensures that local people can be appointed. The principle of money is not at issue because the committee that I served on, or the consultative council as it was called, did not receive any payment, but out-of-pocket expenses are very useful and can cover babysitting or the costs of someone to care for an elderly relative. It helps people in that way who would like to serve on these bodies and who might otherwise not be able to do so. The description in paragraph (2B) of the amendment is perfectly acceptable, continuing the tradition of voluntary service that has proved to be so successful in the past.
I spoke in terms of London because that is the area I know; but the House would like to hear that today I had a letter from the Gas Consumers' Council for Scotland. It writes to say how delighted it is about this matter. The letter makes the point that the council supports the amendment because of the understanding of the need to ensure that there is effective representation for consumers at local level. The important sentence is:
"The West District Committee considers this especially important in areas such as Scotland where townships can be very isolated".
I was interested to receive that because speaking from quite a different part of the country where the big city creates its own type of isolation for people, it is interesting to hear that this is just as important to people in isolated parts of Scotland, and no doubt, in

869
other parts of the country as well. I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for bringing forward this amendment. If further matters are to be considered at a later stage, I should be happy for him to look at it again following the points raised during the debate. I am grateful to him and I am sure that this will be to the benefit of consumers in general and to the good will and good spirit that will be maintained between the consumers and the gas industry in the future. I thank my noble friend for bringing forward this amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Belstead rises, I too should like to say how grateful I am to see this coming into the Bill. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has mentioned Scotland. I think that this is just the very point where the over-rigidity, perhaps, of what has been going on with the regional consumer councils in the past is overcome by something that is more flexible. I know that in some parts of England it is thought that Scotland is not a very big country. It is, in fact, an extremely big country so far as the mileage is concerned. To have this kind of flexible approach is important—and I know that my noble friend Lord Gray will realise this since he comes from Inverness and I come from just over the Border and there are 250 miles between us—because it is extremely difficult to get a Scottish regional consumers' council to work effectively. This arrangement, to my mind, recognises the geography and recognises that volunteers are absolutely crucial to the success of any consumer body. The flexibility that the amendment gives, I think, answers a lot of the questions that have been raised in the House over this matter.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am wholly out of order but if I may be given the permission of the House to be wholly out of order for just 20 seconds and reply to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on starred Amendment No. 59, really the detailed arrangements must be for the Gas Consumers' Council. But, of course, the clear statutory intention in government Amendment No. 59 is that local representatives shall help locally with problems that arise in their areas. I would like to think that the value of this is that it is on the face of the Bill.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, may I seek leave of the House to withdraw my amendment to Amendment No. 59?
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 59 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this is a convenient moment for me to beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past eleven o'clock.

  PRISON GOVERNORS: UNIFORM PROPOSAL
  PRISON GOVERNORS: UNIFORM PROPOSAL
  PRISONS: BRAILLE FACILITIES
  PRISONS: BRAILLE FACILITIES
  HULL PRISON: PRISONERS IN 'A' WING
  HULL PRISON: PRISONERS IN 'A' WING
  HOVERSPEED: SEALINK TAKE-OVER BID
  HOVERSPEED: SEALINK TAKE-OVER BID
  OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS: PAYMENTS IN FIRST RETIREMENT YEARS
  OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS: PAYMENTS IN FIRST RETIREMENT YEARS
  OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS: 40-YEAR PENSIONABLE SERVICE
  OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS: 40-YEAR PENSIONABLE SERVICE
  RETAIL PRICES INDEX: REPORT
  RETAIL PRICES INDEX: REPORT