Sitting of 15 July 1986

Preamble
The House met at half past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS (DISPOSITIONS) BILL [Lords]
  Considered; to he read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions

  DEFENCE
  Mr. Denzil Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: It is very unusual to have a point of order at the beginning of Question Time.
  Mr. Davies: I merely ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I notice that questions Nos. 5 and 13 are to he taken at the end of Question Time, and not in the usual order. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, or the Government Front Bench, the reason for this? If these are run of the mill questions, the answers should be given in the proper place. If the answers are important, why are we not getting a proper statement at the end of Question Time? I ask this question because, on another occasion, the Secretary of State for Defence tried to avoid making a statement on the ordnance factories. We want to know what is going on.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a matter for the Government whether questions are taken at the end. It may be that we would not have reached question No. 13.

  DEFENCE

    Rolls-Royce Aero Engines
    Mr. Sternasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the future procurement by his Department of Rolls-Royce aero engines, and engines in which Rolls-Royce plc has a participation, over the next five years.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): Over the next five years the Department foresees continuing purchases of R B 199, Pegasus, Gnome and Gem engines in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements of the services.
    Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, on the military side, the company's order book, especially because of its own efforts in obtaining export orders, has never looked healthier? My hon. Friend's answer will give confidence to the work force and the management in looking forward to the continued prosperity of the company when it is privatised.
    Mr. Lee: As the Rolls-Royce, Barnoldswick factory is in my constituency, I am especially proud of the achievements which have been made by Rolls-Royce
    836
    during the past few years. Privatisation is, of course, a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry, but I understand that it is intended that the flotation will take place during the first half of 1987. Defence orders will play a considerable part in that flotation.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the Minister say something about the RTM 322 helicopter engine? Will he also consider doing something about new engines and prop jet engines, as is being done at NASA for the Americans?
    Mr. Lee: The RTM 322 is being developed by Rolls-Royce and Turbo Meca. It is a mainly private venture operation. It is a contender for the EHI01, but at present no decisions have been taken.
    Mr. Hayward: Would not the prospects for Rolls-Royce after privatisation both in Britain and abroad be further improved if orders could be gained for a super Pegasus engine, which is currently being developed at Filton?
    Mr. Lee: There is a Rolls-Royce initiative to uprate the GR5 Pegasus engine. Although there is a formal requirement for this at the present time, we are attracted by its lower life-cycle costs and better performance. We are looking at it in conjunction with the United States marine corps.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend explain the position vis-a-vis funding from his Department for the XG40 programme, which we hope will be the basis for the new engine for the European fighter aircraft?
    Mr. Lee: I cannot give a precise answer at this stage, but I shall endeavour to write to my hon. Friend.

    Willsworthy Shooting Range
    Sir Peter Millsasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to notify the Dartmoor national park committee of his proposals to replace buildings at the Willsworthy shooting range.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): We shall consult the committee immediately should we decide that we wish to proceed with the replacement of Willsworthy camp. At present we are still considering the proposal.
    Sir Peter Mills: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it would be wrong to build a barracks on Dartmoor? It is not essential to build a barracks there. The troops can be bussed to the moor quite easily. I am not opposed to the Royal Artillery being in the area; it is simply that it seems quite wrong to build a barracks on Dartmoor.
    Mr. Freeman: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. The Army has been on Dartmoor for almost 100 years. We are talking about the replacement not of barracks but of temporary accommodation. Because I understand my hon. Friend's concern, I look forward to visiting Dartmoor in September. I hope that I can find a convenient date to go there with him.
    Mr. Steen: I think that the House owes a deep debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), whose love of Dartmoor is well known. It is not just a question of a few shacks on Dartmoor. I am told that it will be a multi-storey, mixed

    837
    sex barracks. It will be two or three miles within the Dartmoor national park. In view of the fact that the Ministry of Defence is exempt from planning consent, it is quite wrong for the Minister to collude and allow the Ministry to destroy the boundaries of the national park by building a barracks in the way proposed.
    Mr. Freeman: I think that my hon. Friend knows a lot more about the plans than I do. No plans have been finalised. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), I am undertaking to go to Dartmoor in September to look at that site and all possible sites.

    South Africa
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether any members of the South African armed forces are currently receiving training in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Freeman: No.
    Mr. Flannery: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that welcome answer. Will he give an assurance that the policy that he has just stated and which was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North ( Mr. McNamara), on behalf of the Labour Government in 1976, will carry on in a most determined way?
    Mr. Freeman: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Since 1976, under successive Governments, there has been no military co-operation with and no military training for South African military personnel in this country. There is no military co-operation between the two countries.
    Sir Antony Buck: Does my hon. Friend agree that there might be something to be said for South Africans coming here, to see how training is conducted on an entirely non-racist basis?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. and learned Friend makes an intriguing point. I confirm that for the past 10 years our policy has been and will continue to be one of no military co-operation between the two countries.
    Mr. Stokes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it might be an admirable idea for South African forces to be trained in this country? It is in the interests of the West and of our own nation that South Africa should have a Government friendly to the West, safeguarding the Cape route and taking care of the valuable minerals there. Surely, none of us wants a Communist Government in that part of the world.
    Mr. Freeman: I am somewhat disappointed by my hon. Friend. I repeat that our policy is and will remain one of no military co-operation between this country and the Government of South Africa.

    Pakistan (Frigates)
    Mr. Chopeasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will report on the outcome of his visit to Pakistan in relation to the sale of frigates.
    Mr. Lee: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has not been to Pakistan.
    Mr. Chope: Is my hon. Friend aware that when I put down the question two weeks ago, a visit was expected within a few days? Does he realise how vital it is for the
    838
    people of Southampton that the order for type 21 frigates is won in Pakistan? Does he accept that the only way to win the order is for a Minister to go to Pakistan and tie up the final negotiations? Can my hon. Friend assure me that a Minister will visit Pakistan before the end of the month?
    Mr. Lee: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern for Vospers. It is a delicate matter. Negotiations are continuing. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the former Minister of State for Defence Procurement visited Pakistan in support of the order in November 1985. A further ministerial visit is under active discussion.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Besides the export potential of frigates, the Minister will be concerned with the export potential of their accompanying fleet auxiliaries. Can he now perhaps explain why the Harland and Wolff designs for our premier fleet auxiliary the AOR 1 were said in the House in April to have been comprehensively costed, yet, as we were told only a week ago, are still being reviewed by the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. Lee: I believe that this matter has been explained to the appropriate House of Commons Committee. Swan Hunter will be provided with the basic Harland and Wolff tender package at the end of August. That is now being examined to ensure that information given in commercial confidence to Harland and Wolff is not passed on to Swan Hunter. If Swan Hunter indicates on the basis of the basic tender that it is interested in tendering, it will be given detailed design drawings by January 1987 to enable it to provide a meaningful tender.
    Mr. Franks: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the export history of Vickers Shipbuilders and Engineering to the Indian subcontinent. May I renew the invitation, which I gave to the Secretary of State on his appointment to that office, to visit Barrow and see, not only the shipyards, but the engineering parts of the complex?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend never fails to get in a plug for the Vickers yard in his constituency, and we fully expect that to continue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence heard his point, and I am sure that he will be visiting Vickers relatively soon.
    Mr. Janner: The Minister referred to the delicate negotiations with Pakistan. Has he also taken into account the other delicacy, which is relations with India and the anxieties in India over the build-up of armaments by Pakistan? What arrangements, if any, are being made for consultations with India in respect of armaments in that area?
    Mr. Lee: Obviously, we have ongoing business and relationships with both Pakistan and India. I draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the fact that recently we sold Hermes to India.
    Mr. Viggers: Ministry of Defence efforts in Pakistan and, indeed, Greece are greatly appreciated, but is my hon. Friend aware that the first question asked by any prospective purchaser is whether the Royal Navy has placed orders with the yard in question? In that connection, will my hon. Friend ensure that Vosper Thornycroft is always given fair consideration for Royal Navy orders?
    Mr. Lee: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

    North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
    Mr. Lawlerasked the Secretary of State for Defence when the promotion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was last discussed at a Defence Planning Committee meeting.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): Questions related to the need to explain and encourage public support for NATO policies are frequently discussed at Defence Planning Committee and North Atlantic Council meetings.
    Mr. Lawler: Is my right hon. Friend not concerned that young people in particular are subject to large amounts of anti-NATO and anti-nuclear propaganda, increasingly under the guise of peace studies, and that, for example, the public perception would he that the NATO nuclear stockpile is not at its lowest level for 20 years, as is the case, but that it is probably at its highest? Should not NATO he doing more to inform the public of its role in the peace movement?
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend that a great deal more could be done to bring home to many people, especially young people, the importance of the NATO Alliance, which is absolutely essential for the whole posture of our defence policy. On promoting the importance of NATO, it is up to NATO, which has a budget for this purpose, and individual members, such as the United Kingdom, to do all they can in that regard. I certainly assure my hon. Friend that I shall do all I can to forward that.
    Mr. Marlow: What would happen to NATO if the Labour party kicked out the Americans from their bases in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend has hit on an extremely serious possibility, but he may agree that the prospect of that happening is rather remote. However, if it did, I would feel extremely worried about how the general public in America would react and what the effect of that would be on the Alliance thereafter.
    Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps more should be done, literally on a NATO basis, to put forward the NATO cause in partnership with what is done by individual NATO countries? Could not the NATO defence college do more than it is doing to spread what might be described as the NATO cause?
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that perhaps more should be done by NATO. The NATO press and information service, which works closely with Government information services, maintains an active programme of films, audio visual productions, seminars and visits. My hon. and learned Friend might be interested to know that in 1985 no fewer than 76 groups from the United Kingdom visited NATO, and 60 groups have visited NATO so far this year. NATO is far from being inactive in this area, but I am sure that it could do more.

    RAF Cottesmore
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for the Defence whether he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent noise survey taken near RAF Cottesmore.
    Mr. Freeman: It will take some time to evaluate the results of the noise survey. It is therefore too early to say
    840
    which villages or how many additional houses will qualify for grant assistance when the improved scheme is applied at RAF Cottesmore.
    Mr. Latham: I thank my hon. Friend for arranging for the second survey to be carried out, but will he drastically speed up this exercise'? It is impossible for my constituents to understand why this exercise should take so long. Surely it could be sorted out in a week or so?
    Mr. Freeman: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the improvements to the scheme that I announced last November must be welcomed by his constituents. However, it will take a little time to cover the 50 or so airfields which the improved scheme will benefit. I assure my hon. Friend that we will make haste as quickly as we possibly can.

    Home Defence
    Mr. Patrick Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to extend the role of volunteers in home defence.
    Mr. Freeman: Current planning already envisages a continuing expansion of our reserve forces for home defence tasks.
    Mr. Thompson: Bearing in mind the well-known need to secure the home base more effectively in an emergency, does my hon. Friend agree that it might be a good idea to introduce some form of voluntary national service for young people to supplement the good work carried out by the reserve and home defence volunteers?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend raises a different point. He will know that, in relation to home defence, we have plans for a Home Defence Force of approximately 5,000 by 1990, and we intend to increase the Territorial Army. Within that time frame to 1990, that is the correct policy and plan to ensure national security.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Does the Minister agree that within the Conservative party there are elements who would argue that the so-called Home Defence Force could be used as strike breakers to attack the working class and hold them down in periods of struggle against the Government?
    Mr. Freeman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Home Service Force, not the Home Defence Force. The Home Service Force is currently 3,100 strong and has some way to go before it reaches its target ceiling. Its main function is simply the defence of key installations.
    Mr. Jim Spicer: Does my hon. Friend accept that, even with these forces allocated to protect key installations, and even when they are at full strength, they must be kept under review because there may be a need to extend the number of key installations to guard?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is correct. I am grateful for his continuing interest in home defence. When we reach the target levels, that will be the right time to review policy to see whether there is the correct balance of commitments within the balance of resources. We will then review policy.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: As an ex-local defence volunteer, Home Guard and an ex-Regular Army man, may I ask the Minister to confirm that the defence force in its reserve capacity—the Territorial Army and the Home Defence

    841
    Force—is probably the best value for money available? Would my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) accept from me that he was very uncomplimentary to the many thousands of decent working-class men and women who are members of those forces when he suggested that they join to become strike breakers?
    Mr. Freeman: I share the hon. Gentleman's views about the value of the Territorial Army. I join him in paying tribute to the TA for its excellent work.
    Mr. Churchill: Will my hon. Friend confirm that a ministerial undertaking was given to the Select Committee on Defence that the 300,000 or more self-loading rifles which have now become surplus to requirements for the Regular forces will not be disposed of, but will be retained against the possibility that we may have to expand greatly the Home Services Forces in future?
    Mr. Freeman: If my hon. Friend will permit me, I shall write to him with the answer to that question.
    Sir Hector Monro: In view of the great success of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force in aerodrome defence and recruiting, is my hon. Friend able to announce a helicopter squadron for the Auxiliaries, which is long overdue?
    Mr. Freeman: No, I am not yet able to make any announcement. It is not within my direct responsibilities, in any case. However, I join my hon. Friend in paying tribue to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force Reserve, which, as with the Territorial Army, performs an excellent job.

    Services (Premature Voluntary Retirement)
    Mr. Cartwrightasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive the results of his Department's studies into the reasons for premature voluntary outflow from the services.
    Mr. Freeman: The Ministry of Defence takes a continuing interest in the reasons for premature voluntary outflow. As part of that process a number of specific studies are currently under way and results are expected to become available by about the end of the year.
    Mr. Cartwright: Is the Minister aware of the view of a number of senior officers that one major cause of the worrying outflow of skilled and experienced personnel is that our armed forces are overstretched and are being asked to do too much with limited resources, which has an adverse impact on the personal lives of the service men concerned? If that turns out to be a factor, what will the Government do to put it right?
    Mr. Freeman: Obviously, by its nature, service life is turbulent, but we are conducting thorough reviews. There is a new form of questionnaire for those seeking premature voluntary retirement. When we have those results, which I hope will be accurate, we shall be able to judge the reasons—there may he more than one—for premature voluntary outflow.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that the overstretch to which the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) referred is particularly evident in the Royal Navy, where ships are now putting in more sea time than in world war 2 and the 1930s? Does that not point to the urgent need for replacement ships, apart from additional surface ships, because they are a good deal less labour-intensive?
    Mr. Freeman: The PVR figures, particularly for the Royal Navy, show that there is some levelling off. There might even be some early evidence of improvement. The PVR figures for this year are considerably below those for 1978–79, when the previous Government suspended pay comparability.
    Sir David Price: Is it not an excellent thing, if the supplementary questions are correct, that the services are being stretched? Is not that what service life is about? Is not the best way of simulating wartime conditions to stretch the services, and does it not show that peacetime soldiering is not an idle occupation?
    Mr. Freeman: As I have said, when the results of the study are available we shall be able to judge what the reasons are — there may be more than one — for the current PVR rate.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister accept that the present formulation of Falklands pay is less than helpful in the retention of the men in all three services? Will he repeal the formula and make Falklands pay from day one, as it should be?
    Mr. Freeman: Since 1979 the Government have accepted and implemented all the Armed Forces Pay Review Body recommendations. Our experience is that armed forces personnel in all three services and at all levels greatly appreciate what the Government have done with regard to pay.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that at times when the civil airlines are in the market for pilots, the Royal Air Force has traditionally lost a substantial number of trained personnel to those airlines, and that we are now in such a situation? Could not those highly skilled, trained people who are going out to the civil airlines be used by the Royal Air Force to its advantage if they were kept in an auxiliary or reserve flying role?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is right. He has put his finger on the problem. The problem has been continuing for a considerable time, but we are studying it.
    Mr. Dubs: Given the signs of racial discrimination in the British Army—
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Rubbish.
    Mr. Dubs: It is not rubbish—will the Minister look carefully to see whether it is likely that black soldiers are leaving the Army early because they are not given the same opportunities for promotion as their white contemporaries?
    Mr. Freeman: That is pure speculation. The policy of the Government, which has been consistent under different Administrations, is that racial discrimination is not tolerated. That is the Government's clear and firm policy.
    Mr. Wallace: Are not the lack of resources to which my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) referred affecting the ability of many of our service men to exercise as fully as possible? Is it not having a damaging effect on morale? Is it not the case that, until the Secretary of State and his Ministers face up to the budgetary crisis in the Ministry of Defence, those problems will not be solved or go away?
    Mr. Freeman: I do not share the premise of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I do not believe, and there is no evidence to show, that our armed forces are prevented from exercising properly.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Further to the serious point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), is not the continuing loss to the flying service of fast jet pilots a great economic loss to the nation, because they are trained at £3 million apiece? Is it not about time that an effective flying role was found for them in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, as is the case with the Air National Guard in the United States reserve?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. The loss of our pilots to the civil airlines is of some concern, but we should not get it out of proportion. We are looking at the problem.

    Defence Projects
    Mr. Alex Carlileasked the Secretary of State for Defence what defence procurement projects of a value greater than £10 million are at present running behind schedule.
    Mr. Lee: The Ministry has a well-developed system which ensures that all projects running seriously behind schedule are brought to the notice of senior officials and, for major projects, Ministers. Information about major projects is also regularly made available to the Public Accounts and Defence Select Committees. The detailed information requested, however, would require a special survey and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Carlile: Bearing in mind the Government's decision to cut defence spending in real terms and the escalating cost of Trident — one national newspaper, normally friendly to the Government, recently called it the "cuckoo in the nest" — will the hon. Gentleman now come clean and tell us which of the smaller projects are likely to he abandoned?
    Mr. Lee: I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman is here. I should have thought that he would be campaigning in the by-election and endeavouring to explain the inconsistencies of, and to fill the gaps in, the alliance's defence policy. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman was on dangerous ground in talking about Trident. It is by no means the "cuckoo in the nest". One must compare like with like. Over a 20-year period the cost of Trident was just under £10 billion, compared with the escalating cost of the British Army of the Rhine, which, over that same period, was no less than £46 billion.
    Mr. Favell: While on the subject of long-running sagas, will my hon. Friend update the position of the Nimrod AEW programme? Will he tell the House that British Aerospace has had nothing whatsoever to do with that sorry saga and that it has performed well and delivered on time?
    Mr. Lee: I acknowledge that we have had some horrors in our procurement programme. Seven bids were received on 7 July, from Airship Industries, Boeing, Grumman, Lockheed, GEC, MEL and Pilatus Britten Norman. A decision will be taken in the autumn. I am pleased to confirm that we were happy with the airframe part of Nimrod, which was constructed by British Aerospace.
    Mr. Douglas: Notwithstanding his answer, will the Minister say whether the CI30 frame might be used—
    An Hon. Member: Is this a question?
    Mr. Douglas: If the hon. Gentleman would clean his ears out, he would have heard me say "will the Minister". Will the Minister say whether the C130 frame might he used with the electronic kit for the airborne early warning system?
    Mr. Lee: I believe that there is a question on this matter later in the Order Paper. There are many permutations within the seven bids that have been received.

    Procurement Policy
    Mr. Hayesasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the placing of procurement contracts with British companies.
    Mr. Lee: We buy British whenever it is sensible, economic and consistent with our international obligations to do so, and acquire from overseas only when the advantages of cost, performance and time scale outweigh the longer-term benefits of procuring the British alternative. The criteria used in deciding the source of our requirements are set out in the 1983 open government document "Value for Money in Defence Procurement".
    Mr. Hayes: I hope that my hon. Friend will be protecting British jobs and British exports in my constituency in the company of Cossor Electronics by throwing out a bid by the American company that is called Bendix, which is using predatory pricing to get a foothold in the British market at the expense of British jobs. When are we to have a British procurement policy.
    Mr. Lee: By and large, we have a British procurement policy. We are proud that about 90 to 95 per cent. of total procurement spend is spent with United Kingdom industry. As for the IFF competition, I can assure my hon. Friend that the strong and genuine representations that he has made to Ministry of Defence Ministers on behalf of the important Cossor factory in his constituency will be seriously taken into account, but we have a competition on at present.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May we have an inquiry into the case of Mr. Don Pitman, a former employee of Thorn EMI, who reported his company for making excess profits on defence contracts? May we have a statement also on when the Government intend to reply to the Public Accounts Committee's report on excess profits by defence contractor Aish and Company? Will the principle of compensation, which we have advocated, be accepted by the Government, and will Mr. Smith, who is in deep financial trouble, be compensated fully for laying his job on the line in the way that he did three years ago?
    Mr. Lee: I believe that there will be a response to the PAC fairly shortly. I am not aware that any investigation is planned into the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred in the earlier part of his supplementary question.
    Mr. Latham: It is highly desirable that we should have the largest possible British procurement programme, but is not the concomitant of that that weapons systems should be delivered on time and to cost? Will he study the reports of the PAC, which make pretty depressing reading?
    Mr. Lee: I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We are becoming increasingly a hard-nosed and commercial Department. Many aspects of our procurement policy are being tightened.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: What order is about to be placed with the Royal Ordnance factory at Barnbow, Leeds?
    Mr. Lee: I believe that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question relates to another question, but we are giving serious consideration to the seventh Challenger regiment, which I believe the hon. Gentleman is getting at.
    Mr. Dickens: Are not British procurement opportunities and production runs being undermined by the French, who are surreptitiously selling helicopters to South Africa in defiance of the United Nations arms embargo?
    Mr. Lee: I have no intention of flying with my hon. Friend on that route.
    Mr. Denzil Davis: Will the Minister give the assurance that was given to the Committee that considered the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill, as it was then, that there is no intention of selling off the ROFs piecemeal in the course of privatisation?
    Mr. Lee: I cannot give that assurance. Such an assurance was never given to that Committee, in which the right hon. Gentleman and I were deeply involved. We said that the preferred option for privatisation was a flotation of the whole, but we did not rule out, in certain circumstances, the sale of individual factories. We would much prefer, however, to deal with Royal Ordnance as a whole.

    Falkland Islands
    Sir John Farrasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total area in acres in the Falkland Islands at present unusable because of Argentine mines.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): The total area in the Falkland Islands presently unusable because of Argentine mines amounts to about 6,440 acres compared with an area of about 3 million acres for the islands as a whole.
    Sir John Farr: While I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the land in question is accessible to some of the main centres of the Falklands? What discussions are taking place and what evaluation is taking place on how to detect those mines, which I understand are not metallic but are made of plastic?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is entirely right, in that most of the remaining Argentine mines are concentrated round Port Stanley, which is the main centre of population on the Falkland Islands. During the past year of so, the Ministry of Defence has been carrying out an in-depth research programme, on which about £3 million has already been spent, to try to deal with the problem. So far we have been unable to identify, and even if we spent many millions of pounds more we would be unable to identify, a sufficiently safe way of clearing those mines that could be employed in peace-time. Three Engineers were seriously wounded in the immediate aftermath of the Falklands campaign while trying to clear those mines. My hon.
    846
    Friend will agree that it would be unjustifiable to risk maiming for life other sappers while trying to deal with the problem.

    Nimrod Programme
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations his Department has received from British Aerospace in respect of the Nimrod AEW Mk. III.
    Mr. Younger: None, Sir.
    Mr. Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that British Aerospace, which is responsible for the airframe of the Nimrod, has in every way honoured its part of the contract and come up to scratch, without any reservation whatsoever? Can my right hon. Friend say that there has been a breakthrough by GEC Avionics, which is responsible for the other part of the contract, and that there is now no chance that the contract, which is so vital to British Aerospace and to British manufacturing industry, will be placed abroad? If it is, it will be a disaster for employment in my constituency and in the areas represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold), for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) and Stockport (Mr. Favell). Will he assure us that the contract will be British and that he will buy British for the benefit of British employment'?
    Mr. Younger: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the work carried out by British Aerospace on the Nimrod AEW Mk Ill project is well advanced. However, a decision on the future of the project must take into account the implications my hon. Friend mentioned. I shall say no more about the bidders for the contract, as I wish to assess them all on an equal basis. I shall be waiting to see not only the bids that are put in, but the performance of the equipment to which those bids relate.
    Mr. O'Neill: Will the Secretary of State assure us that a statement will be made to the House when that decision is taken, that it will not be taken during the recess when hon. Members will have no chance to question him and that there will be a proper statement, not a hole-in-corner operation such as we are getting today in relation to the frigates?
    Mr. Younger: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I can tell him that it will be some considerable time yet before I am likely to decide on the matter. I note what he says about the necessity of a statement to the House. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have heard that, and I shall certainly take it into account.
    Mr. Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that whichever company is successful in obtaining the AEW contract, RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire will continue to be used as a base for AEW operations?
    Mr. Younger: I cannot give quite such a categorical undertaking, but I appreciate my hon. Friend's strong interest in ensuring that that is so. Such decisions must await the result of the competition, which looks like being a most successful one, for the best equipment to fit the RAF with this important capability.

    British Nuclear Test
    Mr. Evansasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent testing of a British nuclear warhead in the Nevada desert.
    Mr. Stanley: A British nuclear device was successfully detonated at the United States Nevada test site on 25 June. The yield was between 20 and 150 kilotons. The test was undertaken with the co-operation of the United States under the auspices of the mutual defence agreement of 1958.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that in the opinion of the majority of British people the action of exploding that device was outrageous and provocative, especially in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster? At a time when Britain's ordinary defence forces are being reduced, why are we wasting money on such outrageous actions?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman says that it was outrageous. If he believes that, I hope that he will ask himself why it was that during the time when the negotiations were taking place for a comprehensive test ban treaty under the last Labour Government, that Government detonated British nuclear devices on 11 April 1978 and again on 18 November 1978.
    Mr. Strang: What has been the Government's response to the Soviet moratorium on nuclear weapons testing, which has been in operation now for almost a year?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that since 1979 the Soviet Union has undertaken in excess of 150 tests, while the British Government have undertaken only 11.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no point in having weapons delivery systems unless the warheads fitted to those delivery systems function and do the job for which they are intended, and that there is only one way to find that out, and that is to test them?
    Mr. Stanley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is necessary to maintain the effectiveness of our nuclear capability as the test programme takes place. That is exactly the same view as that taken by the Labour Government, as they stated in this House of Commons.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: What is the Government's view now on a comprehensive test ban treaty, since both American and Soviet scientists agree that, with the sophisticated seismic equipment available today, it is virtually impossible to conduct an underground test without it being detected? In view of that, why do the Government not now agree to a comprehensive test ban treaty?
    Mr. Stanley: As we have said on many previous occasions, that is not the current scientific view of British Government or, indeed. The American Government, and there are still substantial verification problems that have to be overcome.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Miss Boothroydasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and
    848
    others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall he having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Miss Boothroyd: Is the right hon. Lady in favour of early majority rule in South Africa on the basis of one-person one-vote, or is she not?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is well aware that the question is not one-person, one-vote —[Interruption.] It might be as well to listen to the end of the sentence first. It is whether it is one-person state one-vote in a unitary state, or a federal state, so the question that she asks is not the correct one.
    Mr. Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real divide in this country is between those of us who believe that the state should always be the servant of the people and those Opposition Members who want the state always to be the master of the people, and that no playing around with words such as transposing "social ownership" for "nationalisation" will hide that fact from the people of this country?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Social ownership is nationalisation and control by Government under another name. We want to reduce the control by Government and increase the freedom on the part of the citizens of this country.
    Mr. Kinnock: Against the background of last week and, indeed, last weekend why does the Prime Minister keep insisting that sanctions and negotiations are somehow mutually exclusive alternatives when it is obvious to everyone, including many members of her own party, that real negotiations will be secured only when there are strict sanctions against apartheid, and that persuasion without pressure is utterly hopeless?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman uses a new word when he refers to "strict" sanctions; he does not define it. As he will know, his party has rejected general economic sanctions, and every party in power has rejected general economic sanctions for the simple reason that they have never been known to work to bring about internal change. If they will not work to bring about internal change, why does he want to impose them?
    Mr. Kinnock: Not for the first time the Prime Minister dodges any question that is really related to apartheid. Last week she said that she had done quite well by persuasion, particularly in the last 18 months. In that 18 months the horrific truth is that 2,000 people have been killed in South Africa, the South African regime has undertaken armed aggression against three Commonwealth countries, thousands of people have been put in detention without trial, there have been two states of emergency and two acts of unprecedented oppression. Is that what the right hon. Lady means by doing quite well in the last 18 months?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. If sanctions will not work to bring about internal change, why in the world does he want to bring them in? He knows full well that they would cause starvation of children and that they would cause unemployment in South Africa on a wide scale and unemployment in this country. Why does he continue to want them under those circumstances?
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister's interest in morality in South Africa is very recent indeed. What has she been doing about the fact that half the children in the homelands die as babies? What has she ever done about the fact that there is one doctor to 44,000 black Africans? What has she ever done about the basic atrocity of apartheid? We should not take lectures, and certainly the people of South Africa will not take lectures, from the right hon. Lady about morality.
    The Prime Minister: Nor do I take lectures from the right hon. Gentleman, whose party voted against sanctions when it was the Government. Perhaps he will listen to what Chief Buthelezi said in a letter to The Guardian recently:
    "My forefathers fought British imperialism; today I am prepared to die for democracy, and I will not rest until apartheid is dead. But I am not prepared to lead my people into a battle where they will be decimated. South Africa cannot and will not be liberated with the blood of children." [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Gentlemen please not shout at each other across the Chamber.
    Mr. David Howell: Will my hon. Friend try once more to explain to Opposition Members that by far the best way to raise the dignity, political status and prosperity of black South Africans is not to isolate the South African economy, but to follow the advice of Mrs. Helen Suzman, a fighter for black rights, by expanding investment in black South Africa and bringing new enterprise, managerial expertise and know-how to the black community? Will my right hon. Friend say what talks she has had with other industrial countries and Governments to further such positive enterprise instead of trying to ruin the South African economy, black and white?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Mrs. Suzman also wrote an article in The Times a few days ago. Speaking about sanctions, she said:
    "The likely effect in South Africa would he the imposition of a siege economy and more repression."
    We adopt my right hon. Friend's view. As he knows, we have been in touch with the Economic Community. The communique issued recently was a communique of the Twelve, who are taking positive measures to bring more aid to black South Africans for their greater education. As he knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will be going this week to Washington to discuss the matter with the Government of the United States.
    Mr. Steel: Has the Prime Minister noted the speech made at lunchtime today by the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, in which he reminded us that some of the arguments used today against sanctions are the same as were used by the West Indian planters against the abolition of slavery in the last century? Will she also note that he believes that the decision of the Commonwealth Games Federation yesterday has created what he calls a "window of opportunity" for all nations to come to the Edinburgh games? That window must not be shut in London. Will the Prime Minister support his call?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it was this House which had a great deal to do with the abolition of slavery. It had nothing to do with sanctions. We should be proud of the record of this House, before there was a Labour party, in getting rid of slavery.
    With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Commonwealth games, I greatly regret the
    850
    unjustified action that has been taken about withdrawing. In regard to Zola Budd and Annette Cowley, it is not a matter for the Government but for the Commonwealth Games Federation to decide upon the eligibility of individual athletes within its own rules. It is for it to justify its decision and it is for the federation to administer its rules impartially. Those games have nothing to do with decisions of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Amessasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Amess: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her recent visit to Vancouver, and on batting for British jobs and work. Will she please take every opportunity in her travels abroad and when she meets overseas visitors in London to point out to them that the new Rover car is a victory for joint design and technology?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend never loses an opportunity to bat for interests in his constituency and that he never loses an opportunity to hat for that particular car, an opportunity that I share with him. The display in the British pavillion was absolutely first class and demonstrated all that is best in British industry and all of its successes. We are particularly good on several makes of cars and also on the railbus and the Leyland Bus. It was also very good that there was the first flypast of Concorde, which was very much welcomed by the people of Vancouver. It showed how good we are in aerospace matters.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: After arguing the case for sanctions against Libya, Afghanistan, Poland and other places, why has the Prime Minister suddenly taken such an extreme dislike to sanctions against South Africa? Surely she must realise that the British people and the British Commonwealth are crying out for moral leadeship over sanctions, the type of moral leadership which, at long last, the Church of England has given?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when it came to sanctions against Libya we argued that they do not work unless they are totally and utterly universal, and they never are. That is why they were not put on. Certainly we had good cause to turn out of London the Libyan People's Bureau, but that was not an economic sanction. Certainly we have good cause to refuse to supply defence equipment to Libya. Also, we have absolutely refused to supply defence equipment to South Africa. As for moral sense, I see nothing moral in trying to cause starvation and unemployment for people and children in South Africa.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: When she quoted from last week's edition of The Guardian, why did the right hon. Lady not quote the editorial, which asked when she last took the lead in feeding the starving, when she had shown some sign of trying to find jobs for people without prospects and why, having read the Brandt report, she passed by on the other side? Is it not clear from that, that, while reading moral lectures to people who do not require them, her guiding principle is support for the South African regime?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman refers to The Guardian, may I say that I thought that there were one or two rather successful interviews in The Guardian

    851
    last week. which managed to get across a number of facts that needed to be stated. There were also letters, from one of which I have quoted. As the right hon. Gentleman invited me to go on, let me quote further from the letter from which I have already quoted. Chief Buthelezi said:
    "Today, more than ever, negotiation and peaceful change is within our grasp. Whites, more than ever, are ready to negotiate. Nobody can say exactly when and how, but one thing I do know: senseless violence will not help our cause."
    Yes, The Guardian carries excellent letters.
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: My right hon. Friend, who is to be congratulated on her forthcoming visit to Moscow, will recollect that Mr. Gorbachev told Lord Whitelaw's recent IPU delegation that he wanted a summit, but Mr. Gorbachev understandably added that there was no point in having one unless it could agree about something. Will my right hon. Friend do her utmost to secure a summit? Will she also do her utmost to secure the prospects of an agreement on chemical weapons and, I dare say, on other matters as well?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that most people hope that there will be a summit between President Reagan and Secretary General Gorbachev, and that there will be a summit this year. It will be fruitful if it succeeds in reaching some decisions on arms control, possibly as a prelude to a third summit next year. As my hon. Friend says, I believe that chemical weapons offer an area in which the Soviet Union could follow the lead given by Britain and the United States, in that she could substantially reduce her stockpile and agree not to engage in any more manufacturing of these weapons. Also, I believe that there is some hope of making further progress on intermediate nuclear weapons. There are very interesting proposals on the table now between the United States and the Soviet Union. I believe that they will be prosecuted with the utmost urgency and I hope that they will lead to a successful summit.
    Mr. Terry Davisasked the Prime Minister if she will list heir official engagements for Tuesday 15 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Davis: What does the Prime Minister mean by her earlier reference to a choice between a unitary and a federal state in South Africa? Does she want to see more Bantustans?
    The Prime Minister: With respect, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know what the difference is without needing a lesson on it.
    Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend check with her right hon. and hon. Friends to find out how many letters they have received on the issue of sanctions against South Africa? 1 am sure she will find that there is no great pressure from our constituents to impose sanctions against South Africa. It is a whipped-up media campaign, and our constituents do not like the hypocrisy of other African nations which have dictatorships, and which could teach South Africa a thing or two.
    The Prime Minister: We certainly have not received many letters compared with the amount that we receive on some other subjects. I think that people are very much aware that the Labour party's policy would mean lost jobs and a great deal of misery among those whom we seek to help in South Africa.
    Ms. Richardsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Richardson: Following the Prime Minister's visit to Canada, can she name a single Commonwealth Head who does not favour sanctions?
    The Prime Minister: I think that there are other Commonwealth Heads — [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?, Where?"]—who do not favour sanctions. It is not for me to mention them here. There are many Commonwealth Heads who do not favour general economic sanctions, and most of them are talking about signals and gestures. That is totally different from the Labour party's policy, which is to create unemployment in South Africa in order to create unemployment here.

Frigates
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. Michael Hirstasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the export potential of type 23 frigates.
Mr. Dick Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the policy of his Department relating to the intention of ordering three frigates per year; and how this is going to be fulfilled in 1986.
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): It remains my intention to maintain a force level of about 50 frigates and destroyers, but the number of frigates to be ordered in any one year will continue to depend on the resources available.
I am pleased to announce today that I will be placing orders for three type 23 frigates of the Duke class, two to be built at Yarrow Shipbuilders Limited on the Clyde and one at Swan Hunter Shipbuilders on Tyneside as soon as outstanding contract terms have been settled. The first two ships will start building in the coming months and the second ship at Yarrow next year.
The order with SHS followed negotiations with it, in the light of the statement made by my predecessor on 28 January 1985, which have resulted in a satisfactory agreement on price. The order with YSL followed a competition with three other yards and the winning tender offered the best value for money.
These orders will demonstrate to prospective overseas purchasers the confidence which the Royal Navy has in this highly capable warship.
Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his exceedingly encouraging reply, which will be warmly welcomed by the management and work force at Yarrow on Clydeside, where a number of my constituents work. Is his statement not a superb present for the yard as workers leave for their annual holidays? Is my right hon. Friend aware that Yarrow will now build a covered module yard in the facility, which will enable it to build more frigates more competitively? Will that not enhance the yard's export potential for those countries that wish to buy this type of frigate?
Mr. Younger: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for all that he has said. I fully appreciate that these valuable orders will be good news for many families at this time. Like my hon. Friend, I am glad to hear that there may be an extra covered berth, and if that results in even better value for money for future purchases from the yard, it will be very much to the advantage of the taxpayer and of the defence budget.
Mr. Douglas: The Secretary of State will not think it amiss, I hope, if we look at his answer fairly carefully in the light of what seems to be an abandonment of a commitment to order three frigates a year. Am I not correct to say that last year no frigates were ordered? This year we are ordering not three frigates but two. Can the right hon. Gentleman say when all four orders will be firm so that progress can be made with the covered berth? Will he give us some news that will make up for the leeway in
854
frigate ordering? If we do not make up that leeway, we shall have a very old surface fleet of frigates and other surface ships.
Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is not strictly correct on the figures he has outlined. I should have thought that he would have unreservedly welcomed an order for three frigates at one time. I am sure that he will appreciate, as a person with some experience in the industry, that one has to look at this over a long period. One could say that I have now ordered three frigates this year, but, as I said, we must look at it over a longer period and the hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see what orders come in later years.
Sir Antony Buck: Would my right hon. Friend agree that what he has announced shows that we are not only able to maintain our own independent nuclear deterrent, but that we are able to maintain an adequate surface fleet?
Mr. Younger: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. He may recall, as I do, the rather sour reaction of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) the last time there was a frigate order, when he said that it would be the last such announcement that the Government would be making in this Parliament. He said:
"From now on it is likely to be cancellations all the way." [Official Report, 28 January 1985; Vol. 72, c. 22.]
My hon. and learned Friend is quite right.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Were frigate type 23 03 and 04 placed on the lowest price, or were the bids of Yarrow's competitors increased by an element for lead yard services from Yarrow?
Mr. Younger: The bids for Yarrow were entirely on a competitive basis. In other words, Yarrow won the competition for those ships. The order for Swan Hunter —the frigate 02—as the hon. Gentleman knows, was a special arrangement announced by my predecessor. I have stuck to his undertakings absolutely. Lead yard services are reflected in the price we expect to get from the ships we ordered from yards other than the lead yard. It is a reflection of the value they get from the lead yard in information.
Mr. Keith Speed: Would my right hon. Friend confirm what his predecessor told the Defence Committee, that to maintain an up-to-date and capable 50-strong force of frigates we will need to order three frigates a year for the next few years?
Mr. Younger: As my hon. Friend knows better than most of us, it is not as simple as that. The maintaining of about 50 frigates at any one time is a mixture between the new building of frigates and the length of time for which it is sensible to retain older frigates in service. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be encouraged to see the large series of three orders today. I hope that he will feel that that it is a good sign of the confidence we have in keeping a strong component in the Navy.
Mr. Ted Garrett: The Secretary of State has to be congratulated, somewhat belatedly, on finally making the decision. It is of immense importance to the Tyne, especially the Wallsend constituency. I am pleased that he has mentioned a significant factor, which is to impress upon the navies of the world that Britain can build ships which would be to their advantage if purchased. That

855
point must be emphasised repeatedly by the people who will be marketing the ships. Will the Secretary of State do his utmost to help in the marketing?
Mr. Younger: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for everything that he has said. It is a reflection of the hard work that I know he has done for a long time to help to get these orders. I agree entirely about export orders. It should now be possible for us present a strong bid throughout the world for this excellent frigate. Certainly, my Department will do all it can to help.
Mr. Barry Henderson: Does the announcement of my right hon. Friend not underline the vital contribution that Scotland makes to the defence of the West and the extent to which defence considerations make an important contribution to the jobs and economy of Scotland?
Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Scotland, especially in relation to the Navy, makes an outstanding contribution to the defence of the country and a large number of jobs in Scotland result from it. My hon. Friend is right to draw that to the attention of the House.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I recognise the satisfaction that the announcement will give to Yarrow in particular. However, can the Secretary of State say what action he proposes to take following the resignation of Professor Main from the proposed committee of inquiry into hull design. Are the Government going to take the considerations of the committee into account when considering future policy towards frigates?
Mr. Younger: I am sorry to point out to the hon. Gentleman that he has got the wrong person. I believe that Sir Peter Main is in charge of the teachers' inquiry. I regret that Professor Caldwell found it necessary to resign from the investigation into hull shapes for ships. He did it on his own authority, feeling that his credibility had been undermined. We will now be looking for a suitable and, I hope, independent replacement.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement, but would he recognise that the outstanding export record of Vosper Thornycroft, on the south coast, makes it a prime contender for the next order that he offers?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. Vosper Thornycroft has a fine record and, as my hon. Friend is aware, it is our lead yard for mint countermeasures vessels. As for other export orders with which Vosper Thornycroft is concerned, we shall do everything possible to assist the company.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Is the Secretary of State aware that a proper age structure for the 50-surface-ship fleet to which he referred can only be assured if an ordering pattern of three ships a year—referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas)—is resumed? Can he say whether the newly ordered type 23s will be fitted with the latest towed array sonar, which is to be denied to the type 22s?
Mr. Younger: I can confirm the hon. Gentleman's last point. I am glad to say that the three ships that we are ordering today will be fitted with new towed array sonar. There has been a gap in the ordering which is quite usual
856
when the first of a new line of frigates is ordered. The type 23 01 has taken longer than usual to produce because it is the first. This year, we have produced an order for three follow-on frigates. The hon. Gentleman must await future announcements for other frigates in due course.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My right hon. Friend's announcement will be welcomed by everyone who believes in the defence of Britain. The types 23 and 22 are both expensive and too sophisticated for a number of foreign purchasers. How will my right hon. Friend encourage foreign navies to buy British? What plans has he to ensure that yards develop a system for building frigates for naval use which have lower manning levels and cost less?
Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The type 23 is much more economical in terms of manpower than its predecessor. It needs a considerably smaller crew and will be fitted with a great deal more sophisticated equipment. It is true that such a sophisticated vessel is of interest only to certain navies which have similar needs, but nevertheless it is more cost-effective than its predecessor. Therefore, it ought to be a better bet for many more navies than the previous type of frigate. We should do all we can to encourage its purchase.
Dr. David Clark: Although the whole of Tyneside will be pleased that the Government have confirmed this order, does the Minister appreciate that there is still a considerable shortfall of work in the area? What plans has the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that there is an on-going naval shipbuilding presence on Tyneside?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. That there should be a shipbuilding presence on the Tyne is a matter of great concern to many of us. This order was an undertaking given to Swan Hunter and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that it has been properly and completely carried out. It is worth reminding the House that we are in the middle of a large warship building programme. In real terms, it is probably the largest that we have had for many years. It is a demonstration of the importance that the Government attach to defence.
Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that his statement will cause great disappointment in Vosper Thornycroft in my constituency? Will he at least confirm the proposed single-role minehunter orders which will make a considerable difference to employment prospects at Vosper Thornycroft, given its disappointment at not getting one of these type 23 frigate orders?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about Vosper Thornycroft and I am sorry on its account that it did not win the competition for the type 23 frigate. I can confirm that we regard it as a most important yard, especially with regard to the mine counter-measures vessels and the minehunter vessels. I confirm that it is our lead yard for those vessels.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that this will be good news for the workers in Yarrow before they go on their annual holidays, but will he be a bit more precise about the starting date for the building of the frigates? He did say that, in the case of the two placed at Yarrow, construction would begin in the coming months.

857
Is the Secretary of State further aware that it is entirely appropriate that he should answer the question put down by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst), who, when he worked for the Marathon yard, had his job saved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) when he placed an order for an oil rig? Does he think that at long last this will persuade his hon. Friends that public expenditure can not only save but create jobs?
Mr. Younger: The principal consideration that I have to have in mind when I place orders is whether they are the best value for the defence budget and the best equipment for the Royal Navy, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that. It will be good news for those who are likely to have their jobs safeguarded.
Let me reaffirm the position on construction times. The precise starting dates for construction are for negotiation between the Department and the contractors concerned, but I understand that the one at Swan Hunter and the first of the two at Yarrow are likely to start in a few months time, and the second one at Yarrow is likely to start next year but it is not yet clear in precisely which month.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hirst: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I know about it. I will take it at the end of the statement.
Mr. Churchill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend most warmly on his decision to order three type 23 frigates. What estimate can he give the House of the number of jobs that will be safeguarded or created in the key areas of unemployment on Tyneside and Clydebank?
Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend hits an important note. Approximately 1,200 men per year per ship will be employed in direct labour at the yard with about twice as many again employed on sub-contracts and in the weapons and marine equipment industries. Therefore, about 10,000 jobs overall will be sustained in these important areas over several years and I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to welcome that, as indeed will the whole House.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: I congratulate the Secretary of State on at least keeping faith with Swan Hunter with regard to the frigate order. He refers to the jobs that are being saved, but is he aware that, had it not been for the robbery with violence of the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel from Swan Hunter a lot of men who are now walking the stones would still be in full-time employment? When can we expect an encouraging statement from him on the second AOR for Swan Hunter?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate part of what the hon. Gentleman said, but his remarks about the AORs may be looked at a little askance elsewhere. If I had decided that the firm which clearly won the competition on design and price was not to get the first AOR, I would have been justifiably and severely criticised. In case the hon. Gentleman has forgotten, I remind him that in the course of that announcement I made it clear that I would make sure that Swan Hunter had a particular opportunity to bid
858
for the second AOR order on certain terms. I should have thought that that was a fairly good gesture towards Swan Hunter which I hope is appreciated in the north-east.
Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State's long-awaited announcement is welcome on these Benches, as I am sure it is very much welcomed by the work force at Yarrow and Swan Hunter. As he has rightly and properly taken into account the undertaking given by his predecessor to the Swan Hunter yard and no doubt awarded the order on a basis other than sheer competitive price, will what might be called the difference in price fall on an overstretched defence budget or can it be allocated to some other budget such as, for example, that of the Department of Employment?
The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned that this must be looked at on a long-term basis. Can he assure the House that, over that long term, bearing in mind the pattern of new ships coming into service and older vessels going out of service, there always will be a surface fleet of about 50 vessels, or will there be a shortfall at some stage during that period?
Mr. Younger: I see the point that the hon. Gentleman is getting at about the small amount of extra cost which we shall have paid by placing the order somewhat uncompetitively at Swan Hunter. That is something that we had already undertaken to do, and, therefore, it falls on the defence budget. I make no complaint about that because it was a decision taken openly by the Department some time ago.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the ordering position generally. He is right in his suspicion that the way in which the orders are placed must be balanced out between how long the existing ships can be kept going economically and sensibly and how much new build is needed to keep the fleet in balance. I have maintained the policy, which has been the policy of the Department for a long time, that about 50 frigates will be kept in commission. I think that the House would like to know that.
Mr. Denzil Davies: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that his statement will come as a great relief both to the Royal Navy and the warship building yards involved. He will also recognise that it does not solve the fundamental problems of arriving at a modern 50-warship Navy by the 1990s. The right hon. Gentleman said that there would be two orders this year and one next year. What will the cost be in terms of the Ministry of Defence budget in this financial year? In other words, how much money will come out of the Ministry of Defence budget in this financial year as a result of today's announcement?
Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman was somewhat less than generous in his opening remarks. I should have thought that it was a major step towards having a modern force of about 50 frigates in the 1990s. I leave that aside. The position of the frigates in the programme must be balanced out with all the other factors. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take that as a clear indication. Costs are commercial and confidential. However, I have aready made it clear that the cost of the frigates is about £1 15 million each. While I cannot give the precise prices for the group of three frigates, I can say that we have made a saving of about 5 per cent. on what we expected to spend.
Mr. Davies rose—
Mr. Speaker: No. The right hon. Member cannot ask a second question. I am sorry.
Mr. Hirst: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the avoidance of doubt and in view of the incorrect statements made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), I make it absolutely clear that I have never worked in a shipyard. I am a chartered accountant by profession. I have spent all my working life in private practice. My interest in tabling a question today and on previous occasions about defence matters and shipbuilding relates to the fact that I have constantly championed the excellence of shipbuilding on Clydeside and at Yarrow.
Mr. Ewing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the avoidance of doubt, I have never said that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) worked in a shipyard. I was talking about the oil rig construction yard that the hon. Gentleman worked for on Clydeside.
Mr. Jim Spicer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Does it arise directly from this matter?
Mr. Spicer: It arises directly from Prime Minister's Question Time.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take it after the private notice question.

Commonwealth Games
3.52 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the forthcoming Commonwealth games.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The present position is that over 2,800 athletes and officials from 54 Commonwealth countries have informed the organisers that they will be attending the games. I hope that that number may be increased to the original figure of over 3,100 athletes and officials if the five boycotting countries reconsider their position.
I remain confident that the organisers will stage the 13th Commonwealth games successfully. Scotland will give its traditional warm welcome to the many Commonwealth athletes and their supporters who wish to come to Edinburgh this summer.
Mr. Dewar: Will the Secretary of State note that we share the general regret about the troubles that have beset the games with the withdrawal of the five African nations and, I fear, indications of further problems to come? I endorse his hope that the games will be a success and that it will be possible to undo some of the damage that has been done.
Will the Secretary of State dissociate himself from the call made today by a Conservative Member of Parliament to cancel the games? Does he agree that it is a tragedy that the friendly games have been fractured in this way and become a victim of our isolation in the Commonwealth because of the Prime Minister's intransigence? Will he make it clear to the Commonwealth that the games are being hosted by the Scottish people, not by Downing street? Will he reflect directly to the Commonwealth the strong feelings throughout Scotland on the issue, our abhorrence of apartheid and our deep differences with the Prime Minister on the sanctions issue? Is it not right to urge on Commonwealth countries, which are concerned and understandably bitter about Britain's attitude to sanctions, that the best way forward is to argue the case in the Commonwealth and not to boycott the games?
As the Secretary of State knows, great efforts are being made to put the games on a sound financial footing. Clearly, that has not been helped by the current turmoil. We are all aware that there has been no financial backing from the Government. That has been conspicuously absent. Will the Secretary of State be prepared to look sympathetically at any future approach for material support to meet liabilities which could not have been anticipated and result from factors beyond the organisers' control?
Mr. Rifkind: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comment that the Opposition share the view of the Government and, I am sure, all British people that all Commonwealth countries should come to the games in Edinburgh, and that it would be wrong for differences of opinion on other matters to endanger or threaten the value of the Commonwealth Games.
Despite the regrettable signs from five countries that they are not at present intending to come to the games, the remaining countries which are participating will nevertheless send more athletes to these Commonwealth Games in

861
Edinburgh than have attended any previous Commonwealth Games in the history of the event. Therefore, the games, which will begin next week, still look like being the best and largest-ever games that the Commonwealth has experienced.
Whatever one's views may be about the issue of sanctions against South Africa, the whole value of the Commonwealth Games in the past has been its expression of the multiracial identity of the Commonwealth. There is no better way of showing South Africa our abhorrence of apartheid than by having a successful multiracial Commonwealth Games, symbolising the unity which the Commonwealth should represent.
On the financial aspects, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Commonwealth Games organisers have raised substantial sums, and that following changes announced two weeks ago new initiatives, including some exciting ones, have been launched to fill the remaining gap. I remain confident that that will be possible.
Finally, I remind the House and those who have criticised the Commonwealth Games that the games belong not to any one country or Government, but to the Commonwealth as a whole. It is both illogical and undesirable that the Commonwealth Games, which belong to the Commonwealth, should be boycotted by individual countries because of their disagreement with one Commonwealth Government.
Mr. Julian Amery: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to condemn in forthright terms the exclusion on purely racial grounds of Miss Budd and Miss Cowley from the games? Will he take on board that eligibility is the criterion? I understand from what I saw on television last night that the team which is representing Monserrat includes one competitor who was born in Monserrat but never lived there and one who has never lived there. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to express the British public's horror at the politicisation of the games?
Mr. Rifkind: One certainly regrets the politicisation of any games. The entitlement of any individual athlete to participate in the Commonwealth Games is entirely a matter for the Commonwealth Games Federation. I cannot properly comment on whether the exercise of discretion by the federation was correct or incorrect. That is a matter for which it must take responsibility.
Sir Russell Johnston: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), surely the Secretary of State recognises that the countries which have withdrawn from the games are feeling extremely bitter about the situation? Does he agree that it is within the power of the Prime Minister to give signals that she is willing to consider agreement on sanctions in August, and that that would lift the cloud from the games? The Secretary of State said that he was confident that financial matters would be all right. Has he made no contingency arrangements in case there is a shortfall?
Mr. Rifkind: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I can state that those who have become involved in the financial aspects of the Commonwealth games have launched certain new initiatives. There is every prospect that the initiatives will raise the funds which are needed.
862
In relation to the hon. Gentleman's earlier point, certain African countries have expressed their concern about the South African issue by refusing to participate in the games. Other African countries have taken a different view. The Malawi team has already arrived in Scotland and the Gambia has said that it will take part. It is likely that other African countries will take part. There is clearly a difference of opinion within Africa, but it is true that those who wish to support the Commonwealth ideal, which is a multiracial ideal, can express that best by participating in the games.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the games will be a resounding success if only 2,000 competitors participate in the right spirit and wish to enjoy themselves? Does he further agree that the federation should not give up its principles for expediency and devalue the games by banning competitors with British passports?
Mr. Rifkind: The federation must be responsible for its own decisions with regard to specific applications from athletes in national teams. I endorse my hon. Friend's view that the games look like being the largest and one of the most successful events ever enjoyed in the history of the Commonwealth. I believe that the vast majority of Commonwealth countries intend to participate, and Scotland will do its best to give them a warm welcome.
Mr. Bruce Milian: Is the Secretary of State aware that the games will be seriously damaged by the withdrawal of the five nations and the prospective withdrawal of others? Does he agree that it is futile to deny that, just as it is futile for him to deny that this is only the first damage that will be done to the Commonwealth by the Prime Minister's obsessively antagonistic attitude to effective economic sanctions against South Africa?
Mr. Rifkind: I must stress to the right hon. Gentleman that every country in the Commonwealth is a sovereign and independent state, and that includes the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom should he given the right to determine its policy, just as every other member state should have that right.
I must concede that the withdrawal of any Commonwealth country from the games will diminish them. It goes without saying that the attitude of a large proportion of the Commonwealth will be influenced by the fact that all parties in this House, including the Opposition, are appealing to all Commonwealth countries to come to the games and to make them a great success, irrespective of any difference of view about sanctions. The British Parliament and people support that view, and that will carry great weight with many Commonwealth countries.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Is it not intolerable that we should take lessons on human rights from the likes of Ghana and Uganda? Why is it always Britain and the British teams that are kicked around? Why do not my right hon. and hon. Friends, instead of washing their hands of this affair, campaign for the five countries that are boycotting the games to comply fully with the declaration of Commonwealth principles on individual freedom and political rights?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. Double standards are occasionally applied by countries with regard to human rights. It is appropriate for those

863
campaigning properly for human rights in South Africa to be sure that they fully observe the same principles in their own country.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Secretary of State realise that there is a danger of further withdrawals of Commonwealth countries from the games because of the Prime Minister's attitude? As Scotland's representative— or so he claims—will he write to all Commonwealth countries to explain that the Scottish people were not responsible for the election of the Government or the Prime Minister and to dissociate the Scottish people from the pro-apartheid views held by the Prime Minister?
Mr. Rifkind: The vast majority of the Scottish people do not believe that the Commonwealth games should be used as a method of blackmail on issues of national policy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares that view. I remind the hon. Gentleman that while we are delighted that the Commonwealth games are to be held in Edinburgh, the games do not belong to Scotland or to the United Kingdom; they are the games of the Commonwealth, they are being hosted in Scotland, and that is a matter of great pleasure to us.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the vast majority of people in Scotland are sick to death of politics intervening in sport? Does he agree that the five African countries which have sought the high moral political ground have a disgraceful record on human rights? All those countries practice political repression and detention without trial. Is it not time that we began to highlight that rather than allow those countries to steal the limelight?
Mr. Rifkind: It is not simply the Scottish people who regret the politicisation of these games by certain countries. The athletes of the countries concerned must also bitterly regret the decisions announced by their respective Governments. Even at this late stage, I hope that the five countries involved will reconsider their decisions and realise that the Commonwealth games will help to further the multiracial ideal and that any damage to the Commonwealth Games will badly affect that ideal.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Secretary of State recall that when Mr. Gandhi succeeded his mother as Prime Minister, our Prime Minister and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State, then at the Foreign Office, paid glowing tributes to him? Does the Secretary of State think that Mr. Gandhi has changed since then? Are not the words of such a distinguished international statesman important? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman simply casting them aside?
Mr. Rifkind: I entirely endorse the view that the Indian Prime Minister is a distinguished statesman. That does not require me to say that we must necessarily agree with all the opinions that he holds. The same could be said of other statesmen in various countries.
Mr. Barry Henderson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people welcome that part of the statement and the earlier comments of the Prime Minister that emphasise that the Commonwealth Games Federation is independent of the Government in this country? That would be welcomed in other countries that are not democracies in the free sense that we
864
understand the word. Will he confirm to the world and to those coming to Edinburgh from the Commonwealth that regardless of colour, creed, race, nationality or the politics of their Government, they will be welcome to tour around Scotland after they have enjoyed the games?
Mr. Rifkind: That is very much the case. I endorse my hon. Friend's comment that it would be highly desirable if the Commonwealth Games Federation could be as independent in the exercise of its discretion in every other Commonwealth country as it is in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the Secretary of State said that he was confident about where finance for the games would come from. He changed that a little in answer to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) when he said that he was confident that there was every prospect of funds being found. As I have attended many meetings of the main organising committee, which is extremely worried about finance, may I ask the Secretary of State where the shortfall is to come from? What basis does the Secretary of State have for confidence that the money will be forthcoming? It is jolly difficult at present to raise money.
Mr. Rifkind: There may be certain difficulties, but a high proportion of the necessary funding has already been raised. Those responsible for raising finance have expressed confidence in their ability to raise the remaining sums. In the past few days they have launched a number of important new initiatives, and I have no reason at present to believe that they will be other than successful.
Mr. Eric Forth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the internal political and domestic arrangements of countries are to become the criteria for participation by sportsmen in international sporting events, we would do well to direct people's attention to military regimes and one-party undemocratic states which are prepared to send athletes to international sporting events and to criticise the internal political arrangements of other states? Does he agree that it is high time that there was consistency in these matters before they are taken further?
Mr. Rifkind: I share my hon. Friend's aspiration for consistency. I am not as confident as he is in our ability to achieve that.
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Does the Secretary of State accept that even those Commonwealth countries which intend to participate in the games disagree violently with the Prime Minister's views on sanctions and South Africa? Is it therefore not clear that the damage that will be done to the Commonwealth will be achieved not by a gesture vis-a-vis the games but in other ways? Does he disagree in principle with Government financial assistance for the games?
Mr. Rifkind: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I have made it clear that the Government have all along said that the decision to hold the games in Scotland was taken on the basis that there would be no request for Government funding. That position has been repeated on many occasions. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's observation that it is possible to have different view s on sanctions against South Africa and still feel it proper to participate in the games. That view is clearly shared on

865
both sides of the House. We must hope that the five countries that have said they will not attend the games will reconsider their decisions in the light of the unanimous view of all the political parties represented in the United Kingdom.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to bear in mind that this is a private notice question and, furthermore, a ten-minute Bill and a Standing Order No. 10 application are to come. I shall allow questions to go on for a further six minutes. We must move on after that.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that the people of Scotland were delighted that all the members of the Commonwealth were to come to Edinburgh to participate in the games, but they find it offensive that countries that have had a recent history of genocide and have also practised repression of a sort that is totally alien to Scotland's history and culture now say that their members cannot come and participate in our free country? We object to that. We cannot stop our sportsmen going anywhere. Those countries apparently can.
Mr. Rifkind: I accept my hon. Friend's view that the double standards that are sometimes applied are not only regrettable, but it is difficult to believe that they are consistent with a real desire to enhance human rights in other countries.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: In making the valid and proper point that the multiracial nature of the games can send a most effective signal to countries such as South Africa, as the Secretary of State has done, does he agree that such a signal would have been good to see from the Prime Minister, and that the perceived ignorance and insensitivity of her signals have got us into the pathetic shambles that we are now in over the games?
Mr. Rifkind: In his latter comments, the hon. Gentleman was being grossly unfair. While he is entitled to disagree with the Prime Minister's view, he should at least acknowledge that the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole genuinely and deeply believe that the imposition of general economic sanctions could do enormous damage to the livelihood and, indeed, in some cases, the lives of very many poor people in South Africa. As that view is shared by many black and white South Africans, who are totally opposed to apartheid, the hon. Gentleman should not question the integrity of those whose views on the subject are different from his own.
Mr. Richard Hickmet: Is it not an affront that countries whose democratic experience is limited to one man, one vote, once, should seek to lecture this country on its policies on South Africa, particularly when their own record on racial discrimination is so appalling? The fact of the matter is that this Government will subject themselves to the electorate in 1987 or 1988 in a democratic election, but none of the countries in southern Africa that are boycotting the games will do that. They will all be re-elected, whatever happens.
Mr. Rifkind: It is important to remember that the ethos of the Commonwealth is not that we all necessarily share
866
the same political system but that we have to share certain basic historical experiences and values. The Commonwealth games present an extraordinarily good opportunity to translate that shared experience into a common relevant contribution to the problems in the world at present.
Mr. Ron Brown: Does not the Government's morality simply mean that it is all right to murder innocent men, women and children as well as to take action against Afghanistan and the Soviet Union just before the Moscow Olympic Games? Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman has forgotten, but those things happened. However, if the Government are not prepared to take sanctions because they want to protect profits and investments, will they do the decent thing for us in Edinburgh by making sure that no Ministers turn up, including the Prime Minister, because that would be the ultimate insult?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has made his usual constructive contribution to the discussion.
Mr. John Stokes: Is not my right hon. and learned Friend encouraged by the questions from Conservative Members, who have shown the humbug that has been exposed in this matter? Is he aware that the British public are thoroughly fed up with the attitude of many Commonwealth countries, which cannot presume to lecture us, an old democracy, and the home of freedom? Furthermore, are not he and the whole of Her Majesty's Government disgusted at the BBC's bias —its anti-British and anti-Government bias—in all its comments on the games, which are supposed to be nonparty and for the good of the whole of humanity?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend's question covers several points, but it is fair to point out that, as we understand the position, the vast majority of Commonwealth countries, including those from Asia, many from Africa, and those from the West Indies and the Pacific as well as the old Commonwealth, are intending to come to the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh. The vast majority of the original number of athletes who applied are still on their way. Therefore, the Commonwealth Games appear to have the prospect of being a successful occasion, with the number of countries that are not participating remaining a very small proportion of the total.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Is it not an insult to the black nations that have withdrawn for the Secretary of State to say, as he did, that, even after their withdrawal, these will be the best games yet? Surely he must recognise that the withdrawal of just the five countries and those black athletes is a tragic blow to the games? Is he aware that the vast majority of the people of Scotland and Edinburgh hold the Prime Minister responsible for those withdrawals, and that if she persists in her present policy towards South Africa, she will break up the Commonwealth itself?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that at the moment we understand that 2,800 athletes, from every corner of the world, including Africa, are still intending to come to the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh. That means that the games will be the largest Commonwealth games ever held. On that basis I believe

857
that I am entitled to say that they seem to have every prospect of also being one of the most successful games ever held.
Mr. Norman Buchan: The Secretary of State has emphasised throughout that these are not British but Commonwealth games. May we now ask him and the Prime Minister to listen to the Commonwealth, which virtually universally has condemned the isolated position that she has taken up? Has not the right hon. Lady now reached the stage where she appears to be prepared not only to sacrifice the games but almost to sacrifice the Commonwealth for her own position?
Mr. Rifkind: I said earlier, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept, that the Commonwealth has never survived or prospered on enforced unanimity and uniformity of view on issues in which individual sovereign Governments have to take into account their genuine views as to what the proper development of policy requires. Of course, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Heads of Government of other Commonwealth countries will discuss those matters. There is to be a meeting at the beginning of August to review the situation, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a full contribution to that discussion.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that if he, as Secretary of State, is to make any contribution at all towards making the Commonwealth games a success—we all want them to be a success — he should at least distance himself from the more strident remarks of the Prime Minister in relation to sanctions on South Africa?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should realise that my interest as Secretary of State for Scotland is to see a successful Commonwealth games in Edinburgh. I believe that they are likely to be the largest ever held. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and, indeed, all my right hon. and hon. Friends, share that aspiration. The best contribution that Opposition Members can make is to emphasise the bipartisan view held by both sides of the House. Those who wish to see the Commonwealth prosper should be encouraging every country to send teams to the games.
Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is an undercurrent on the Right wing of his party, hoping for the collapse of the games and, indeed, like the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), wanting the breakup of the Commonwealth itself? Will the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government, dissociate the Government from those views?
Mr. Rifkind: I know of no such view being held as the hon. Gentleman implies, but, if he genuinely believes that such a view is held, I trust that he will encourage those countries that are presently contemplating a boycott to reconsider their position.

Kent County Constabulary
4.18 pm
Mr. James Couchman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"evidence of serious malpractice by officers of the Kent county constabulary and the inquiry by officers of the Metropolitan police and the Police Complaints Authority thereinto."
Several reports since Sunday in the press and by television and radio have given prominence to allegations by my constituent, Mr. Ron Walker, who is a serving officer in the Kent constabulary. Mr. Walker has alleged that fellow officers have been involved in widespread and systematic malpractice which has led to the clear-up rate of offences in Kent seeming to be better than it really is. Mr. Walker claims that convicted criminals have been persuaded to admit, without fear of further prosecution, offences that they did not commit and that false confessions have been written by police officers, thus allowing offences to be "written off" as cleared up. He further alleges that fictitious offences have been recorded, only to be falsely confessed and written off.
These are serious allegations and Mr. Walker, who has placed his career on the line, has provided sufficient evidence in two specimen incidents to prompt the deputy chief constable of Kent, whose responsibility disciplinary matters are, to commission an inquiry by another force —the Metropolitan police—and to inform, properly, the Police Complaints Authority. That inquiry has now taken place and I understand that a lengthy report is in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I am concerned about the nature of the inquiry, especially its terms of reference. It is reported—1 know not how reliably—that the inquiry was restricted to an investigation of Mr. Walker's two specific specimen allegations and that no wider investigation took place. In view of Mr. Walker's more wide-ranging contentions, care should have been taken to determine whether they were two isolated incidents or whether, as Mr. Walker suggested, they were but examples of much wider abuse of the write-off system.
The last thing I want is for this unhappy matter to become a stick with which to beat the police by those who would gainsay the normally high standards of the police. I believe, however, that in the public interest we should know urgently from my right hon. Friend the Secretary whether the inquiry was restricted or whether it was drawn widely enough to determine whether there was widespread malpractice and abuse of the write-off system.
I believe that this urgent and important matter should be settled before we rise for the recess so that public confidence in the police, which must inevitably have been damaged by Mr. Walker's allegations, is restored as soon as possible. That is why I have sought leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss this matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,

869
"evidence of serious malpractice by officers of the Kent county constabulary and the inquiry by officers of the Metropolitan police and the Police Complaints Authority thereinto."
I have listened carefully to the hon. Member but I must rule that the matter which he has raised is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House. I hope that he will find other ways to raise the matter.

Housing Condition Survey (Scotland)
4.22 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose a duty on the Secretary of State for Scotland to undertake a survey of the conditions of the public and private sector housing stock in Scotland every five years; to provide for the publication of the survey; and for connected purposes.
The first house condition survey took place exclusively in England in 1967. There had been increasing disquiet about the rate of slum clearance in the early 1960s, and in 1964 the Government required local authorities to submit returns of all their remaining unlit houses. A subcommittee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee was set up to deal with the difficulties of obtaining better data on the standards of unfitness. It became known as the Denington committee. It took an active interest in the need to collect accurate information on the condition of the older housing stock and specifically recommended a national house condition survey.
Since then, England and Wales have had the benefit of surveys carried out on a national basis at five-yearly intervals. The first house condition survey played a large part in the switch from demoliton to rehabilitation in housing policy in the late 1960s. In Northern Ireland, house condition surveys began in 1974 and have been maintained on a five-yearly cycle, in 1979 and in 1984.
The English survey is paid for out of the housing research budget. The total annual budget for the 1986 survey is estimated to be about £1·4 million. The cost of the Welsh survey, which, too, is financed from a specific research account, is likely to be £1·5 million. The Northern Ireland budget is included in the block allocation for supervision and management and therefore is not available to be identified as a separate cost.
Of course, it can be argued that, if the research budget is expanded to meet the cost of a survey, less money is available for capital expenditure. I submit that, measured against the estimated cost of the perceived investment need, which the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities estimates to be about £819 million, the £1 million a year, or sums of that order, which would be required to finance such a survey are well worth paying in terms of the benefits that would directly accrue on a continuing basis for all such surveys.
Recent developments have further reinforced the case for house condition surveys to be extended to cover and embrace Scotland. They include the Duke of Edinburgh's recent inquiry into the state of British housing, which was published in July 1985, and the inquiry by the Department of the Environment into the condition of local authority housing stock in England, which was published in November 1985. The latter revealed that the condition of housing stock was much worse than had originally been suspected.
During the passage of the current Housing (Scotland) Bill, the Government were repeatedly pressed — I give credit to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who was in the van of that movement—to make a commitment to set up a nationally based survey. In addition, the third report of the Select Committee on the Environment made specific reference in paragraph 22

871
to the importance of the English house condition survey and went as far as to say that the next survey should be brought forward.
The Government's response to all this has been, to put it mildly, minimal. Last week, in the housing debate on Estimates day in the Scottish Grand Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland — the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram)—said that he was keen to set up a project to make technical advice available to local authorities which could then undertake local surveys. Such proposals do not even begin to measure up to the need in Scotland to assess the extent of the investment required and to bring public and private housing stock to tolerable standards. I suspect that the extent of the need is as suggested by COSLA. It will he impossible to finalise arguments on that score until we undertake an objective survey. Until that is done, there will always be room for continuing political argument.
I fully accept that it would be impossible for any Government to respond immediately in meeting the total bill. It would be unrealistic to expect that to happen. However, it is evident to everyone in Scotland, except the Government, that existing sources of information on house conditions are inadequate. At present, there is no basis for knowing whether house conditions in Scotland are worse or better than in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is not known whether Scotland is receiving an appropriate share of national resources. A regular house condition survey would make it possible to review the success of legislation, expenditure, priorities and programmes and would identify problems and new policy directions.
Postponed maintenance is inevitably more costly than maintenance, if not eventual enforced demolition and rebuild. A survey's objectives would include the ability to identify and cost the need for improvement and repair. A survey could make comparisons between tenures and districts, help determine local priorities and provide guidance for legislation. It could embrace also a social survey of family groups and types. A sample of 56,000 houses, which is the suggested number, could be covered over a five-year period at an annual cost of £1 million, which represents only 0–22 per cent. of the 1986 capital allocation. A house condition survey in Scotland is therefore a stitch in time that would save nine. It is urgently required. It should be funded and organised by central Government, and the Bill sets out to achieve just that.
4.30 pm
Mr. Bill Walker rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Member seek to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir; I oppose the Bill. The issues that it raises have been discussed at great length in Committee, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is aware. Indeed, we have discussed the issues more than once in Committee. We are in a period of scarce resources and cash is required for the improvement of houses rather than for surveys to tell us what we already know is wrong. Local authorities know exactly what they are required to do with their houses. What is required is the necessary resources to put right the wrongs.
The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has prepared a report, having considered the problems of condensation and dampness. Information was made available and it was clear that local authorities were not too happy that we had discovered that some of them were falling down on their job. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire suggests that we should spend £5 million over five years on a survey, but that £5 million could be spent on putting wrongs right. He has suggested a complete misuse of scarce resources.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will be aware that the English survey, which he talked about and complimented, is nothing like what he was advising would be included in the proposed survey for Scotland. If he reads carefully the report of his speech, he will realise that he was proposing something different from the sample which was taken in England. He knows that it was based on a sample because that was made clear in Committee.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire is indulging in a Liberal party gimmick that is designed to get publicity for something that it wants when the real answer is to deal with the problem directly and solve it. That is why I oppose the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Sir Russell Johnston, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Gordon Wilson, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. James Wallace and Mr. Malcolm Bruce.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood accordingly presented a Bill to impose a duty on the Secretary of State for Scotland to undertake a survey of the conditions of the public and private sector housing stock in Scotland every five years; to provide for the publication of the survey; and for connected purposes: and the same was read the First time; And ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 October and to be printed. [Bill 208.]

Opposition Day
  [18TH ALLOTTED DAY] [1ST PART]

    High Technology Industries
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    4.33 pm
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I beg to move,
    That this House, recognising the importance to employment, defence, education and the economy of a strong high technology sector, expresses its concern that a regettable consequence of the United States Government's attempts to impose its laws on United Kingdom companies is to damage relationships between the two countries; regrets Her Majesty's Government's failure to take effective action to stop the extra-territorial imposition of United States law on United Kingdom firms exporting high technology from the United Kingdom; notes that a number of British computer manufacturers have been forced out of business by use of the United States blacklist; urges the Government to refuse to allow United States Government officials to inspect United Kingdom companies for compliance with United States laws; and calls on the Government to defend and assist British high technology industries, to preserve United Kingdom sovereignty, to support the rule of international law and to use the opportunity of the Presidency of the European Community Commission to co-ordinate policies to promote European high technology co-operation.
    This debate is, in part, about the state of Britain's hightech industry. Goodness knows, the industry needs some attention. Last year we had a deficit in high-tech trade of £1·3 billion, and the deficit is predicted to rise by 1990 to about £5 billion annually. The industry is suffering severe problems in software, as the recent ACARD report revealed. The earlier NEDO report told us that there are problems in the industry generally. Meanwhile, at a time of high unemployment, the skill gap in trained high technologists is growing wider and wider, with the number of computer graduates leaving university falling further and further behind the industry's needs. I have no doubt that all these matters will be referred to by others during the debate.
    I wish to raise a matter that is at once more specific and wider in its overall implication. The United States Government are being permitted by the British Government to impose and even administer their own laws on British high-tech firms operating within Britain. This is damaging appropriate relations between allies and placing burdens on British high-technology trade. It is yet another example of the way in which the Government seem prepared to allow the United States Government increasingly to dictate what happens within the United Kingdom.
    Of the top 10 computer companies in Britain, nine are United States subsidiaries. Even ICL, our only homegrown United Kingdom company that is in the list, is 25 per cent. United States owned. Perhaps more important is the fact that 80 per cent. of all components used in United Kingdom high-tech manufacture come from the United States. There is nothing wrong in that because high-tech trade is truly international, and I would not wish to see it otherwise. What is wrong, however, is the way in which the British Government permit the United States to use their
    874
    powerful position in the United Kingdom market place to impose United States regulations in Britain and to diminish the viability and capacity of United Kingdom companies to trade abroad. This is exactly what is happening and what has happened continuously over the past four years.
    This issue surfaced with the now famous IBM letter of 23 December 1983. The letter, which was sent to all IBM's United Kingdom customers, informed British firms that certain computers that they had purchased from IBM could not be moved within the United Kingdom without permission from the United States Government. Despite considerable public comment about the letter, IBM has recently confirmed to me that the letter still applies and will not be withdrawn.
    Digital Equipment Corporation — DEC UK Ltd tells its United Kingdom customers in a written document that they must obey United States export control laws, even when trading within the United Kingdom, and that DEC UK will
    "control movement of hardware, software and knowhow"
    within Britain. That will be done, apparently, according to United States laws. Texas Instruments and many other major United States firms operating in Britain insist on similar provisions.
    The effects of these requirements are considerable. Many United Kingdom banks and large corporations that own certain United States produced computers will be required formally and technically to ask for a licence from the United States Government before moving the computers from one location to another, even within the United Kingdom. This requirement appears even to apply to certain computers owned by the Government themselves, as I shall shortly show. Secondly, United States subsidiaries within the United Kingdom do not generally export any of their products except to their own subsidiaries. That is a consequence of United States law. Thirdly, United Kingdom companies seeking to export their manufactured goods must now apply for United States export licences if the goods contain any United States produced component, no matter how small.
    In essence, they must apply for two export licences, one from the Department of Trade and Industry to conform with COCOM regulations and one from the United States Department of Commerce. I am happy to say that they are usually able to get a licence quickly from the DTI. It is a fairly simple process and we are grateful for that. However, this is not the case when it comes to the licence that has to be obtained from the United States. The Department of Commerce frequently takes up to three months to issue a licence, and has in the past been known to refuse a licence to a United Kingdom company without offering any explanation. For example, major export orders were lost to Cable and Wireless because the Department of Commerce in Washington, without any explanation. rejected, ignored and finally returned licence applications relating to equipment for China. It is a matter of record that at the same time United States firms were selling precisely the same equipment to the Chinese Government. They were doing so without restraint.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: How wide is the hon. Gentleman's definition of high technology industries? Is his definition confined to the information technology industry, or does it embrace, for example, the offshore oil and gas industry?
    Mr. Ashdown: In this instance my definition is directed chiefly to the information technology industry and the components that it uses. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own contribution to the debate.
    I am not at liberty to say which British firms have approached me expressing their concern about the situation which I have described and the impact that it is having on their trading viability. The firms concerned are naturally frightened of retaliatory action from the United States Department of Commerce if they kick up a fuss. I can say, however, that numbered among the firms are Britain's foremost computer manufacturers.
    On 23 April the United States Government enacted the final formalisation of their export regulations covering high-tech exports under the United States Export Administration Act. Apart from the conditions already described, the new regulations make the Department of Commerce responsible for the policing of United States distribution licences in foreign countries, including the United Kingdom. It also makes the checking of end users abroad the responsibility of other "United States agencies". I understand this to be the normal form of words used in many instances to describe the CIA. We know from a speech in Palo Alto made by the then director of the CIA, Mr. William Casey, on 3 April 1984, that the CIA operates a blacklist of 300 European firms which have contravened United States regulations. I was subsequently informed during a telephone conversation that I had with the CIA that among these are a number of British firms.
    It is under this new regulation that United States Commerce Department officials sought to visit the United Kingdom earlier this year to inspect the books of United Kingdom companies operating within Britain in order to ensure that they complied with United States law. I am astounded to know that the Government did not dismiss this application out of hand. Indeed, I believe that they are still considering it. I ask the Minister to make it clear in his speech what the Government intend to do to protect United Kingdom firms from this intrusion, and why they have taken so long to do it.
    The Government have always said that they reject these United States claims. When I first raised the matter with the then Secretary of State in 1984 I was informed that they would treat each United States demand on a "case-by-case basis"—the very words, incidentally, used in the Government's amendment to our motion. But they have done nothing about the IBM letter, a copy of which they have; or about the DEC licence instructions, a copy of which they have, or about the Texas Instruments demands, a copy of which they have.
    In a letter to me of 3 July 1985, the Attorney-General declared that United States claims in this matter were
    "an unwarranted encroachment on UK jurisdiction and contrary to international law".
    Yet such claims continue, they are not dismissed —indeed, the Government say that they are still considering them. The House is entitled to know why.
    The problem has worsened. In the last few months a major United States subsidiary, Motorola, has refused a British citizen a car phone because he is said to be on a United States Government denial list. This has had the effect initially of denying a British citizen access to the British Telecom network. DEC UK has also recently insisted that any British student attending a DEC course
    876
    in Britain must sign a form agreeing to accept United States export administration law, even though he will not place one foot outside the United Kingdom.
    I have also learnt that United Kingdom companies submitting licence applications to the United States will have full details of their firms and operations passed on to the Pentagon, which will check up on them and the equipment that they are purchasing. The effect of this, as I understand it, is that if a British-manufactured Apricot computer is bought by a firm today and subsequently sold, say, seventh hand in five years' time to a buyer in a prohibited country—which incidentally, includes Iran, Iraq and Syria—that British firm could technically be held responsible for that ultimate destination. Indeed, one United Kingdom company, Systime, has effectively been driven out of business because of United States sanctions —or at least partly because of United States sanctions—against it for exporting in this case to Switzerland. I also understand that Thorn EMI is having considerable difficulty extracting its own equipment and designs for its world-heating transputer from its United States factory.
    What have the Government done about this? Perhaps most remarkable of all, in view of the Government's agreement that these United States claims are illegal and will be countered on a "case-by-case basis"—I use the words used in the amendment—is the fact that the Government themselves seem to have agreed to accept a United States claim that they must ask the United States Government's permission to move a computer that they themselves own from one location to another.
    As I understand it, the United States Government have forbidden Her Majesty's Government to move their own Cray super-computer owned by the Department of Energy at Harwell to the university of London without formal United States approval. This happened in May, yet our Government are still considering the matter. Indeed, I have just heard today that the United States Government have imposed unilateral third party restraints on the Japanese companies Fujitsu, Hitachi and NEC, and their European distributors Amdahl, Basef and Siemens, to prevent them from supplying London university with an alternative super-computer. Meanwhile our own Department of Trade and Industry, I understand, is still petitioning the United States Government for permission to move its own Government computer 40 miles from Essex to London.
    Is this not a disgraceful situation for a British Government to accept? I ask the Minister to indicate clearly to the House whether the United States claim on this matter will be repudiated or whether the Government intend to be party to an act which their own Attorney-General has described as
    "an … encroachment on UK jurisdiction and contrary to international law".
    Our Government's apparent acceptance of the fact that the United States has a right not only to impose but also to administer its own law in Britain is a direct infringement of our sovereignty. It also comprises a major and damaging barrier to United Kingdom trade.
    I do not claim that the United States Government's intention is to give their own firms a trading advantage through these actions. I am convinced that United States claims are driven by a genuine, if in my view mistaken, attempt to protect high-tech secrets. But there is no doubt that these regulations are being used by United States industry, and particularly the larger United States firms,

    877
    to keep out United Kingdom and European exporters while they move in and clean up. The figures show this perfectly clearly. According to the only figure that I have managed to get out — I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, but it is difficult to pull out figures because they are not differentiated very clearly — while United Kingdom high-tech exports to the eastern bloc have fallen to approximately £40 million a year, in the same period, United States high-tech trade to the eastern bloc countries has risen from $230 million in 1980 to $1·5 billion last year, and is predicted to rise to $5 billion this year.
    I do not suggest that we do not need a mechanism to ensure the security of our high-tech secrets, but we already have such a mechanism in place. The international NATO-based multilateral organisation COCOM already provides just such a mechanism. Indeed, one of my major arguments against United States unilateral action in this area is that it undermines and makes a nonsense of international action by western countries through COCOM. I am glad to note that the Minister agrees.
    Neither do I necessarily blame the United States Government for trying it on. They are, after all, only pursuing their national interest, which is what governments are supposed to do. If the Government insist on conveniently lying down in front of the United States Government, who can blame the United States for taking the opportunity to walk all over us?
    What now needs to be done in this serious matter? First, the Government must use the opportunity of the European presidency to co-ordinate European action to make it clear to the United States Government that we simply will not accept their extraterritorial claims. In this matter I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that a resolution is now before the European Parliament calling on the Community to reject United States claims. I hope that he will make it clear in his speech that the Government welcome this motion.
    Secondly, the Government must make it clear that they do not expect United Kingdom firms to deal with Washington themselves but that, where claims are made, the Government will treat these as matters to be taken up on a Government-to-Government basis.
    Lastly, in my view, the Government should insist that all letters such as those put out by IBM, DEC UK Ltd., Texas Instruments and others that seek to impose within the United Kingdom the laws of the United States should be formally, and at the Government's request, withdrawn.
    United States attempts to impose its law on firms in Britain undermine the effectiveness of the existing international organisation COCOM; they constitute actions that are inappropriate as between allies; they are damaging to United States-United Kingdom relations at a time when anti-Americanism is becoming all too prevalent in our society; they directly infringe United Kingdom sovereignty; they are illegal under international law; they increase the pace of United States high technology colonisation of Europe and they seriously damage the economic viability and trading capacity of the United Kingdom's already depleted high-tech industry.
    The question that the House wants to have answered, after the Government have been doing nothing very effective, is: what are the Government going to do about it?
    4.48 pm
    The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    `recognising the importance to employment, defence, education and the economy of a strong high technology sector, applauds Her Majesty's Government's actions to support this sector through the provision of a favourable climate for business and through support for research and development; endorses Her Majesty's Government's continuing efforts to prevent, by discussion on a case-by-case basis, the extraterritorial imposition of United States law on United Kingdom firms exporting high technology from the United Kingdom; and supports the Government's initiatives to encourage British high technology industries and their intention during the Presidency of the Council of the European Communities to co-ordinate policies to promote European high technology co-operation.'.
    The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has raised a very broad subject, which I imagine hon. Members will want to take further in the debate. I look forward, with the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the possibility of catching your eye, perhaps briefly, to respond to those comments.
    The hon. Gentleman has concentrated his remarks on one aspect of high technology, although the motion is quite widely drawn. It would, therefore, seem appropriate to address some of the wider aspects in addition to the points that he has made on extraterritoriality. I share his concern about the cases where extraterritorial difficulties arise, but I want to begin by putting the points that he has made into a broader context.
    We have an expanding high technology sector which the Government have taken a number of measures to stimulate and foster. It is an industry that benefits from the multiplicity of commercial and scientific links that this country enjoys with the United States. It is against that wider background that the issues raised by the hon. Gentlman need to be seen.
    I shall begin by saying something about United States export controls. We all agree that they represent an important topic. Certainly I welcome the opportunity to restate the Government's position. However, those controls need to be seen in the context of our close links with the United States. They also need to be seen against the background of United States concern, which this Government share, about high technology goods reaching the eastern bloc.
    There is, of course, a well-tried mechanism to deal with those concerns in the COCOM framework, about which I shall say something in a moment. I wish to remind the House of the many steps that my Department is taking to make United Kingdom high technology firms less vulnerable in their dependence on United States technology and on sourcing from the United States, by providing support for research and development and strengthening our links with high technology industries in other member states of the European Community, which the United Kingdom currently chairs in its presidency role.
    We have very close and harmonious relationships with the United States not only in trade but across the whole realm of defence policy. As the hon. Gentleman has said, high technology is very much an international trade. Of course, we have very close commercial links with many important United States companies that are established in this country; IBM, Ford, General Motors and many others have important British subsidiaries. British companies have a powerful presence in the United States

    879
    and, indeed, this country is the largest foreign investor in the United States. At present we enjoy a positive balance of trade with the United States.
    In high technology this community of interest is reflected in the COCOM arrangements, which have been in existence for nearly 40 years. As the House knows, the arrangements cover exports to Warsaw pact countries and to China of strategically sensitive goods and technology, including those designed for civil purposes but also having military applications. The controls are co-ordinated through the Paris-based COCOM committee which provides the framework for maintaining agreement between NATO countries on the operation of a controlled list of products. True, COCOM is an informal body, but it provides an essential link in co-ordinating the interests of the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries in their approach to high technology exports. The controls we have are our own, of course, and are imposed through the Export of Goods Control Order 1985 which, as the House will remember, was debated in Standing Committee in July last year.
    So the problem in a general sense of controlling sensitive technology is not new. In the United Kingdom's view the right way to go about it remains through multilateral co-operation agreement in COCOM. Against that background, unilateral action on extraterritorial claims to jurisdiction is harmful to such agreement. Because the United States is a dominant economic power in the world and a major source of high technology, the extraterritorial nature of its export controls inevitably leads to tension and dispute.
    In our view the only law that applies in the United Kingdom is United Kingdom law on which our own controls are based. We reject out of hand claims by the United States Government to have jurisdiction over United States goods or goods based on United States technology while they are in the United Kingdom or when they are being exported from the United Kingdom. If we could compel the United States Government to withdraw this claim the problem could be eliminated easily, but we cannot. We have tried, and will continue to try, to persuade the United States Government to change their policy. Where we judge that it is the right response we shall not hesitate to use the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 to safeguard United Kingdom sovereignty.
    Mr. Ashdown: If that is the case—and it is the same case as has been deployed before — surely the Government accept that they could ask United Kingdom firms such as IBM and DEC to withdraw those letters. Why have the Government not done that? Why do the Government even accept the possibility that the United States Government should be able to control the movement of the computer owned by the British Government from Harwell to London university?
    Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman made both those points in his speech. I shall come to them in my speech.
    Other hon. Members may raise the same point as he did about why the British Government do not have more frequent recourse to our powers under the Protection of Trading Interests Act. We have those powers. They were used originally to direct companies in the United Kingdom not to comply with the extraterritorial provisions of the United States export administration regulations in the Siberian pipeline affair. They could indeed be used again,
    880
    if that seemed the best way to protect overall United Kingdom interests in a particular case. But hon. Members should be wary of the temptation of thinking that use of the Act to impose a general ban on compliance— which could take no account of the commercial and other interests in broad cases—would offer the right solution to the joint problem.
    If I may explain, the usual method by which the United States enforces its extraterritorial controls is by blacklisting companies that do not comply, making it an offence to supply them with United States-controlled goods. Use of the Protection of Trading Interests Act could strike at the application of blacklisting to United Kingdom companies; but the main sanction—denial of supplies direct from the United States—would not be touched. The United States reaction to a direct and comprehensive challenge to its law cannot be predicted, but any indiscriminate use of the Act could jeopardise British companies dependent on continued access to United States goods and technology. The Government therefore believe that a case-by-case approach to problems best serves United Kingdom interests. And, unless a major dispute, like the Siberian pipeline affair, makes confrontation unavoidable, the Government consider that in general it is best for companies to be left free to make their own commercial decision as to whether to comply with United States rules.
    United States export controls create uncertainty and the extra burden of compliance is a disincentive to sourcing from the United States. That is a factor which, inevitably, companies here have to consider, and it is a point which the United States Government should reflect upon too. It is in no one's interest that the flow of goods and technology between trusted allies should be distorted by unjustified and over-zealous attempts to impose unilaterally another layer of control, bureaucracy and legal claim.
    The hon. Member for Yeovil has also urged the Government to refuse to allow United States Government officials to inspect United Kingdom companies for compliance with United States laws. In doing so, he is referring to the proposals by the United States Government to introduce a distribution licence system, under which United Kingdom companies importing United States goods would have the option of applying for the status of approved foreign consignees and so be released from the need to import high technology goods from the United States under individual United States export licences. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that this could be a benefit. But its cost would be that United Kingdom companies' books might be open to inspection by United States Government officials monitoring compliance with the United States rules.
    The United States Government have made an approach to us to ask whether we would be ready to countenance such inspections. A proposal that foreign inspectors should visit companies here to monitor their compliance with foreign rules can never be easy. We thought it right, as a first step, to consult our own high technology industries; and I can tell the House that, while not enthusiastic—perhaps not surprisingly—they would not wish to be denied access to the proposed United States licensing facility. To answer the hon. Gentleman's point, that is why we have taken some time. It is very easy to make the instant, emotional response, which is to say that we deny the jurisdiction and therefore we deny the request.

    881
    But, as has been made clear, the Government are considering the United States Government's request. I can say now that it is not by any means a request that could be granted unconditionally. We should not get our difficulties in this area out of proportion. We see eye to eye with—
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: The Minister is aware that his hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has written to me on this matter, and I understand that in some respects it is a difficult issue. However, he will appreciate that this is something that the Opposition could not countenance or agree with. Is the Minister saying, because I could not quite follow him, that in principle his Department is now prepared officially to agree to United States Department of Commerce officials coming here to inspect the books of British companies? Provided that the specific case is satisfactory, is the Minister now prepared in principle to concede that major issue of principle?
    Mr. Pattie: No, I am not saying that. I am saying that we thought that it was right first to ask the industry what it would like. We have had previous debates on this matter, particularly in the context of the Systime affair. On that occasion I sought to make it clear that it would be to nobody's advantage to take action with or against the United States Government that had the effect of putting a British company on to a particular blacklist, which effectively would mean that it was denied access to the material that it wished, thereby causing it to be put out of business.
    I urge the hon. Member for Yeovil and the House to put the matter into a broader context. The Government's view has always been that on matters of this kind the nation's sovereignty should be respected. We believe that United States claims to jurisdiction over re-export are an infringement of our sovereignty and that they are contrary to international law. I assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government will continue to do their utmost to protect British interests, and we stand ready to support any United Kingdom company that in the course of its legitimate trading has fallen foul of United States extraterritoriality.
    It was interesting to note that during the hon. Gentleman's speech, with its echoes of the Systime debate, he said that he had received letters. He felt unable to name companies, but he said that he had a list of companies and that he had been in correspondence with them. That is precisely the nub of the problem. We are not saying that companies should deal exclusively with the United States Government, but if the companies who have written to the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me and make arrangements to come and see me, I should be very happy to see them. The practical question is whether or not they are prepared to comply with the requirements of the American multinational companies. That is primarily a question for them. However, the question whether we shall admit United States Government inspectors to carry out inspections is a completely different matter, and we shall not gladly comply with such a request.
    The Government asked whether we would consider using our presidency to draw together a European position. We certainly would. This matter is causing concern to our partner countries in the Community, and we could well take an initiative on it during our presidency.
    882
    We have been considering the matter, and I am glad to be able to respond positively to the hon. Gentleman on that point.
    I shall be prepared, particularly if the companies concerned will make representations to me, to examine again the United States circulars, to raise the matter with the various American companies and find out whether they would be prepared to vary the terms of those circulars. The companies that are making these requirements need to be aware of the fact that, although they are established in the United Kingdom and are trading in the United Kingdom — we are delighted to have those companies here; many of them have been here for many years and they make a valuable contribution to our economy — they need to consider whether the continuation of such a policy is in their best interest, or in the interests of the industry in general.
    It would help a great deal if there could be a lessening of the dependence of United Kingdom companies on supplies from the United States. One of the ways in which this can be promoted is by developing greater co-operation throughout Europe. As the hon. Member for Yeovil knows, we have developed in recent years a considerable number of programmes. The most recent is the series of EUREKA programmes. As we have the presidency of the European Community, we are taking a very active role at the moment in developing the research and development programme. We shall need to obtain agreement for the European Community research framework programme at the Research Council meeting on 9 December. If we obtain that agreement, it will be quite a major achievement.
    As for domestic support, may I make it quite clear that the Government do not envisage activities in Europe— be they in EUREKA or in the European Community research framework programme—ESPRIT, RACE and BRITE — as a substitute for activities in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Pattie: May I just develop this point? It is very important for the House fully to understand that the Government are not looking, through greater participation in European programmes, for means of diminishing the national base of research and development. If that were to happen, before very long we should cease to have the ability to participate in these programmes.
    When one looks at the support that my Department has given to research and development it is interesting to note that in 1979–80 that support was £143 million and that in 1985–86 it was £440 million—a doubling, in real terms. People write learned articles, or what they claim to be learned articles, alleging that not enough is being spent by the Government on research and development and that this, and this alone, is one of the causes of our problems in the world of high technology and in other forms of technology. I dispute that. Significant sums of money are spent on research and development by the Government, but the problem is that British industry does not spend on research and development anything like the comparable figures that are spent upon research and development by either Japanese or German industry. This country must find ways to encourage industry to spend more on research and development and at the same time to encourage the City to take a more favourable view of investment in research and development.

    883
    I do not believe that the problem simply relates to the level of expenditure on research and development. When I carried out my consultations during the run-up to the first EUREKA conference and asked various people in industry what they would like the EUREKA movement and series of programmes to be, it as extremely interesting that they said to me, "Please, not another research and development programme." In their view, research and development programmes are coming out of companies' ears. What they were looking for, and what they have got, is a series of programmes that are close to the market place, that are therefore market-related and that have in view an actual product and a service.
    The problem in this country over many years has been not so much the level of our research and development or the amount of innovation, which compares favourably with that of many other nations, certainly in terms of the number of Nobel prizewinners that we have produced, as our inability to exploit our research. We have failed to pull through the science into applied technology. When that is added to the fact that our domestic markets are too small to support many of our high technology firms, it is obvious that United Kingdom companies need to look much more towards European collaboration and markets as the springboard for world markets. Therefore our policies and our industrial research and development expenditure are directed towards stimulating greater European collaboration and a greater investment in research and development by industry from within its own resources.
    In Europe, there are some areas of technology, especially over the harmonisation of standards, where there is considerable additional value in having a Community research and development programme.
    Under the proposed changes to the treaty of Rome agreed last year, it is recognised that the Community must devote a greater share of its research and development to promoting the competitiveness of European industry in world markets. That has been recognised in the Commission's proposals for a new Community research and development framework. The Government are committed to a gradual growth in European Community research and development and will seek agreement on a new framework programme during the current presidency. The most significant European Community programme is ESPRIT — the European strategic programme for research and development in information technology. The United Kingdom has done extremely well in ESPRIT, being involved in 135 of the 200 projects.
    Similarly, my Department proposes to support RACE — another acronym for the research on advanced communications in Europe programme—in which again United Kingdom companies have done well, at a suitable level, reflecting the sharing of collaborative research and development, the opening up of markets and the forging of standards for future telecommunications networks.
    The BRITE programme—basic research in industrial technologies for Europe— is also important and allows the more traditional industries to benefit from recent advances in technology.
    I have mentioned EUREKA, which is a framework programme involving 19 countries, which seeks to encourage European collaboration on market-led high technology projects, thus helping to increase Europe's competitiveness with Japan and the United States. Seventy-two projects have been announced, 32 of which involve British companies. The EUREKA project
    884
    information net can help British industry to find partners for collaborative projects and to inform them of other projects in which they might wish to participate. Where firms involved in a EUREKA project discover a market barrier to commercial success, Governments can act as a lobby to resolve that problem. That is one of the most important future developments for EUREKA as a market-opening device to get the internal market that we all wish.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: I wonder whether, in the course of my hon. Friend's further remarks, he might wish to reflect on our success in European Space collaboration. I know that he is following the work that the British National Space Centre has in hand and which looks towards the future, but does he accept that we have a great success story on which we can build, and which will allow us to collaborate with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and with the United States generally?
    Mr. Pattie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, although he has anticipated a point that I was about to make. It would be remiss of me if I did not mention the Alvey programme, the second annual conference of which was held just recently at the university of Sussex. It is the largest collaborative programme we have, and it brings together my Department, the Ministry of Defence, the Science and Engineering Research Council, various parts of industry and also higher educational institutes in collaborative projects in four main areas of information technology. Some 187 full industrial projects have been approved, and 116 academic-only projects. Public funds of £200 million are provided by the Government, with the remainder coming from industry.
    One of the most successful research schemes of recent years is the joint opto-electronics research scheme — JOERS— which is a pre-competitive joint research scheme between industry and higher educational institutions. The take-up of funds — £25 million — has been rapid with many applications of high quality being submitted. Both the motion and the amendment concentrate on higher technology, and the aerospace industry is a very important user of various aspects of it. In March 1984, the Government provided £250 million in launch aid to British Aerospace in respect of its participation in the design and development of the Airbus A320. By the end of May this year, 134 A320s had been ordered by 12 different airlines. That is encouraging and discussions are taking place on the possibility of support for future members of the Airbus family. Launch aid funding of £60 million has also been provided for the new fuel-efficient IAE V2500 in which Rolls-Royce is participating, and for Westland for its participation in the EH101 multi-role helicopter.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) has said, Government support for space research and development is aimed at creating an industry capable of exploiting the rapidly growing commercial opportunities by producing space hardware, software and services. The British National Space Centre was formed in November 1985. Total Government expenditure on space in 1985–86 was £100 million, of which the largest share, £70 million, was provided by the Department of Trade and Industry. But space development is expensive, and it is

    885
    therefore essential to work through the European Space Agency. The British contribution to the European Space Agency, administered through the British National Space Centre, was about £80 million, of which the Department of Trade and Industry contributed £60 million. That contribution represents about 80 per cent. of British Government civil space research and development and about 15 per cent. of the total ESA budget.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Am I right in thinking that the director of the British National Space Centre, Roy Gibson, presented his British space plan to the Department of Trade and Industry on 4 July? If so, when does my hon. Friend think that he can make a decision on the basis of the proposals in that document? Will he be making a statement to the House? If not, how will we be made party to that final decision?
    Mr. Pattie: No, it is not true that Roy Gibson presented the plan although that was his aim. I understand, however, that I am about to receive it. My colleagues and I in the Department will wish first to consider it carefully and will try to arrive at a decision, which may be taken before the House reconvenes. I should be happy to give an assurance to my hon. Friend that there will be a statement on the Floor of the House, but it would be unwise to do so. I am sure that the usual channels will ensure that a debate takes place if that is the wish of the House.
    We are conscious of the needs of small firms, and my Department especially welcomes applications from small firms for the various support programmes that we have. In April this year we announced the small firms merit award scheme for research and technology. It draws openly and unashamedly on the experience of the United States and on what is known over there as the small business innovation research programme, which has worked well. The first two examples will cover the areas of biotechnology and instrumentation for a one-year trial.
    It is also important for the House to be aware of the great emphasis that the Department of Trade and Industry places on close co-operation between it and the Ministry of Defence. The Department spends £35 million a year in and through the Royal Aircraft Establishment and the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment at Malvern to provide technical underpinning of aircraft, electronics, information technology and space industries.
    We have carried through some important recent developments. Defence Technology Enterprises Ltd. has been set up to license technology in such establishments as the Royal Aircraft Establishment, the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment, and the Admiralty Research Establishment and that has now extended to the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment. The national electronics research initiatives at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment bring together researchers from collaborating firms to form strong teams.
    I strongly believe in the need to bring the civil sector and the military sector together as often as possible, and that initiative at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment represents an excellent forerunner of technology transfer programmes to come. The teaching company scheme is an important programme for helping to deal with the problems that the hon. Member for Yeovil referred to in his opening remarks about skill shortages
    886
    and about improving co-operation between the educational sector and industry. We strongly support the technique of research clubs such as those that I have already mentioned in Alvey and JOERS. That seems to us to be a very acceptable way in which to proceed.
    The Government generally believe that high technology and other companies can be assisted by the right economic climate, in which taxation is reduced and devices such as the business expansion scheme are introduced.
    On the subject of venture capital it is interesting to note that in 1979 there were only five funds investing £7 million. There are now more than 100 specialist funds investing £270 million a year. That is good news for the high technology sector. We have worked hard across Government to reduce many of the bureaucratic burdens in terms of price, dividend, exchange and many other controls. This is extremely important. Various high technology companies have done extremely well following the privatisation programme, such as British Telecom, Cable and Wireless, British Aerospace, and Amersham International. There is now an upsurge of various companies which are emerging from the academic sector. In that context, it is extremely interesting to note the success of science parks. They have done extremely well, not only in Cambridge but elsewhere, often in contrast to the lack of success of similar attempts in the United States.
    I hope that the hon. Member for Yeovil will feel that I have given him good measure in my speech. I fully accept that extraterritoriality is a problem. We recognise that, and are also conscious of the practical difficulties faced by companies that are caught up in such practices. I have given the hon. Gentleman certain assurances, and I hope that he will find them acceptable. The Government are running several programmes to help British high-tech firms to be strong enough to cope with those pressures, particularly through developing co-operation and collaboration with other companies in Europe.
    The subject of today's debate is important and I look forward to hearing the views of other hon. Members on matters of common concern. I assure the House that this subject is serious, and that the high technology sector is vigorous and developing. We are very pleased with the progress that it is making.
    5.20 pm
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I am sure that the Minister did not expect many Opposition Members to be impressed by that complacent recitation of the recent activities of his Government and Department.
    This comprehensive motion gives us an opportunity to discuss a matter that has in recent years aroused intense and growing resentment in the country, in British industry and, in particular, among British industrialists. I am sure that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will be pleased to know that we shall support the motion standing in his name and in that of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
    When we debated high technology on 15 May 1985, it was again against the background of the infamous IBM letter of December 1983, and of the earlier raging controversy over the John Brown Russian pipeline contract. Those, and a growing number of other similar events, have demonstrated the American Administration's now octopodal interference in the high technology trading relationships of Britain with other countries, in addition to the COCOM member states.

    887
    Since our last debate, matters have degenerated further. Far from backing off from its claim to extraterritorial and retroactive imposition of United States law, the Reagan Administration seek to extend it and to institutionalise it with a step-by-step policy of effective commercial coercion orchestrated by Mr. Richard Perle at the Pentagon, and encompassing not just the United States Department of Commerce, but the United States Customs and Excise and, apparently, even the CIA.
    The latest step to be taken by the United States authorities—the Minister will know about it, as I have been in touch with the Minister for Trade—involves a set of new regulations for the distribution licence, a system of bulk licensing that allows American exporters to export specified goods to approved foreign consignees without the individual transaction approval that the United States authorities usually require.
    In his letter of 30 June, I was informed by the Minister that the system is
    "designed to free the companies concerned from the delays and expense of applying for individual licences."
    No-one—not even this gullible Government or Minister —would swallow that. The simplification procedure is nothing more than a sprat to catch a mackerel. The real purpose, long hankered after by Mr. Richard Perle and his associates, is that United Kingdom companies that accept those new regulations would be required to accept audit visits by United States Department of Commerce officials.
    Furthermore, as the Minister has frankly admitted to the House, the United States Government have sought this Government's agreement to visits by Department of Commerce officials in order to audit the books of British companies. I asked the Minister whether he had conceded that principle, but I am not sure what his answer was. He seems to be confirming that no such concession will be made by the British Government—[Interruption.] I am trying to put some words into his mouth for him, which he could then use when he replies to the debate.
    On behalf of the official Opposition, I say that any acceptance of any such jurisdiction by the Government in order to audit the books of British companies would he utterly unacceptable. It would be tantamount to an official acceptance of the United States' long-standing attempt to have that imposition of American laws on United Kingdom companies accepted. To us, that is unacceptable.
    Mr. Pattie: Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to my point, that it is important to take into account the feelings and aspirations of the companies concerned? What would he do if they said that they preferred to continue with the regulations?
    Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. Given the total lack of support given to companies by this Government, I can well understand companies accepting almost anything that would give them some freedom of access to American technology. But the matter should not be approached in that way. The Government should make it clear to British companies that they are standing four square behind them in resisting that unacceptable pressure from America. What would those companies then say? If they felt that the Government were four square behind them and had embarked on a policy of resistance to pressure from the United States, none of them would want to go along with that set of regulations.
    888
    As a Minister, the hon. Gentleman bears responsibility for upholding the laws of this country, and he cannot hide behind any temporary commercial convenience. Incomprehensible and feeble as the Minister's position is, he will no doubt try to explain it at the end of the debate.
    Following the Minister's intervention, it is even more clear that the Government will not give any categorical assurance. Consequently, we can do little but echo the remarks that have been made about this Government's attitude towards standing up for British industry. Several British business men sought the Government's support in resisting American pressures. They were interviewed in that remarkable "TV Eye" programme, "Uncle Sam's Law". The Minister should consider his intervention against this background. Mr. Colin Hill, a British business man who was under American pressure, sought help from the British Government and from the Department of Trade and Industry. He said:
    "our Government is not strong enough. And certainly our Department of Trade and Industry always gives me the appearance of being like a toothless tiger. I mean, all it does is bare its gums at the opposition."
    We know that feeling from our debates in the House.
    The same point was put later in the same programme, perhaps even more appositely, by another business man, who said that he did not blame the Americans for defending their interests but
    "What I do blame is the British Government for being so wet, and frankly so pusillanimous, not to stand up for British interests."
    That is the reputation shared by the Minister and his Department. It is time that he did something about it.
    But I am asking that of a Government who, in their supine appeasement of the American President, agreed to the F111 raid on Libya from British territory, and am asking it of a Government who have a total lack of faith in British technology or in British managers and workers. They forced through the sale of Westland to the Americans and tried to do the same when it came to disposing of Britain's vital motor vehicle industry to General Motors and Ford. Consequently, there is not much hope of support for British industry from this Government.
    It is not to be wondered at that a Government who are opposed to the very idea of an industrial strategy for a high technology centre should be so wet, half-hearted, hesitant and lacking in self-confidence when it comes to opposng the United States' attempt to impose extra-territorial law on trade in critical high technology components which is being conducted by British industry.
    But even if we resisted the Reagan Administration's most overt attempts to ride roughshod over our commercial interests — we could perhaps do that occasionally on a case-by-case basis — as long as that American law stands, the problems experienced so acutely in recent years by the microcomputer industry would persist. I accept that point. I agree with the Minister that we must deal with the real world as we find it. We must be tough about it, not supine.
    I would put one question to the Minister. If there are cases where it could be considered to be illegal, especially in the conduct of some American companies or even American agencies such as the CIA —perhaps there is no evidence for that—and the Pentagon and so on, is there no case that we can take to the International Court? Are there no grounds on which we could seek a legal resolution of a problem which seems irresoluble other than

    889
    by legal action? Even if we do all the things which were valiantly called for by the hon. Member for Yeovil, it will not solve the problem. Even if we get the letters revoked or have Government-to-Government confrontation instead of confrontation of the Minister and a United States Department of Commerce official, I promise the hon. Gentleman that it will not solve the problem. I leave it with the Minister. He should not be as afraid to take on our strong and powerful allies as he appears.
    The history of the international relations of the United States Department of Commerce has shown it to be sensitive to actions that call into doubt the exactitude of American commercial behaviour. Nothing showed that better than the action we took on American steel imports which quickly made the Americans rescind the legislation that we considered directly infringed the rules of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. I do not necessarily expect an answer from the Minister tonight. I am sure that our correspondence on these matters will continue. We are definitely looking for a much more vigorous and determined pursuit and defence of British national interest than he or his Department have shown to date.
    That can only be half of the issue. The second part of the motion must not be dominated by the first part. What is needed, beyond the negative defence of our interests to the best of our abilities, is a positive and determined British effort to build up a British and European high technology base to lessen, as rapidly as possible, our dependence on United States technology. For once, there is no alternative. However, instead of pursuing that course with vigour and a real commitment to British science and technology, the Government have preached the value of low-wage service industries and boasted only of their commitment to the creation of a low-tech and even a no-tech economy. The fearsome prospect for the country is that in this one area the Government are likely to have achieved their policy objectives. The whole of the distinguished British scientific community has felt so threatened that it has launched a Save British Science campaign supported by over 100 fellows of the Royal Society, 11 Nobel laureates and a substantial number of vice-chancellors and presidents of learned societies.
    Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that some of the leaders in that campaign, especially one I debated with on radio, were unaware of the amount of money that the Ministry of Defence spends on research and development every year. He did not take that into account and that is nonsense because of the importance that it has for high technology.
    Mr. Robinson: That is a valid point. This country spends far too much on defence-oriented research and development and has done so for far too long. The ignorance of that fact on the part of one fellow of the Royal Society or a supporter of the Save British Science campaign in no way detracts from that. Indeed, the continuing heavy commitment to defence research and development explains why vital areas of civil research and development, including those represented among the coordinating committee and supporters of the campaign, are being sadly neglected. Later in my speech I shall give the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) some examples from the campaign literature which I am sure he has seen but has not found time to read.
    890
    I should like to deal with one more of the Minister's arguments. It is becoming tiresomely familiar to all hon. Members. The argument goes along the lines that, although we have a long and distinguished record of basic scientific research, as a nation we have failed to capitalise on British inventiveness by translating the research into marketable products for world trade. That is a fair representation of how the argument goes. It is my view that we trumpet rather too much about our scientific research and its successes. In that area, as in many others in today's world of rapid and extensive development, there can be no room for such complacency.
    Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that Britain has done well at fundamental scientific research and less well at exploiting it, it is utterly perverse logic to argue that we should cut basic research, which is what we are doing. It is perverse to argue that by hacking to pieces what we are good at and by chucking overboard decades of priceless scientific fundamental research, we would be able to improve our record in exploiting it. The argument does not begin to stand up.
    The attack on British science is part of the Government's attack on the whole educational framework of the country. Its consequences are felt in the critical shortage of mathematics and physics teachers in our secondary schools, in the shortage of electronic, computer and engineering graduates from universities and colleges of further education and now in the haemorrhage to posts abroad of many of our most brilliant research graduates.
    As I promised, I shall give a few examples from the Save British Science campaign document. It gets better with rereading. One example deals with inorganic chemistry where, in the assessment of one of the fellows of the Royal Society,
    "'the best of the British inorganic chemists in the age group 30–45 are now employed by American universities of high repute.'"
    A further example comes from the head of an important department of Glasgow university. The extent of the move abroad, the brain drain of British research, is quantified in this way:
    "Of our 15 British Ph D graduates since 1981 only 3 are working in science within the UK 10 are in the USA and one is in France."
    One further example is about a lost "new blood" appointment where a "superb candidate" according to the head of department, was being interviewed and was offered a place in Lancaster physics department in the area of experimental low-temperature physics. The reasons given by the superb candidate for not taking up the offer, as set out in the document by the head of department, were as follows:
    "I understand that the reason for his change of heart lay not so much in the inadequate salary per se—although this doubtless played a part—but in the belief that the British university system was being allowed to collapse … (he will) continue his career in North America."
    Mr. James Hill: Some of the facts from the university of Southampton in the latest University Grants Committee allocations for departments that are really making their way in scientific and development work, show that the university got £750,000 and it raised £13 million by doing outside work in science and development. I do not think that the denigration of our universities is helpful.
    Mr. Robinson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks concerning the university in his constituency are

    891
    well noted. I shall refrain from telling him about the outstanding record of Warwick university in my city. If the hon. Gentleman cares to check, I think that he will find that there are some quotations from Southampton making the same points. It is not me who is making the comments but those who are working in British universities and are concerned about maintaining and developing British science in the universities.
    The hon. Gentleman should address to those concerned his queries and remonstrations as to whether documents of that kind are harming science. I am sure that he would be rapidly convinced to the contrary. If he reads the report again he will read the conclusion:
    "Our conclusion is not only that damage has been done but that some of it may now already be irreversible. The lead even in technologically important areas of research has been allowed to slip to other countries."
    The Government are presiding over a brain drain of Britain's top scientific talents, the extensive damage of which will be felt over the next decade and beyond, when it will become clear that Britain has wasted a golden opportunity to capitalise on its strong research capabilities, and to play a leading role in the creation of the new technologies on a Europewide basis.
    We accept that the scale of resources required for research and development, as well as the size of the homogeneous market required, will mean that the organisation and exploitation of the next generation of scientists and technologists must take place on a European scale. That is why, from the beginning, we have supported ESPRIT and RACE and BRITE. The Minister also referred to RACE and BRITE, which are lesser-known but still very useful European projects. We condemned the Government when they dragged their feet over the EUREKA project when it was initiated by the French. Equally, we welcomed the Government's change of heart and the backing they are giving to EUREKA during this important period of the British presidency of the Community.
    What continues to puzzle us — I hope the Minister will address himself to this when he replies—is how we shall sustain a high profile active role in Europe if the overall funds from the Department of Trade and Industry and Government support for innovation and other schemes, are not increased. The Minister has refused to tell us whether the funds will be increased and if so by how much. He will be aware that a good deal of anxiety persists in industry as to whether the Government will continue to support ESPRIT and more importantly, EUREKA. Such support will require new additional money to be found from the existing DTI budget at the expense of other national programmes.
    The Minister made it clear that he did not consider the European projects as substitutes for national projects but he has been extremely coy about how much money the projects will cost and whether there will be adequate money for both sets of programmes. I have raised this matter with him on a number of occasions, most recently at Question Time on 18 June 1986. With regard to the companies participating in the European projects, he gave me the assurance:
    "we are not talking about alternative or substitutional activities. It is important to put that on the record." —[Official Report, 18 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 1019.]
    He put that on the record again today.
    If that is the case—industry will be relieved that it is so—there must be new additional money for EUREKA.
    892
    Following the completion of the Bide committee's report later in the year there must be new and additional money for Alvey. I urge the Minister not to postpone the new funding which is urgently required on Alvey. He will be aware of the immense damage that was done by the five-month moratorium which was introduced—I give him the benefit of the doubt — prior to his taking over his position. Later in the year, industry and universities will be looking to the Government for urgent and positive decisions on Alvey.
    If we consider the scale of Government resources needed, I draw to the Minister's attention two instances which give us some idea of the scale of competition which we will face. On 1 July, when the latest EUREKA project was announced—to a general welcome, as the Minister said — the Financial Times stated that the French Government expected to pay 40 per cent. of the near £400 million which French companies are expected to spend on EUREKA. That is the scale of the French involvement. It comes on top of the five times greater spend by the French on electronics. German expenditure on support for electronics is running at over three times the British level.
    Mr. Phillip Oppenheim rose—
    Mr. Robinson: I will give way in a moment.
    The Minister has said that he is committed to additional programmes and in his reply to me during a recent Question Time, he gave a commitment to meeting industry's requirements for EUREKA. Can he tell us where the money will come from, how much it will be, and what he means by "satisfying industrial requirements"?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. A moment ago he said that the French Government spend five times what our Government spend on their electronics industry. Is he aware that a vast proportion of this is spent to make up the losses in the nationalised French electronics industry? It was nationalised in the 1980s and previously had been profitable, but it is now making massive losses and is costing the French taxpayer a huge sum of money.
    Mr. Robinson: The hon. Member is not aware that French research and development represents 3 per cent. of its gross national product. Since the war, the French have had a long successful tradition of Government-backed research and development in industry through to bringing products on to the market. In many ways France has set a pattern for us of what can be achieved by positive collaboration between Government and industry. That is anathema to this Tory Administration.
    My attention has been drawn by that intervention to the French microelectronics industry. I am sure that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), when he intervened to so little effect, overlooked the fact that when the three major semiconductor manufacturers—Thomson of France, Philips of Holland and Siemens of Germany — met in June this year to discuss joint research and development on advanced technology needed to design and make microchips in the late 1990s, no British company was invited. A couple of years ago when the French and German Governments were holding talks about industrial co-operation — talks that led to the important plans for the key design and production technologies wich western European semiconductor makers will need in order to be competitive with the

    893
    Japanese and the United States in 1995 — the Conservative Government of Britain were venting their bitter spite against any form of public or private cooperation by crippling INMOS as an independent British producer.
    The result of the Government's attack on British research and development, their inadequate funding for national and joint European projects, their failure to harness the power of public purchasing for the purpose of developing British technologies is evident, in its cumulative effect, in the massive deficit that we now face on our balance of trade in information technology products. The deficit on the balance of trade has grown from £384 million in 1980 to no less than £2·3 billion in 1984.
    The Minister may take some comfort from the apparent stabilisation of the deficit in the past couple of years, but he will know, as every expert will tell him, that the situation is getting worse.
    The recent Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development publication which dealt primarily with software and of which the Minister is so fond, also addressed itself to the growing critical deficit in information technology. It projected that, by 1990, we shall be facing no less than a £9 billion deficit on our balance of trade in information technology products. What are the Government going to do about it? We do not expect an answer from the Minister, because the harsh truth is the Government do not know what to do. If the Government wanted a plan, they are forbidden one anyway and above all, whatever is done must not involve any further expenditure. [Interruption.]
    I am aware that many Members wish to speak, and I will certainly make haste, I wish to consider two documents which have recently been published by ACA RD — "Software: a Vital Key to UK Competitiveness" and "Exploitable Areas of Science". These documents, which have brought together experts in different areas, make it clear that what is lacking in Britain is a coherent strategy for the development and exploitation of science and technology. These experts cannot bring themselves to say that, as they are contorted by the need to observe Thatcherite semantics. The criticism has been dressed up in the process of consultation, and despite the evidence of recommendations in the software report, the document states that there is no need for Government intervention or subvention. Yet it is clear that six of the principal recommendations of the report need direct Government intervention and indirect Government subvention.
    Rather than set up a planned, independent procedure for the valuation of British science, the Government have sneaked through, in a Cabinet Office document, a science and technology assessment office. Nobody is clear as to the exact purpose of this office. It is significant that, on the same day that it was announced, Mr. Fairclough let slip in his evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology that the Government had announced £5 million further cuts in their research funding. No doubt Mr. Fairclough has only just started.
    The combination of the Prime Minister's craven subservience to President Reagan and her pathological
    894
    antipathy to constructive Government and industry cooperation make it impossible for the country, under this Government, to develop and carry through a coherent industrial strategy.
    Such a strategy must be driven by three engines of recovery — research and development, training and investment. In all of those the Government have a major role to play. The next Labour Government are pledged to those policies, which will halt the decline of British science and high technology. The implementation of those policies awaits only the sure and certain victory of the Labour party at the next general election.
    5.49 pm
    Mr. Richard Page: I congratulate the alliance on choosing this important topic for debate. I must confess some surprise that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) took an important but narrow point in the motion. I was hoping that we might be given a little insight into the Liberal party's policies on information technology.
    I want to know whether the Liberal party has moved on from the days of the Lib-Lab pact when, as the House knows, it supported the Labour party when it spawned the National Enterprise Board when the Government of the day went out to pick high-tech winners.
    I take the strictures of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) slightly awry when I think of the companies that were chosen. The names of those companies that went bankrupt should be inscribed on a brass plate so that politicians can constantly look at them and be reminded of their own fallibility. I do not know how many tens of millions of pounds it cost the taxpayer, but it was a great number.
    Having said that, I recognise that we need a balanced and dynamic programme for high-tech research, if Britain is to maintain its position as an industrial power. For any country to have a high-tech policy it must have an efficient communications system to communicate data throughout the country and, if required, on through the rest of the world.
    For that reason, Conservative Members should take considerable pride in the fact that we brought about the improvements in British Telecom by its privatisation. We did that just in the nick of time. The delays in installation, the poor quality and the few choices of equipment were becoming a scandal. There was no way that the vast sums of money needed to bring about the new systems could have been generated out of earnings and the Treasury was reluctant to find such vast sums of money from the taxpayer. As we know, there is no way that the value added network services, which are now doing such a valuable job throughout Britain, could have been allowed without the liberalisation of the system.
    It is interesting to note that the parties responsible for the debate tonight had their usual voting pattern on that measure. Some voted for it, some against it, and some abstained. I think that that covers all the possible options. For the record, I should point out that BT is now providing the Treasury with £1·3 billion a year, near enough double what it was producing when it was a nationalised industry. That point should be repeated time and again.
    I hope that, when the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) replies, he will mention what he sees

    895
    as the future of BT if and when the unlikely event occurs that the Social Democratic and Liberal parties have a say in its future.
    Mr. Stuart Randall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that under the new privatised regime, domestic telephone charges have gone up?
    Mr. Page: Yes, they have, but the formula is such, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that the overall bill has not changed and, if inflation continues to fall, telephone bills will come clown.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does not my hon. Friend also agree that telephone bills have always gone up? I can never remember them coming down.
    Mr. Page: Yes, that is a fact of life. The only thing that I have noticed recently that has come down in price has been the second-class stamp.
    I have already pointed out what would happen if the Government started to try to second-guess the market place. But there is no doubt that, if we are to remain an industrial power, our industries must be willing and eager to embrace the sunbelt sector.
    The predictions of the market for information technology and electronics vary, but everybody agrees that, whatever the figure, it will be huge. To secure a fair slice of that market, the Government have already played an important role in encouraging companies to introduce new technology into their methods of operation and the CADCAM and robotic programmes are examples of what they have already done.
    In addition, as my hon. Friend the Minister has already mentioned, in 1983 the Government launched the biggest collaborative research programme that Britain has known since the second world war — the Alvey programme, which has pulled together the universities and companies to combine theory with the demands of the market place.
    As my hon. Friend knows, that programme comes to an end in 1988 and talks are already taking place on Alvey mark 2. I appreciate that there must be an evaluation of the effectiveness of that programme, but I want to echo what has already been said by Opposition Members. I hope that my hon. Friend will announce his decisions as soon as possible, for a variety of reasons. One is that research teams take a little time to put together. They cost money to bring together, and, as their programmes come to an end, they want to know whether they will have a continuation or whether that is the end of the line for their project.
    Let me make one further suggestion to do with Alvey clubs. At the moment, there is a general feeling that there has been a little too much emphasis on the supplier input rather than on the user input. I hope that when my hon. Friend comes to make his decisions on that point he will bear that in mind. The field of opportunity is probably larger at the moment on the user side than on the supplier side.
    The vital role that Government have to play is to ensure that the United Kingdom competes successfully with the other two major powers, the United States and Japan, who have not only been making most of the technological discoveries that have recently been brought before us but have been bringing them to the market place with great effect. That has led our Government to seek the support of our EEC partners and with it a market potential to
    896
    match that of the competition. That could be the answer to the extraterritorial question. If we have our own continental alternatives, we shall not have to go down the route of all the legal hassle and argument with the United States.
    As has already been mentioned, one of the participating programmes is that of ESPRIT, which is similar to the Alvey programme, and must be the way in which the huge investments needed for this type of research can be found. The other, which puts a more commercial face on research, is EUREKA. Any collaboration must have an end in view — a product that can be bought by the customer, particularly in the EEC, and, I hope, in the rest of the world. I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend emphasises the need to exploit those discoveries.
    The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West made great play of the Save British Science campaign. It has its particular arguments, but he did not read out—this is why the Alvey programme is successful—that the theme of the Government's pronouncements on research is that support depends upon perceived economic benefits. If we are to compete with the rest of the world, we must make a product that will eventually be bought. Vast sums for pure research that have no financial benefit at the end of the day cannot be funded for ever. I believe that the EUREKA programme is attacking the matter in exactly the right way.
    The theme running through the speeches of Opposition Members is the desire to become involved in the use of taxpayers' money, whether by way of nationalization— another phrase that is used now is "social ownership" —a national investment hank, which is rumoured, or the new technological enterprise corporation. That still adds to a severe case of the politicians' disease of them knowing better than the experts in the industry. I hope that the Government will follow the path of providing support but not of going into the realm of endeavouring to pick winners. I believe that Government can only lay the ground rules and create the framework. British people and British companies will provide the growth, wealth and employment for the people of this country.
    6 pm
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: A great deal of the debate has focused on the information technology industry. That industry is important to my constituency. For example, IBM, which employs 2,900 people, is the biggest employer in my constituency. That company, along with National Semiconductor, generates work for thousands of people.
    I wish to widen the debate a little and talk about the United Kingdom's offshore oil and gas industry and the problems that it faces. With your favour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the title of the motion — "Defending British High Technology Industries"—allows me to do so. The Government's amendment refers to the defence of British high technology industries. The offshore oil and gas industry must be one of the most advanced industries. On 24 June, the Minister of State, Department of Energy told the Scottish Grand Committee:
    "The industry is taking the lead, particularly in offshore technology, not only in our own continental shelf but in other parts of the world." — [Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 24 June 1986; c. 3.]
    I would not dispute that comment. It is an important industry to Scotland as well as to the United Kingdom.

    897
    The Scott-Lithgow company in my constituency is building one of the most technologically advanced semi-submersible rigs ever built for drilling purposes in deep water.
    The low oil price since the end of 1985 has led to a marked reduction in exploration and appraisal drilling and the deferment and delay of the development of new fields in the North sea, although no significant reduction in production has taken place. A survey of oil company intentions by the Grampian regional council this year suggests that the downturn in development activity will last throughout the whole of this year, 1987 and 1988. That report, commissioned by the Grampian regional council, suggests that there will be an upturn in 1989 and that there will be a large increase in activity in 1990 and into the 1990s.
    The problem with such a projection is that the three lean years of 1986, 1987 and 1988 almost certainly mean that a considerable capability that has been built up in the oil service and supply sectors in the United Kingdom, especially in Scotland, will not survive to 1989 to enjoy the benefits of an upturn in the market. Scotland is already seeing the redundancies coming through. Britoil recently declared redundant 400 of its employees in Glasgow. Forty of those employees were senior technologists and managers. The company gave them an hour to clear their desks.
    Aberdeen, which is an employment bright spot in Scotland—male unemployment is less than 10 per cent, which is a vastly different position from that which exists in my constituency and others on Clydeside — is suffering redundancies in the oil and ancillary industrial organisations. An upturn in the market in 1989 will encounter severe shortages in local services and supplies, leading to rapid price inflation and a greater dependence than hitherto on overseas supplies.
    My intervention is a plea for a temporary amendment to the tax regime in respect of the North sea, which might help to even out the cycle, to the long-run benefit of the oil companies, the services and supply industries and employment in Scotland and the United Kingdom.
    At the moment, oil operators offset the development costs of a new field against the petroleum revenue tax payable on production from that field. However, the oil companies need money up front to develop the field first. Since the drastic fall in the oil price, those companies are saying that it is a simple shortage of cash that is causing them to defer or delay developments in new fields. For my constituents and the rest of Scotland, that spells disaster. If orders are not made, the fabrication yards, the engineering industry and the information technology industry will suffer.
    One change to the present tax regime that might help to overcome the problem would be if the oil companies were allowed to offset the development of new fields against the petroleum revenue tax that they are currently paying on existing production from other fields in the North sea. Such a tax regime would provide the oil companies with the money to carry out new development. In order to ensure that the United Kingdom achieves some additional benefit from such a change to the tax regime, it could be limited to projects approved after the announcement of the change and the costs incurred on the projects before the end of 1988.
    898
    By that means, the gain to the companies would accrue only to new projects brought forward and implemented later this year, in 1987 and in 1988, not to existing projects already under way, and only to expenditure incurred in that period. That might be a substantial encouragement to some oil companies to bring forward into 1986–88 projects that would not otherwise be developed until after 1989. The state would not necessarily lose tax revenue because it would accrue a tax revenue from the new field. The tax take could be rescheduled from 1986–88 to 1989 and onwards.
    There may be some loss of revenue to the extent that the new fields would yield less tax than existing fields. The net outcome for the Treasury would need to be calculated on the basis of likely effects of the tax change and the tax profiles of particular fields. The advantage of such a proposal is that it would directly address the need for cash up front to develop the new fields. Being for a limited period only, it would be a direct incentive to bring forward deferred projects. The limited time would also ensure that the tax concession would be operative only where there was a gain in activity. Also, the delay or loss in tax revenue implied by the proposal would be kept to a minimum by the limited time period.
    Given the drastic fall in the price of oil, Scotland, in particular, faces massive employment problems. The industry, including its ancillary activities, is one of the most important and technologically advanced that we have. It has a huge market potential overseas wherever oil exploration takes place on continental shelves or even in much deeper waters.
    A positive response is needed quickly from the Government to prevent those worsening circumstances leading to much higher unemployment in the bright spots of the Grampian region.
    6.10 pm
    Mr. John Wilkinson: I shall not seek to follow the remarks made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), although they are relevant to my speech. He described adequately and with force the impending decline of Britain's first-class sub-sea industry unless drastic measures are taken. I wish to contrast that possibility of decline, which we all hope will not happen, with the undoubted possibilities of expansion, profitability and scientific return from an enlarged space programme on the part of the United Kingdom.
    My hon. Friend the Minister briefly alluded to the United Kingdom's space programme in his opening remarks and referred in particular to the inauguration of the British National Space Centre at Farnborough, which has borne fruit under his stewardship. I give full credit to my hon. Friend for that event because it brings us in line with our French and German counterparts, and will enable us to play a better co-ordinated part in the European Space Agency's programme for the next 10 years, which was decided at the ESA ministerial meeting in Rome in December 1985.
    The space progammme for Europe, which my hon. Friend approved, was extremely important strategically for the United Kingdom and Europe. Our expenditure on space is to be increased by some 70 per cent. over a 10-year period. Many key decisions were made. One such decision was that we are to continue the development of Europe's launcher capacity through Ariane 5. If the full potential of

    899
    Ariane 5 is to be realised it should be a man rated vehicle, and this possibility was to be studied. I understand ESA's latest decision is for a preparatory programme to study how Hermes, a manned vehicle to be carried by Ariane 5, could be constructed. It is not merely a question of simple evaluation. It is a concrete programme to prepare for the launch of Hermes. The launch date for Hermes will be in the middle of the next decade.
    Furthermore, the breakdown of funding for Hermes was approved in principle at the June meeting of ESA. If reports are correct, the French are to assume 50 per cent. of the responsibility and the Germans 25 per cent., leaving a further 25 per cent. to be divided among the remaining nine ESA members.
    The House will recall that the United Kingdom was in the forefront of launcher development. We unilaterally developed Blue Streak, initially as a ballistic missile system. Following the cancellation of the Blue Streak missile, it was adopted by the European Launcher Development Organisation as Europe's satellite launcher. Some eight launches were achieved and then, regrettably, Europa, as it was known, was cancelled. Since then, the United Kingdom has been out of the launcher business.
    However, British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce have put to the ESA our proposals for a revolutionary re-usable horizontal take-off and landing vehicle, designated HOTOL, with an exciting new power plant, the commercial potential of which is so great that it must be classified. The power plant is both air breathing in the lower layers and rocket-powered in exo-atmospheric flight.
    I do not see HOTOL as a direct competitor to Hermes, but it is important that the British National Space Centre and the Government in their inputs to ESA secure the ultimate development of HOTOL by ESA. I do not think that there need be a conflict with Hermes, which is a more immediate programme. The technology of Hermes is less advanced and its systems less sophisticated than those of HOTOL. To support Europe's participation in the NASA space station— this is a key element in ESA's 10-year programme — the Columbus module, primarily to be constructed by the Germans arid Italians, will be the central European element. The European module and European activity in support of the NASA station will require a manned re-usable vehicle, and Hermes could have real merits.
    There are two essential deficiencies in the European space programme. First, until now we have not had a manned space programme of our own. The United States and the Soviet Union recognised the key importance of man in space, which has enabled them to mobilise public opinion and political support for the ambitious programmes they have pursued. The Soviets recognised that to an extreme extent through the development of the Soyuz series of vehicles. They intend to place a permanent manned space station into orbit, probably in two or three years' time. Indeed, Commander Leonid Kizim, the present commander of Soyuz 15, is the first astronaut who has spent over a year in space. He reached that point on 5 July 1986. Another Soviet cosmonaut, a flight engineer, has completed 361 days in space. Clearly, the Soviets have long experience of sustained manned space flight operations, not merely for the greater good of Marxist-Leninism, but for sound strategic purposes. The Soviets' space programme is essentially military in nature.
    900
    I hope that the lack of a manned element in Europe's space programme will shortly be remedied through Hermes and HOTOL. It was a shame that Squadron Leader Nigel Wood, who was to have been the payload specialist for the launch of Skynet 4, has had to return to the United Kingdom following the decision to launch Skynet 4 on Ariane. We want an independent European manned space programme, not just that European astronauts should fly on the shuttle, as was done by the German payload specialist for Spacelab, or the French astronaut Chretian with the Soviets. We need an indigenous, autonomous, European manned space programme. Secondly, we must develop the full potential of space technology for our European defence.
    The Federal German Minister for Defence, Manfred Wörner, has been at the forefront of efforts to push the European members of NATO towards the development of a European strategic defence initiative. Lieutenant General Jim Abrahamson was in this country yesterday on his way to Brussels in an attempt to goad the Europeans into a more active participation in the strategic defence initiative—and rightly so in my judgment.
    In no area is European participation more important than in the development of short-range systems to protect Europe from the growing threat of SS21, SS22 and SS23 ballistic missiles situated in the western military districts of the Soviet Union and in Czechoslovakia and East Germany, against which at present there is no defence. The current negotiations — on intermediate range and strategic nuclear arms reductions— do not cover these weapons.
    As part of the European input to the strategic defence initiative, I hope that we will do all that we can to play as full a part as possible in the development of these short-range, defensive, anti-ballistic missile systems which, in this exposed and much threatened continent, we badly need.
    In conclusion, I see the need for an expanding European space programme with an enlarged British participation. It could be a major engine for economic growth and above all for the development of new high technology industries. To their credit, the Government have made significant steps in the right direction but their commitment in financial terms has not matched their good sense in political judgment.
    If Roy Gibson's national space programme is approved, we are likely to see a doubling of the British space commitment which runs to the tune of some £100 million at present. However, we spend £40,000 million on social security. A lot of the money goes straight down the drain. If we compare that prodigious expenditure with the paltry amount which we invest in space—the technology of mankind's future—we can see the lack of proportion in our expenditure priorities. I commend the amendment and I hope that the Government will do more in the area of space technology to create an enlarged and more effective European space programme.
    6.22 pm
    Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I am glad that we have selected this topic for debate. It is natural that the topics raised reflect a wide range of interests, and these have ranged wider than the terms of the motion. Nevertheless, we have heard interesting comments from hon. Members on both sides of the House.

    901
    It is interesting that we are talking not simply with hindsight. The present position was predicted some time ago. I have always been impressed by the comments of the French Liberal, Servan-Schreiber, who, in his book, "The American Challenge", which was written almost 20 years ago, described what would happen if we were to follow the path that we have followed in the intervening 20 years. He remarked at the time:
    "If Europe really wishes to escape American domination, there is only the way of federalism and social justice."
    He went on to state:
    "If Europe is not to be defeated in this battle of computer manufacturing, it must unify its efforts under a single command."
    The high technology industries are a perfect example of the problems that we face in endeavouring to compete fairly on an international scale. Supplies within our industries are dominated by huge United States corporations backed by the extraterritorial application of United States export laws, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). In some cases, there have been questionable trading practices. It is extremely difficult for smaller United Kingdom companies to challenge this market domination. It is not impossible for them to do so on the basis of a lack of imagination or technical knowledge. In a sense, the Americans wish to restrict and constrict the market for our companies because of the excellence of some British innovations. If it had not been for the fact that some American-based companies were fearful of what would happen if there were fair competition with the United Kingdom, I doubt whether they would have wanted to exert the pressure that they have on British companies.
    The Minister commented on the Systime problem, which we raised in an Adjournment debate in February. I received a response from the Minister of State yesterday, and my colleagues and I are carefully considering our response to it. Under the United States Freedom of Information Act—their system is somewhat better than ours because it enables us to obtain material on these matters — we have received copies of the documents involved in the recent case in which Systime was fined a substantial amount of money by the United States Department of Commerce.
    When I received those documents, I was interested to see, contrary to what I had fondly imagined, that the case against Systime was not against the United States subsidiary of Systime UK but was directly against Systime Computers Limited of Millshaw park, Leeds 11. It is astonishing that the American Department of Commerce —the documents are available and clearly state this—should seek to impose its legal jurisdiction on a United Kingdom company in that way. As I understand the law, if Systime wanted, it could have refused to take part in any conduct of that case. It could have walked away and claimed that the department had no jurisdiction over that company.
    As the Minister made clear in his opening remarks, the problem is that if companies do not believe that the Government will defend them against such extraterritorial intervention, there is no way that a company can hope to survive without submitting. Unless a company can continue to receive supplies, it cannot trade. Companies do not have the cash flow or resources to enable them to
    902
    carry out a long battle with American companies. Therefore, rather than fighting under such circumstances, they can do nothing but give in.
    The Minister wondered whether companies wanted to go on to a blacklist. It is astonishing that the Government accept that there could be a blacklist for our companies. I accept that that is the reality, but throughout this debate we have asked what the Government will do to make such a blacklist ineffective. We know that such a blacklist will exist and we know of the existence of export denials of companies that export in this country. We know that that happens and that efforts are made to continue that process.
    The American Government will continue to push against the door to open it as wide as possible to affect our industry. Will the British Government try to close that door? At present, we believe that the United States Department of Commerce is pushing against an open door. That increases interference week by week, month by month. The Minister also questioned whether it was better for a company to be consulted to discover whether it wanted to take part in a process of the Americans examining its accounts rather than taking part in the licensing process. The Minister appears to be prepared to allow commercial companies to decide whether sovereignty is waived. It is astonishing that a Conservative Government, who pride themselves on a belief in sovereignty, could allow such a discussion to take place.
    There is far more freedom for smaller companies to contest against larger companies in the United States than there is for United Kingdom companies to defend themselves in this country against United States companies. Emulex, which trades in this country but which is American-based, has managed to win concessions out of DEC in the United States which it could not possibly have won had it fought under United Kingdom law from this country.
    The Minister has asked for examples of such cases and I noted his stricture to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil about confidentiality and anonymity. It is no wonder that companies are not anxious to have their names broadcast when they are worried about future restrictions on supply. On that basis, I can quote an example, but, as we are in the real world, I dare not give the name of the company. A letter that I received on 22 April states:
    "All our activities are approached with full support of the Board of Trade and with all necessary UK Export Licences, but now we find ourselves in the crazy situation where our activities are illegal with regard to the American Government. To give you an example, we took an order from a Singaporian customer for £500,000 worth of computer system which we had put together using American components: this was in November of last year. We got the UK Export Licence within seven days, and at the same time applied to the Department of Commerce in Washington on the infamous ITA699P Permission to Re-export Application'. Our customer had been approved by the Singaporian Government, and yet we are still waiting for the US Licence to be approved. As a business decision we shipped the order, and as a result we have won follow-on orders from this customer."
    That is a United Kingdom high technology business that has fought its way in an overseas market. It said that to make sure that it was able to fulfil that order and get repeat orders, it had to ship illegally according to the United States Government. That is unacceptable.
    Are we being anti-American by raising such points? If any of us are concerned about our relationship with the

    903
    Americans and the development of our relationship not only on a governmental level but between our different peoples, it is important that we warn our American friends and allies when we feel that they are doing things that are harmful to that relationship. It is no friend or ally who sees the Americans heading towards greater bitterness and distress from what they are doing in this country without warning them that that is happening. That is why it is crucial that we debate the matter today before it goes further.
    In view of what was written 20 years ago and what we have said on numerous occasions in the House and outside, I believe that unless there is a united European market, and unless there is united European co-operation on those matters, there is no way that we can stand up to the Americans' desire to involve themselves in our market for the sake of maintaining their own economy. I believe that the United States economy is in deep distress. It has cumulative problems, and it seeks to maintain the American dream by looking at other places where it can develop. Unless we in Europe are prepared to say that we have a strong, powerful and effective industry and that we have resources that the Americans might want to use, it will be impossible to prevent the blacklist and the extraterritorial export rules. This is all about being able to compete fairly. That is all that the customers, the clients and the companies with which we have been involved wish, but we do not see the British Government standing up for their rights.
    6.32 pm
    Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: One of the Opposition's consistent themes is that our information technology industry is doing badly. They say that it is doing badly simply because there is not enough Government money to support it. It is true that some of the raw statistics show that the deficit in our IT products trade has been growing, although it has been stabilising recently. However, of course that deficit has grown, in the same way as the whole sector has grown. The IT deficit is also growing at a far faster rate in Europe and, indeed, in the United States, which went into deficit on its IT products a couple of years ago. Looking at the raw statistics hides the fact that in many areas of our information technology and electronics industries we are doing exceedingly well. Where companies are making good quality products and taking the trouble to go out into the world, and go to Japan and sell them, they are prospering.
    The Opposition claim that the Government have no strategy m information technology. Let us have a quick look at what the Opposition's strategy is. Their policies rely on two major pillars — more money and more Government control and intervention. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), looked to the French as an example of successful intervention in industry. He could not have chosen a more disastrous example if he had tried. In the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s the French Government poured billions of francs into the French electronics industry. In the mid-1960s under de Gaulle they encouraged the merger of CII and Bull, and later they brought in Honeywell as well. That was a disaster. When the Communist-Socialist coalition came into power in 1981 the Government nationalised the French electronics industry and encouraged the merger of Thomson Alcatel
    904
    and CGE. At the time they promised that employment in the French electronics industry would double. In fact, it has fallen by 25 per cent. and the French electronics industry is in a disastrous state. What is more, it is costing the French taxpayer billions of francs every year.
    However, we do not have to look across the water. We can look at the policies of the Labour Government when they were in power in the 1970s. They tried the old interventionist, dirigiste themes. We had the National Enterprise Board. One of its favourite companies was one called Nexos, which has recently been the subject of an investigation by the Public Accounts Committee. Nexos was meant to he Britain's answer to IBM. With Government support, the politicians and the civil servants were going to create a British IBM. What happened? Nexos went bust a few years later, having cost the taxpayer £40 million. During its brief reign it succeeded in importing vast quantities of Japanese office equipment. It managed to import more Japanese facsimile machines in one year than could be sold in the whole of the market. When the company finally went bust it still had on its books 1,000 of those Japanese facsimile machines. The British Technology Group, which took over from the NEB, had to sell those machines, which had been bought for more than £1 million, for £1—not £1 each, but £1.
    Mr. Randall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I apologise. I cannot give way as time is short.
    I attended the debate in the House a few years ago on technology, in which many Opposition Members praised INMOS, which is another of the NEB's creations. At that time INMOS was riding on the crest of one of the biggest booms that the electronics and microchip industry has ever seen. Obviously, it was doing well then. Since then, unfortunately, it has sunk into great losses. Although many people admire its transputer products and other products, the fact is that, unfortunately, it is not doing very well in selling those products on the world market.
    What is Labour's new policy? Its new policy for the 1980s and 1990s, should a Labour Government be elected, involves renationalisation of British Telecom. What a pathetic, backward-looking policy. Our privatisation of British Telecom has been one of the most successful policies ever carried out by a Government in this country. It has meant not only that the workers in that company have a share in the company, but consumers have a better deal and the Government are getting more money from the company. The fact is that under Labour, when the General Post Office ran the telecommunications system, if one wanted to buy anything from the telecommunications side, and if one wanted an interview with a sales representative, it was almost like trying to get an interview with the Pope. It was almost impossible to get anything. Businesses had to bribe telecommunications engineers to get the essential equipment that they wanted into their companies.
    If those policies are implemented in the late 1980s and the 1990s, we shall have the same results as those policies produced in the 1970s. We shall have a vast waste of public money and demoralisation of our industry because of the simple fact that Opposition Members, with their lack of business experience, have not learnt that politicians and civil servants simply cannot run private industry. It is as simple as that. They have not learnt that lesson.
    Opposition Members say that the Government have no strategy for the information technology industry. They do

    905
    have a strategy. It relies on creating the conditions in which businesses can prosper. Our IT industry is no different from any other of our industries in that regard. It needs the same preconditions for its prosperity. It needs long-term pro-enterprise policies, stable prices, good industrial relations and quality in management, which is allowed to manage its company, and above all it needs profit. Of course, "profit" was a dirty word under the Labour Government. The countries that have done best in information technology—the United States and Japan—have followed those policies consistently for the past 30 or 40 years.
    As we are all aware, Britain does not have an especially large market compared to the Japanese or the United States home markets. It is unfortunately true that we do not yet have a full internal market in Europe. Unfortunately, a number of non-tariff barriers in Europe prevent us from selling our equipment on the European market, especially the telecommunications market. In many ways, those tariffs are illogical. For example, tariffs on fully assembled computers or sub-assemblies are higher than tariffs on the imported components. Clearly, that is a disincentive for British manufacturers to get their goods assembled onshore. That is why companies such as Amstrad and Apricot have to get much of their equipment assembled offshore.
    Time is running out. I believe that this Government have done more to encourage the IT industries than any previous Government. Their policies are forward-looking. If there is another Labour Government—I hope that will never happen—we shall be back with the stale old ideas and policies that have failed before in this country and abroad.
    6.40 pm
    Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: It is regrettable that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) did not dwell more on the role of the subject of the debate, which he at last reached in his final sentences. I shall comment on one point made by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) about British telecommunications. Clearly, that industry is central to the development of high technology and all industry. It is regrettable that the question of the renationalisation of British Telecom has been raised because of the Labour party's recent pronouncements and the decision of the court in Strasbourg as a result of the British Government's action.
    The waiting list for telephone equipment and handsets was ended not by privatisation but by liberalisation and the introduction of competition. British Telecom might give better service to its customers, offer more competitive prices and be more efficient if there were even more competition than the Government allowed under the British Telecommunications Bill which was introduced to privatise telecommunications. Competition, not privatisation, has brought about better service for the consumer.
    The debate has ranged widely between the constituency interests of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who has apologised because he had to leave to go to his constituency, and the future of the space industry, which was raised by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). I agreed with many of the remarks by the hon. Member for Ruislip-
    906
    Northwood about the development of the space industry. Unfortunately, he spoilt them by his references to spending on social security. He slightly over-egged the pudding. He ignored the small contribution—2 per cent. —that we are making to the European Space Agency. The development at Farnborough is excellent and I hope that it is built up and strengthened and will work in cooperation with the ESA. I hope, too, that British Aerospace's work with HOTOL is successful and can be integrated in or at least co-ordinated with the work in Europe.
    The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood did not mention the excellent work on satellites by British Aerospace. One of our major contributions on space has been through the work of British Aerospace and other companies on satellite technology. We have been involved in European as well as other rockets.
    I wish to refer to the core of the motion and debate. Over a long period, my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) and for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) have vigorously pursued this issue. The House and the industry owe them a debt for the vigour with which they have pursued it. They have displayed their interest and knowledge of extraterritoriality—United States law restricting British companies and high technology development in this country.
    We are saying two things. First, the United Kingdom is doing badly in high technology. It cannot afford this impediment to progress of British companies in high technology. Secondly, it is unacceptable in principle that United States law should be used in the way described by the lawyers of the Crown as an unwarranted encroachment on our territory and contrary to international law. An analogy can be drawn with our battle with the United States over the imposition of unitary taxation. I was part of a delegation which recently went to make representations to the United States Government and Congress about that issue. Once again, United States law was used in a way that penalised British companies, outside all the conventions of international law, and operated basically on the basis of "might is right". We should be saying loudly and clearly that we are not prepared to accept that.
    We are doing badly in high technology. I believe that all hon. Members will feel that the response by the Minister for Information Technology to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil was disappointing and displayed tremendous complacency in the light of the damage being done and the weaknesses of our high technology industries. The crude balance of trade for information technology has widened from a deficit of £468 million in 1979 to £2·4 billion in 1984 and £1·8 billion in 1985. For microelectronics, the trade deficit widened from £13 million in 1979 to £645 million in 1984 and £565 million in 1985.
    We have dangerous levels of import penetration in a number of key respects. For example, it is 57 per cent. in electronic data processing, 67 per cent. in office machinery and 24 per cent. in radio/electronic capital goods. One could go on citing key aspects where the level of import penetration is disastrous for our industry.
    An article in today's Financial Times estimates that 70 per cent. of the crucial European software market is dominated by the United States. The Government have not been able or prepared to take action to reverse that pattern.

    907
    The major subject of the motion is the unwarranted encroachment by United States law on our companies. It is intolerable — I hope that the Minister will recognise this and reflect it in his language—that businesses are being impeded by having to wait for up to three months for licences from the United States Department of Commerce. What is the Minister prepared to say— he did not respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil —about the United States preventing the Government from moving a computer from Harwell to London university? What will the Government do about that? Do they accept it? Are they prepared to tolerate it? What have the Government said about it to the United States?
    Companies which are being impeded by this extraterritorial action would be given some hope if the Government were at least prepared to do more on their behalf. They are in an impossible position. I am afraid that one concluded on listening to the Minister that he was prepared, to allow companies to be put into a position in which they fundamentally have to give way to blackmail. They face the threat of being put on a blacklist, of losing business and of not being able to obtain and to export products if they do not accept the legislation of the United States Government. That is unacceptable.
    Companies are not strong enough to take on the whole of the United States Administration. In many instances, they are not even strong enough to take on the bureaucracy and expense involved in going through that whole rigmarole. That is doing enormous damage. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will go much further than he did in his earlier remarks and give hope to companies that have been hit by this requirement of the United States that the British Government will fight in a way that we have not seen to date.
    There is a well known, well recognised and possible way of resolving the problem with the United States. Everyone knows that the answer is to go through COCOM in Paris. There was no need to go down the road that the Government chose. That route was inappropriate and there is the possibility that relationships between the United Kingdom and the United States will be impeded and interrupted, but we must make it clear that we shall be a thorn in the side of the United States unless it is prepared to take action. That was the message that was taken to the White House and the United States treasury on unitary taxation. I hope that Ministers will make it clear to the Department of Commerce and Congress that good relations will be impeded unless the United States Administration is prepared to act.
    The Minister has an opportunity this evening to give that message loud and clear to the United States Administration and to give hope to the companies that have been hit. He can make it clear that the Government will give them backing in fighting the requirement. We must demonstrate that might is not right and that we are not prepared to be blackmailed, whether the blackmail comes from individuals, from institutions or from a Government.
    Mr. Pattie rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the Minister have the leave of the House to speak again? I take it that he has.
    6.52 pm
    Mr. Pattie: We have had the extensive and wide-ranging debate that was foreshadowed when it began. I am sure that alliance Members realised that it might range far. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) talked about the transformation of the performance of British Telecom and raised various matters concerning the Alvey programme. I can confirm that the user aspect will be emphasised when we come to examine the Bide report. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) talked about space, about which he knows a great deal. As I said to him in an earlier intervention, we await with interest the plan of the British National Space Centre, on which we shall take decisions in the near future.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) correctly assessed by the less than entirely successful position in France caused by interventionist policies over the years. He reminded us of the considerable benefits and improvements in the performance of British Telecom. I have received a message from the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that he has had to leave the Chamber to return to his constituency. The matters that he raised about tax regimes for offshore oil companies, for example, are not for me. They will, however, be referred to the appropriate Department.
    The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) was right when he said that it was not simply the creation of British Telecom that had produced improvements and a dramatic increase in performance. He omitted to say that liberalisation and competition are part and parcel of the same process. We cannot have liberalisation and competition unless we create something in the nature of British Telecom in the first place.
    The hon. Member for Stockton, South referred to the excellent work on satellites that British Aerospace carries out. This reference was characteristic of the thoughtful speeches that the hon. Gentleman makes in the House.
    The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) always gives me some problems. I make notes and address myself to his reasonable arguments, only to find that suddenly he changes gear and produces a stream of complete gibberish. That is one of his specialities. I prepared myself to respond to his question about whether we would delay taking a decision on the Bide committee's follow-on to the Alvey programme. The answer is that we shall not. We shall want to take a decision as quickly as possible once the Bide committee has reported in October. When I was making that note, the gibberish began. There was a series of rapidly uttered non sequiturs — for example, the assertion that Westland is being sold to the United States. Such assertions make me wonder where the hon. Gentleman has been.
    The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West spoke about France. It seems that he, like many others, thinks that everything that is done in France is marvellous. He said that France spends more as a percentage of its GDP on research and development than we do. In fact, France spends 2·1 per cent. of its GDP on research and development and not 3 per cent. as he claimed. We spend more as a percentage of GDP as our spending amounts to 2·3 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should concentrate a little more on getting his facts straight.
    To be fair to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West, he was the only Member to participate in the debate

    909
    who referred to the International Court of Justice and a juridical outcome. He was saying, in effect, "How about Her Majesty's Government taking the United States to the Court of Justice?" Further research would have told him that the United States has decided, on the basis of Nicaragua, I think, that it will not be party to any actions brought in the International Court of Justice unless it agrees that it will accept the jurisdiction. There is no point in anyone inside or outside the House wringing his hands about that. We accept that we are faced with a serious problem, and what I would call the juridical route is not open to us.
    The hon. Member for Stockton, South listed various examples of import penetration and added that most of it involved the United States, without being prepared to say that that does not put us in a very strong position to take the crusading attitude that he would like us to adopt. He told us that, with others, he went to the White House and bearded the Congressmen in their den on Capital hill. That is great, and I applaud his efforts. If penetration of our market by the United States has reached the extent that he claims— I do not refute any of his figures—that does not put us in a very favourable position to take a strong line on behalf of British companies—
    Mr. Ashdown rose—
    Mr. Pattie: No, I shall not give way.
    Mr. Ashdown: Deal with the Harwell computer.
    Mr. Pattie: Very well. The impression has been given by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and others that nothing is being done, and that every time the United States talks about the moving of the Harwell computer to London university we say, "That is fine. There is no problem." We are making the most urgent and strenuous representations—
    Mr. Ashdown: It is the Government's computer.
    Mr. Pattie: Discussions are in progress now. If the hon. Gentleman listens, I shall answer his questions. The computer is in the United Kingdom and there is a service, maintenance and enhancement contract.
    Mr. Ashdown: It is your computer.
    Mr. Pattie: The contract is with an American company. Even the hon. Gentleman, with his incredible stupidity, will realise that we must take account of a contract. What is the position if the United Kingdom Government or a university want to move a computer and the company which has supplied it says, "If you wish to move it, you will have to break down the computer and comply with the agreements that have been made."? We do not like that and we are having discussions with the United States Government. They are not taking place on the Floor of the House for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman or of anyone else. To suggest that nothing is being done is a travesty, and I want to take the hon. Gentleman to task. The Liberals and SDP have decided to base their case on what could have been a wide-ranging debate on a very important topic; they have decided instead to base it on a very narrow point, and have not proved their case.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 250.

    Division No. 257]

    [7.00pm

    AYES

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Anderson, Donald

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Kennedy, Charles

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Ashton, Joe

    Lamond, James

    Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Barron, Kevin

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Beckett, Mrs Margaret

    Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

    Beith, A. J.

    Litherland, Robert

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Livsey, Richard

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

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Loyden, Edward

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    McCartney, Hugh

    Boyes, Roland

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    McGuire, Michael

    Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

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

    McKelvey, William

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

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Maclennan, Robert

    Caborn, Richard

    McTaggart, Robert

    Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

    Madden, Max

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Marek, Dr John

    Carl Me, Alexander (Montg'y)

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Maxton, John

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Clarke, Thomas

    Meadowcroft, Michael

    Clay, Robert

    Michie, William

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Mikardo, Ian

    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Cohen, Harry

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Coleman, Donald

    Nellist, David

    Corbett, Robin

    O'Brien, William

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    O'Neill, Martin

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Craigen, J. M.

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Park, George

    Dalyell, Tam

    Parry, Robert

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

    Patchett, Terry

    Deakins, Eric

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Dewar, Donald

    Penhaligon, David

    Douglas, Dick

    Pike, Peter

    Dubs, Alfred

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Prescott, John

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

    Radice, Giles

    Eadie, Alex

    Randall, Stuart

    Eastham, Ken

    Raynsford, Nick

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

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Evans, John (St. Helens N)

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Ewing, Harry

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Rogers, Allan

    Flannery, Martin

    Rooker, J. W.

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

    Forrester, John

    Sheerman, Barry

    Foster, Derek

    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

    Foulkes, George

    Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Freud, Clement

    Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

    Garrett, W. E.

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

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Silkin, Rt Hon J.

    Gourlay, Harry

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hamilton, James (M'well N)

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

    Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Hancock, Michael

    Snape, Peter

    Hardy, Peter

    Soley, Clive

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Stott, Roger

    Home Robertson, John

    Strang, Gavin

    Howells, Geraint

    Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

    Hoyle, Douglas

    Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

    Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

    Thorne, Stan (Preston)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Tinn, James

    Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Wareing, Robert

    Janner, Hon Greville

    Wigley, Dafydd

    John, Brynmor

    Wilson, Gordon

    911

    Woodall, Alec

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Mr. John Cartwright and

    Mr. James Wallace.

    NOES

    Alexander, Richard

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Amess, David

    Fallon, Michael

    Ancram, Michael

    Farr, Sir John

    Arnold, Tom

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    Ashby, David

    Fletcher, Alexander

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Gale, Roger

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

    Galley, Roy

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

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Baldry, Tony

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Batiste, Spencer

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon

    Bellingham, Henry

    Ground, Patrick

    Bendall, Vivian

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Benyon, William

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Best, Keith

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Harris, David

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Blackburn, John

    Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Hayward, Robert

    Bottomley, Peter

    Heddle, John

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Henderson, Barry

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

    Hill, James

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes

    Holt, Richard

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

    Bright, Graham

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

    Brinton, Tim

    Hubbard-Miles, Peter

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Hunter, Andrew

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Irving, Charles

    Bruinvels, Peter

    Jackson, Robert

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

    Jessel, Toby

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Burt, Alistair

    Jones, Robert (Herts W)

    Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Butterfill, John

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Lawler, Geoffrey

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

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Carttiss, Michael

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Channon, R: Hon Paul

    Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Lilley, Peter

    Chope, Christopher

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Lyell, Nicholas

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

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Maclean, David John

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Cockeram, Eric

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Colvin, Michael

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

    Conway, Derek

    McQuarrie, Albert

    Coombs, Simon

    Major, John

    Cope, John

    Malins, Humfrey

    Cormack, Patrick

    Malone, Gerald

    Corrie, John

    Maples, John

    Couchman, James

    Marland, Paul

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Marlow, Antony

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Mather, Carol

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Dover, Den

    Mayhew, Sir Patrick

    Dunn, Robert

    Merchant, Piers

    Durant, Tony

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Edwards, R1 Hon N. (P'broke)

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Eggar, Tim

    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

    Evennett, David

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Eyre, Sir Reginald

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    912

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Squire, Robin

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Murphy, Christopher

    Stanley, Rt Hon John

    Neale, Gerrard

    Stern, Michael

    Newton, Tony

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Norris, Steven

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Sumberg, David

    Osborn, Sir John

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Terlezki, Stefan

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

    Pollock, Alexander

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

    Porter, Barry

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Portillo, Michael

    Thurnham, Peter

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Powley, John

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Price, Sir David

    Viggers, Peter

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Waddington, David

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Raffan, Keith

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Rathbone, Tim

    Walden, George

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Walker, Bill (T'side N)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Waller, Gary

    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

    Ward, John

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Watson, John

    Rost, Peter

    Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

    Ryder, Richard

    Wheeler, John

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Whitfield, John

    Scott, Nicholas

    Whitney, Raymond

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Wilkinson, John

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Shersby, Michael

    Wood, Timothy

    Silvester, Fred

    Woodcock, Michael

    Sims, Roger

    Yeo, Tim

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Speed, Keith

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Speller, Tony

    Mr. Michael Neubert and

    Spencer, Derek

    Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):
    The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 149.

    Division No. 258]

    [7.15 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Blackburn, John

    Amess, David

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Ancram, Michael

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Arnold, Tom

    Bottomley, Peter

    Ashby, David

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Aspinwall, Jack

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

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Baldry, Tony

    Bright, Graham

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Brinton, Tim

    Batiste, Spencer

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Bellingham, Henry

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Bendall, Vivian

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Best, Keith

    Bruinvels, Peter

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

    913

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

    Burt, Alistair

    Lilley, Peter

    Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Butterfill, John

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Macfarlane, Neil

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

    MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

    Carttiss, Michael

    MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Maclean, David John

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Chapman, Sydney

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Chope, Christopher

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

    Churchill, W. S.

    McQuarrie, Albert

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

    Major, John

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Marland, Paul

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Marlow, Antony

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Cockeram, Eric

    Mather, Carol

    Colvin, Michael

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Conway, Derek

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Coombs, Simon

    Mayhew, Sir Patrick

    Cope, John

    Merchant, Piers

    Cormack, Patrick

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Corrie, John

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Couchman, James

    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Moate, Roger

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Dover, Den

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Eggar, Tim

    Murphy, Christopher

    Evennett, David

    Neale, Gerrard

    Eyre, Sir Reginald

    Needham, Richard

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Nelson, Anthony

    Fallon, Michael

    Neubert, Michael

    Farr, Sir John

    Newton, Tony

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Fletcher, Alexander

    Norris, Steven

    Gale, Roger

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Galley, Roy

    Osborn, Sir John

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Ottaway, Richard

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Gregory, Conal

    Pawsey, James

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon

    Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Ground, Patrick

    Pollock, Alexander

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Porter, Barry

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Portillo, Michael

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Harris, David

    Powley, John

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

    Price, Sir David

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Hayward, Robert

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Henderson, Barry

    Raffan, Keith

    Hill, James

    Rathbone, Tim

    Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Holt, Richard

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Hubbard-Miles, Peter

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Rost, Peter

    Hunter, Andrew

    Rowe, Andrew

    Irving, Charles

    Ryder, Richard

    Jackson, Robert

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Jessel, Toby

    Scott, Nicholas

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Jones, Robert (Herts W)

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Lawler, Geoffrey

    Shersby, Michael

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Silvester, Fred

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Sims, Roger

    Lester, Jim

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    914

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Speed, Keith

    Walden, George

    Speller, Tony

    Walker, Bill (T'side N)

    Spencer, Derek

    Waller, Gary

    Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

    Ward, John

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wardle, C. (Bexhiil)

    Squire, Robin

    Warren, Kenneth

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Watson, John

    Stern, Michael

    Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Wheeler, John

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Whittield, John

    Sumberg, David

    Whitney, Raymond

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Wilkinson, John

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Terlezki, Stefan

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Wolfson, Mark

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Wood, Timothy

    Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

    Woodcock, Michael

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

    Yeo, Tim

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Viggers, Peter

    Mr. Tony Durant and

    Waddington, David

    Mr. Gerald Malone.

    NOES

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Forrester, John

    Anderson, Donald

    Foster, Derek

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Foulkes, George

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Freud, Clement

    Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

    Garrett, W. E.

    Beckett, Mrs Margaret

    George, Bruce

    Beith, A. J.

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Gourlay, Harry

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

    Hamilton, James (M'well N)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Hancock, Michael

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Hardy, Peter

    Boyes, Roland

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

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

    Home Robertson, John

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

    Howells, Geraint

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Hoyle, Douglas

    Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

    Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Janner, Hon Greville

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    John, Brynmor

    Clarke, Thomas

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Clay, Robert

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Kennedy, Charles

    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Coleman, Donald

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Corbett, Robin

    Lamond, James

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Leighton, Ronald

    Craigen, J. M.

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Litherland, Robert

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

    Livsey, Richard

    Deakins, Eric

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Dewar, Donald

    Loyden, Edward

    Douglas, Dick

    McCartney, Hugh

    Dubs, Alfred

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    McGuire, Michael

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Eadie, Alex

    McKelvey, William

    Eastham, Ken

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Evans, John (St. Helens N)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Ewing, Harry

    Madden, Max

    Faulds, Andrew

    Marek, Dr John

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Flannery, Martin

    Maxton, John

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    915

    Meadowcroft, Michael

    Sheerman, Barry

    Michie, William

    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

    Mikardo. Ian

    Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

    Nellist, David

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

    O'Brien, William

    Silkin, Rt Hon J.

    O'Neill, Martin

    Skinner, Dennis

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Smith, C.(Isrton S & F'bury)

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

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

    Park, George

    Snape, Peter

    Parry, Robert

    Soley, Clive

    Patchett, Terry

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Stott, Roger

    Penhaligon, David

    Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

    Pike, Peter

    Thorne, Stan (Preston)

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Tinn, James

    Prescott, John

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Radice, Giles

    Wareing, Robert

    Randall, Stuart

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Raynsford, Nick

    Woodall, Alec

    Redmond, Martin

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

    Mr. James Wallace and

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Mr. John Cartwright.

    Rogers, Allan

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House, recognising the importance to employment, defence, education and the economy of a strong high technology sector, applauds Her Majesty's Government's actions to support this sector through the provision of a favourable climate for business and through support for research and development; endorses Her Majesty's Government's continuing efforts to prevent, by discussion on a case-by-case basis, the extra-territorial imposition of United States law on United Kingdom firms exporting high technology from the United Kingdom; and supports the Government's initiatives to encourage British high technology industries and their intention during the Presidency of the Council of the European Communities to co-ordinate policies to promote European high technology co-operation.

Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill (By Order)
Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
7.24 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last night I was rather disappointed that I sat here for the full three hours of the debate but was unable to catch your eye before the promoters of the Bill moved the closure. I make no complaint about that, but it leads me to think that it is possible that the promoters will seek to move the closure on this first group of amendments some time between now and 10 o'clock. I put it to you, and through you to the promoters, that it might be a little unusual if extra time were to be found for the Bill, in view of the very large amount of parliamentay time that has been consumed by it so far. If the closure were to be moved tonight, it would make it extremely difficult for the promoters to negotiate with those Opposition Members who are a little tired of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill and wish to produce an agreed Bill that might come back to the House at a later stage.
It would be very difficult for the House if new clause 2 were to be defeated tonight as part of a deal with some Opposition Members. I put it to you that it might lead to better progress in the long term if the House did not rush to a speedy vote tonight and if an opportunity could be provided for further negotiations to take place.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of points, one or two of which are hypothetical. It is not for me to communicate the hon. Gentleman's views to the promoters, but I am sure that his views will be communicated in one way or another.
The hon. Gentleman's question relating to new clause 2 is entirely hypothetical and will be a matter for the judgment of the Chair, in the light of the circumstances.

Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill (By Order)
  New Clause 2

    CONSENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN WORKS
    `(1) The Company shall not exercise the powers conferred by Section 6 of this Act without first obtaining the consent in writing of the Secretary of State in any case where—

    (a) the works include works of land reclaimed, and

    (b) the area of land which is to be reclaimed is to be used for purposes which require close and convenient access to a berth which is to be constructed within the area of jurisdiction of the Company.

    (2) The Secretary of State shall give his consent under this Section in any case where he is reasonably satisfied that

    (a) further development of the land which is to be reclaimed will be commenced not later than one year after the date on which the works of reclamation have been substantially completed;

    (b) no reasonable alternative site for that further development is available on other land within the area of jurisdiction of the Company; and

    (c) the area of land to be reclaimed is no greater than that which is reasonably required to accommodate that further development.

    (3) Where an application has been received by the Secretary of State from the Company for his consent under

    917
    this Section, the Secretary of State shall, within the period of eight weeks following that receipt, give his consent or notify the Company of his decision to withhold it.
    (4) A consent given under this Section shall come into force as soon as it is given and shall remain in force for a period of one year or for such longer period as may be specified by the Secretary of State when he gives his consent and the duration of a consent so given may, at any time before its expiry, be extended for such further period or periods as the Secretary of State may specify by written notice given to the Company.'.—[Mrs. Ann Clwyd.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this new clause it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in clause 3, page 4, line 9, leave out 'or any land reclaimed,'.
    No. 8, in clause 6, page 5, line 33, leave out
    'enclosing an area of 95 hectares'.
    No. 9, in page 5, line 39, leave out from 'and' to end of line 41 and insert
    'contained within the limits shown on the deposited plans and described as "Limits of deviation of work"'.
    No. 10, in page 6, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 5.
    No. 11, in page 6, line 2, after 'above', insert 'and subject to the consent in writing of the Secretary of State for the Environment,'.
    Mrs. Clwyd: I should remind hon. Members of the contents of new clause 2. Subsection (1) reads:
    "The Company shall not exercise the powers conferred by Section 6 of this Act without first obtaining the consent in writing of the Secretary of State in any case where—

    (a) the works include works of land reclaimed, and

    (b) the area of land which is to be reclaimed is to be used for purposes which require close and convenient access to a berth which is to be constructed within the area of jurisdiction of the Company."

    Subsection (2) provides:
    "The Secretary of State shall give his consent under this Section in any case where he is reasonably satisfied that—

    (a) further development of the land which is to be reclaimed will be commenced not later than one year after the date on which the works of reclamation have been substantially completed;

    (b) no reasonable alternative site for that further development is available"—

    Sir Eldon Griffiths: It is quite unnecessary for the hon. Lady to read out the entire new clause, because every hon. Member has it in front of him and is able to read.
    Mr. Ken Weetch: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely it is in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) to read out the text of the clause. I take it that there is nothing in Standing Orders that prevents my hon. Friend from doing so. Could we have your ruling on that point?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): If the hon. Lady had been out of order, I should have pulled her up, but what was said by her was in order.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was perfectly in order, because during last night's debate it was quite obvious that some Conservative Members had not read the report of the main discussions that took place in
    918
    Committee on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. It is proper that they should be reminded of what we are trying to do.
    The new clause continues:
    "(c) the area of land to be reclaimed is no greater than that which is reasonably required to accommodate that further development.
    (3) Where an application has been received by the Secretary of State from the Company for his consent under this Section, the Secretary of State shall, within the period of eight weeks following that receipt, give his consent or notify the Company of his decision to withhold it.
    (4) A consent given under this Section shall come into force as soon as it is given and shall remain in force for a period of one year or for such longer period as may be specified by the Secretary of State when he gives his consent and the duration of a consent so given may, at any time before its expiry, be extended for such further period or periods as the Secretary of State may specify by written notice given to the Company."
    Mr. Weetch: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport is listening to the debate, and presumably monitoring points about it for the Government, but most of the points that we shall discuss tonight will not be about transport. They will be very much about the environment. Is it in order to ask for the presence of a Minister from the Department of the Environment so that we can have some sense when environmental points are answered?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that who is on the Government Front Bench at any time is not a matter for the Chair, but I have no doubt that his comment has been heard.
    Mrs. Clwyd: My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) has made a good point, because the fundamental purpose of the new clause is to subject to the authorisation of the Secretary of State for Transport reclamation works of a primary nature which might otherwise take place well in advance of the company's need to construct new berths under the powers in clause 6. Our point is that the company has been given powers to do some work, but that monitoring by the Secretary of State for Transport and his Department is not enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said, we need, in addition, the Secretary of State for the Environment. Clause 7 seeks to place a restraint on the deposit of any material of
    "more than three years before the start of construction of the quay,"
    or parts of the quay. We believe that three years is too long. Furthermore, valuable though it is to deal with peripheral dumping, clause 7 is full of weasel words. It requires the company to give notice to, but not obtain the authorisation of, the county and district councils which have legitimate local interests in the matter. We hope that clause 7 will receive support from both sides of the House tonight.
    The powers sought by the company have a direct bearing on matters of more than local interest. They have an impact on several areas of national policy. Last night we heard much about the national importance of the development at Felixstowe docks. In Committee, we discussed national docks policy, national landscape conservation policy, in view of the adjacent area of outstanding natural beauty, and national nature conservation policy because of the damage that will be caused to a site of special scientific interest. The European

    919
    Commission will take an especial interest in that site because of the United Kingdom's legal responsibilities under the directive on the conservation of wild birds.
    Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Has the hon. Lady ever been there?
    Mrs. Clwyd: Yes.
    Mr. Rhodes James: When?
    Mrs. Clwyd: Is this a dialogue, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I answered yes.
    Mr. Weetch: My hon. Friend has just given way to an intervention from a Conservative Member. I am glad that my hon. Friend has been there. Does she know that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) has described the area as a grotty piece of coastline? If the hon. Gentleman has described it in those terms, it is outrageous that he should show this synthetic concern and intervene in that way, trying to cause my hon. Friend the maximum embarrassment. It is disgraceful.
    Mr. Rhodes James rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene in an intervention.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Those of us who served on the Committee on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, even for a relatively short time, were well acquainted with the arguments put forward by the environmentalists and had considerable sympathy with them.
    Amendment No. 11 seeks to require the authority of the Secretary of State for the Environment for works which involve the enclosure and reclamation of the seabed, the river and its foreshore. I understand that it is a normal provision of port and harbour legislation for the authority of the accountable Secretary of State for Transport to be required for such works. Section 12 of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1968, entitled
    "Tidal works not to he executed without approval of Board of Trade,"
    does just that. That provision is expressly re-enacted in clause 10, and provides an additional safeguard for other persons whose navigational interests might be affected by such works.
    But who is to provide safeguards for our wildlife? Hon. Members spend many hours legislating to protect property and user rights, but we too infrequently protect the rights of other creatures or the rights of citizens to enjoy them. We are considering an area that attracts birds, and which is a national asset. We are asked by the people who support the development to allow wide open powers to a private company which intends only, as we heard so often last night, to serve its own financial interests. In so doing it will destroy thousands of birds of all descriptions which come to Britain in winter from many parts of Europe, and from Iceland, Greenland and Canada.
    In European Community terms the area is recognised as warranting special protection in law. If, against the arguments of Labour Members tonight, the Bill passes into law substantially unchanged, it will almost certainly run into difficulties with the Commission in Brussels. All too often the Government have got into difficulties with the European Court of Justice and have been brought before it on some issues more frequently than many other countries. If we run into those difficulties with the Commission, there will be no long-stop power in the hands of the Government to halt damaging reclamation activities
    920
    being carried out by the company while proceedings are taken against the United Kingdom in the European Court. As Department of the Environment Ministers must answer charges which undoubtedly, if the Bill proceeds, will be laid against the United Kingdom—not simply in court but in the Council of Ministers—it is appropriate that long-stop powers should be placed in their hands. Our amendments seek to do that.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I rise to support the new clause and amendments. If I thought that this Bill would lead to the construction of a new dock within the next 12 or 18 months which would in turn create many new jobs, I should be happy for it to be enacted. But there is no evidence that it will create new jobs. The best that the promoters can claim is that it will create new jobs in Britain at the expense of jobs in Europe. Others say that it will take jobs away from Britain. Whatever the case, I can see no evidence for the Bill creating new jobs.
    Until I have some evidence that the Bill will create new jobs, I can see no justification for a proposal that will damage the natural environment. We all have a responsibility to try to balance protecting the environment with the need to develop jobs and industries. I have always thought that we have a duty to try to leave the environment in as good a state as we inherited it from previous generations.
    Mr. Rhodes James: The proposals involve 500,000 new trees being planted and 85,000 acres of additional woodland. Is that bad environmental practice? Moreover, the doubling of a dockland surely involves jobs.
    Mr. Bennett: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had listened, like me, to last night's debate. It was forcefully pointed out then that the different types of environment are important. It is worth protecting these mudflats, because they attract certain types of birds. Trees may be attractive in certain places, but they will not provide a suitable environment for those birds. On occasion, I have severe reservations about the number of trees that are planted. Some of the Forestry Commission's areas do not enhance our natural environment at all. If there is to he a new development, let us screen it and make it as attractive as possible, but that does not mean that we would be improving the environment. We would merely be trying to screen the damage from others.
    As I have said, genuine new jobs would he one thing. However, I understand that the promoters claim only that they are trying to take jobs away from Rotterdam or from other European ports, so we are not creating new jobs but merely moving unemployment around—
    Mr. Rhodes James: Employment around.
    Mr. Bennett: One can say that we are moving unemployment around, or the reverse of that, which is that we are moving employment around. The promoters argue that the development will take jobs away from Europe and give jobs to Felixstowe. But we rightly argue that it will take jobs away from Tilbury and elsewhere. No one has said that jobs will be created. There is a tendency for products to be smaller in size, so the number and size of items is falling. Consequently, as I have said, there is no evidence that the Bill will create new jobs.
    Mr. Weetch: Does my hon. Friend realise that the port of Ipswich will be an early casualty of that dock extension? Before the Bill began its passage, I had detailed discussions

    921
    with the trade unions and management at the port of Ipswich, and they are very worried about the employment consequences for Ipswich. The Bill would bring excess dock capacity to East Anglia, which would mean that dog would eat dog, and the port of Ipswich could become a ghost port in 15 or 20 years.
    Mr. Bennett rose—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to go reasonably wide of the new clause; I am sure that he is now rapidly coming to the subject of the new clause, and the amendments associated with it.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Bennett: I was trying to talk about the new clause and the amendments, but in passing I wanted to point out that I would have been sympathetic to the Bill if it had created new jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) has just pointed out that it is likely to take jobs away from Ipswich. That brings me to the new clause, because we now come to the environmental argument. If new jobs were going to be created, it might be worth sacrificing some of the environment. But that is not so, so there can be no excuse for sacrificing wetland areas and mudflats.
    Sadly, dock developments have been allowed along the east coast of England and Scotland, and habitats have been destroyed. Recently, proposals came before the House that would affect Seal sands in the Tees and Hartlepool dockland area. Opposition Members resisted those proposals, but there was a great disappointment. Indeed, a much stronger case could be made for creating jobs in Middlesbrough or Hartlepool than for creating them in Felixstowe, but with the support of Conservative Members and with the encouragement of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, we fought hard to protect those wetlands. Substantial parts of the same sort of wetlands have gone for docks at Hull and Immingham, and all the ports round the Wash have gradually gone for reclamation schemes.
    Therefore, there have already been many demands to take away the natural habitat of birds that use those estuarial areas. The same sort of habitat has also been lost along the Thames. A lot of work has been done to enclose land round the Solent in preparation for developments that have not taken place. There were proposals to extend that work, thus affecting—
    Mr. Ted Leadbitter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on a matter of importance to the House and of relevance to the new clause. It has been raised with you previously, but having thought about the issue, I realise that we are placed in a special difficulty. It is on record in the minutes of the Committee that the Secretary of State for the Environment said that there were certain detailed conditions which were relevant to the site under discussion. He then added that only proven national interests and a lack of alternative sites could justify any exception from what he said in 1982, in support of a site of natural beauty.
    From my experience in the House I know that, technically, I am not quite in order. But a voice has to be heard and courtesies have to be established so that the Chair can consider the point that the House is in a weak
    922
    position, because we cannot challenge a Minister from the Department of the Environment. That is an important point, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport will consider it. But I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for hearing me, as I know that I am technically not quite in order.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has dealt with his own point of order. He has raised a point of argument and not a point of order for the Chair, as he himself has virtually admitted.
    Mr. Bennett: That was a very interesting point of order. Those of us who served on Committees under the guidance of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) would have been pleased to get away with one like that.
    We have lost a lot of similar estuarial land along the coast to port authorities that have every intention of developing it for extra port facilities. On many occasions, having carried out the reclamation, they have found that the economic circumstances have changed or that their future plans were too grandiose and they have not gone on to develop the dock or put the containers on to the site. They have stopped halfway through the process. Therefore, we have lost the natural environment but have not gained any jobs or docks.
    Mr. Rhodes James: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read clause 16 of the Bill.
    Mr. Bennett: I have read clause 16.
    The current proposal is that the company will carry out reclamation on the basis that, within three years, it will continue the development. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that in three years all sorts of circumstances will change. I am not casting any aspersions on the integrity of the Tees and Hartlepool dock authority or the dock authorities at Immingham, Yarmouth, Tilbury, Southampton or Falmouth. All the people involved in those docks genuinely believed when they reclaimed land that they would be able to expand their port facilities and attract new jobs. All I am saying is that the evidence is that it is not as easy as that.
    Unfortunately, at Southampton a considerable amount of the estuary was reclaimed with every good intention, but at present the land has not been used for dockland. It is logical, having enclosed the land at Southampton and taken it away from the birds, to let that harbour develop rather than run the risk of taking away more land at Felixstowe, with a question mark over whether the development will take place.
    The new clause is to ensure that the company has to satisfy the Secretary of State that within a year it will go ahead with the development. That is a reasonable test of sincerity. I accept that even within a year circumstances may change. However, at least there is a reasonable possibility that the development will take place. Of course, there is always the risk that the reclamation will go ahead and that at the end of that period there is a financial crisis within the country or the company or a change of circumstances which leads the company to decide that it will not go ahead with the rest of the development.
    The new clause says that to allow that risk over 12 months may be reasonable, but to allow it over three years is a little unreasonable. I would not be particularly happy about a development that took jobs away from other ports

    923
    but I am sure that I should be very unhappy about reclamation taking place and then, at the end of two or three years, the company announcing that it could not go ahead with. the development.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: It would follow, in the purely hypothetical circumstances that the hon. Gentleman is postulating, that the promoters would have provided the new nature reserve, the many new environmental improvements, the tree planting and so on. Is the hon. Gentleman not able to recognise that even in the strange circumstances he describes, there would have been an environmental gain?
    Mr. Bennett: I am not certain about that. Unfortunately, I am not a specialist in biology, so I cannot say whether the particular species of birds that use the mudflats at present will find the alternative proposals at Trimley marshes as attractive. I am certain that other birds will find it as attractive and I am also certain that some birds will find the trees attractive. However, the area was designated as a site of special scientific interest because of particular wading birds. The problem we face on the east coast is that it is that type of environment which is continually being taken for dock development or development associated with it. If the circumstances I described had occurred and the alternative land and trees had been provided, we may have had some environmental gains. However, if the land has been reclaimed and the jobs do not materialise and the dock does not develop, we have lost an environment which is at present attractive to the particular groups of migratory birds that use it.
    Dr. David Clark: My hon. Friend, with some modesty, says that he is not an expert, although he is well known for his expertise in these matters. It may help if I quote the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council, which is the Government's official adviser on things natural. In its comments on this proposal, referring in particular to grey and ringed plover and turnstone it says that it has
    "advised the Department of the Environment that there are no sites on the Orwell estuary with features comparable to those at Fagbury Flats and that the passage of this Bill would prejudice Britain's international obligations towards nature conservation."
    Although my hon. Friend may not be able to reassure the House, I hope that the House will be reassured by the Nature Conservancy Council which, as the nation's guardian of the environment, feels that the flats are irreplaceable.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend. It certainly makes the case and answers the points made. Even if we got all the things that the company is saying it would provide for the environment, welcome as they are, they would not solve the problem of the area that is being lost.
    My concern is that, once the land has been reclaimed, it cannot be restored as mudflats. Therefore, one suspects that if at some point the company is not sure whether it should go ahead, as the Bill stands it will go ahead and reclaim the land. At the moment the company has only to take the view that it would be reasonable to develop the docks within three years. At the end of those three years there is no way in which the House or anyone else can compel the company to go ahead and develop the dock if it decides that circumstances have changed. It can come
    924
    back to the House to ask for a variation in the legislation and there is nothing that we can do in legislation to stop the company coming back.
    The company can go ahead, reclaim the land, provide the environmental amenities it has promised and, if it decides not to go ahead with the development, it can stop. The company can then leave the reclaimed land, as much other reclaimed land along the east coast of Britain has been left, in an almost semi-derelict state. It may attract other birds and animals but not those that have been displaced. The company can then let the matter rest for several years before deciding to go ahead with the development.
    The company can decide that, because of the change in trade, perhaps brought about by the Channel tunnel, that it will never want to go ahead with the development. What would the company do'? It would have a piece of reclaimed land on which it had spent a considerable sum of money, so it would have to look for ways to get the money back. The temptation is to use the land for some other purpose, such as a light industrial development or something else. It may be that the company would have to come to the House to get new legislation or it may be that it decides it has to go to the county council and apologise for taking the land, saying, "We know that it was of special scientific interest; however, at the time we had every intention of going ahead but, sadly, we were unable to. It would be a pity if we lost our money and it would be a pity for the local community to lose jobs. Let us use the land for some other purpose." That is the risk at the moment. If the company can say that it has every intention of going ahead within three years, it can do so, knowing that, if having reclaimed the land it becomes uneconomic to go ahead with the development, it can come to the House or go to the planning authority with a proposal to use the land for some other purpose.
    The House would not have dreamt of allowing the company to reclaim this sort of marshland if it was to be used for light industrial purposes. The House would have insisted that there were lots of other sites within Felixstowe or East Anglia to use for that purpose. All we are seeking with the new clause is a safeguard so that there is a high probability that the land will be used for the purpose that the promoters are putting forward rather than a risk that, because of the passage of time, the very good intentions of the promoters will be thwarted by economic circumstances.
    Mr. Rhodes James: The Bill ensures that 176 acres of Trimley marshes are preserved. The promoters and others will guarantee a sum of £145,000 to ensure its preservation. That is written into the Bill. How can the hon. Gentleman object to a Bill which, in my view, is unprecedented and which gives that kind of guarantee?
    8 pm
    Mr. Bennett: It is not a guarantee of like for like. One is taking away something which was prized in Europe—the wetlands area—and one is giving people something else in return. People are not objecting to this attractive alternative but it is an alternative; it is not a replacement, and that is the problem.
    I am certainly not complaining because the promoters are offering something else, but they are not offering back the same environment. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) read out an article which made

    925
    the point that something else is being offered in exchange for the land. I can think of many cases when I would like to have traded an environmental improvement in one place for some damage elsewhere, but that does not justify the damage. We must have a certainty that the damage is absolutely necessary. So far I have not had that proof. No one has been able to convince me that the development will create new jobs. I have grave doubts that, over three years, circumstances will remain exactly the same to enable the promoters to carry through their undertaking, given in the Bill, to develop the area.
    There are many uncertainties, especially concerning what will happen to ports policy in this country as a result of the possible building of a Channel tunnel. The future is difficult to forecast, and the Government are reluctant to predict the changes. Southampton is upset about the Channel tunnel, but what will be the reaction in Dover? If harbour activities are reduced at Dover because of the tunnel there will be tremendous pressure in Dover to try to grab some of the container work. Nothing would be more logical than for ships to put in at Dover, offload and bring containers into Britain. The containers could then go back through the tunnel to Europe. It is certain that Dover will fight for that work. Will shippers be encouraged to come to Britain or will they be encouraged to go to French ports and send goods through the tunnel? The future is extremely difficult to predict.
    Mr. Roger Stott: I am very interested in what my hon. Friend says about the capacity of our existing ports to handle existing cargo. He may be interested to know that the port of Dover, both in volume and value terms, shifts more cargo than the port of Felixstowe. If we are to have a fixed link of some description, clearly the movement of cargoes through our ports will be seriously affected. I believe my hon. Friend is absolutely right in questioning whether or not the existing volume of cargo will be present when this dock development is complete.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not tempted to go wide of the debate, which relates to the consent of the Secretary of State to certain works.
    Mr. Bennett: The reason we want the consent of the Secretary of State is to have as near certainty as possible that if the reclamation is allowed to go ahead the docks will follow.
    As the Bill stands, the reclamation will start on the basis that the company believes that, over three years, it is likely to go ahead with the dock development. I am trying to demonstrate to the House that, for all sorts of reasons. and whatever the company's good faith, that certainty cannot exist, because of the great doubt about the fixed link and the doubts over the attitude of other ports which may decide that is worth dropping their prices. Dover, which will see much of its work disappear, will try very hard to take on container work.
    At the moment, approval will be given for the work to start, the reclamation will go ahead and land will be lost to the environment and the birds. In the end, the company may decide that it cannot go ahead with the proposal. We wish to ensure that the company will go ahead. When it wishes to start the reclamation it must make its case to the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that, within 12 months, the
    926
    company would be ready to continue with the remainder of the construction. That appears to be an eminently reasonable proposal. If the promoters are attempting to resist this new clause, there must be some doubt in their minds as to whether they really want to go ahead with this development. There may be some doubt that, having undertaken the reclamation, they will place the port facilities and container berths on that site.
    That brings us back to the other possibility — that once they have the land they will decide to use it for some other purpose. Along the whole of the east coast there is land which was reclaimed—in most cases in good faith —for dock development but which is sadly unused and is no longer a good natural environment for waders and other birds.
    One of the other amendments in this group requires the approval of Ministers when changes are proposed to the channels along the estuary. At present, we have the odd situation of competing measures for the enclosure of the water in the estruary. A competing measure has been put forward by the promoters of the Bill to enlarge the docks at Harwich. I understand that the question of working out tidal flows in river estuaries is extremely complicated and complex. Although models can be made in water tanks it is difficult to predict what will happen to the natural environment. If a dock is constructed on the Harwich side of the river and the Felixstowe enclosure is taking place on the north side of the river, the interests of those two developments could be in some conflict.
    Both the projects wish to spend the minimum on retaining the navigable channels which would allow ships to pass up as far as Ipswich. Each Bill implies that the changes it will carry out will not alter navigation but that the other Bill will. The Minister's approval should be sought to guarantee that the implications of any changes to navigational channels which may occur as a result of this Bill will not adversely affect the ships which go up the river to Ipswich.
    Once one starts to change navigation channels, one affects much wider areas of the mudflats. If the entrance to the river is narrowed it may start a scouring effect and damage much larger areas of the mudflats than those attacked directly by the Bill. It would be reasonable to call in the good offices of Ministers to arbitrate on the claims of the dock companies as opposed to the requirments of other users of the river, both for recreational purposes and as an attractive area for birds and other animals.
    We should support new clause 2, the other amendments which pave the way for that and the further amendment which deals with the estuarine matters. I can see no reason why the promoters should not accept the new clause. If they want to demonstrate their good faith and confidence that they can carry out the development, I can see no reason for them not to accept it. If they insist on trying to persuade us not to accept the new clause, I can only suggest that it is because they do not have the confidence, like so many of my hon. Friends, that there is a demand for extra port facilities along the east coast or anywhere in Britain, or, for that matter, anywhere within western Europe, and they are interested in the possibility of enclosing the land if the development goes only halfway and then returning with another Bill with a suggestion that the land should be used for other purposes. Therefore, I hope that the House will support new clause 2.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): First, may I say, in answer to the points of order raised by the hon. Members for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) and for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), that I am informed that it is normal for one Minister to monitor the progress of a private Bill such as this, particularly when the Government have expressed their neutrality on the major issues of conservation and development. Therefore, there is nothing particularly untoward about my presence here tonight.
    Mr. Leadbitter: The Minister is correct insofar as he has gone. It is not unusual for a Minister to monitor for another, but it is an unusual practice for the House of Commons to be deprived, not of monitoring, which is a matter between Ministers, but of the opportunity of challenging the Secretary of State for the Environment or the appropriate Minister on the firm undertakings given in 1982, as we have been. That is something that should concern the House. I apologise to the Minister because he is not answerable for that, but I hope that, as part of his monitoring function tonight, he will convey to his colleagues in the Department of the Environment that the House is disturbed about the matter.
    Mr. Spicer: I shall convey the points that the hon. Gentleman has made in such a courteous and reasonable way. However, as I say, it is not abnormal for a Minister to monitor a private Bill such as this.
    Amendment No. 10 would involve the deletion of clause 6(3) and would threaten the company's ability to undertake the works authorised elsewhere in the clause. Therefore, it could be construed as undermining the purpose of the Bill. It is the Government's view that, as the Bill has received its Second Reading and has now been approved in Committee, it would be perverse to wreck the Bill as the amendment could do.
    Mr. Weetch: I am grateful to the Minister for monitoring the Bill and giving us the benefit of his advice, especially when he is heavily pressed on other matters. However, when I come to speak on new clause 2 and the amendments I have some environmental questions to ask, one of which is difficult. It is an environmental point involving the Nature Conservancy Council which is disputed by the company and I should like such questions answered. I know that the Minister is competent in his own sphere, but will he be able to give us information on such a point?
    Mr. Spicer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his flattering comments, but the Government are not the sponsor of the Bill—
    Dr. Oonagh McDonald: The Minister should not be taken in by them.
    Mr. Spicer: I have never been taken in, particularly by anything coming from the hon. Lady.
    The sponsors of the Bill are responsible for guiding the Bill through and, indeed, for answering specific points. There are other opportunities to question Ministers about their responsibility for their Departments and policies. I think that. that is the best answer that I can give to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister said that new clause 2 is a wrecking amendment. As I understand it, that is almost — I say "almost" — questioning the Chair's
    928
    selection, because the Chair does not select wrecking amendments. I hope that the Minister will try to justify that comment or perhaps withdraw it.
    8.15 pm
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not regard the Minister's comments as a reflection on the Chair. He was making legitimate comments about the amendments that we are discussing.
    Mr. Spicer: I would not want to question the Chair's selection, nor was I talking about new clause 2. I was talking about amendment No. 10.
    However, on new clause 2 and amendment No. 11 I have to say that the effect of the Bill would be to give Parliament's permission, which is, after all, the highest authority in the land, to the plans for this development.
    If Parliament gives its approval, the Government believe that a requirement for the further consent of the Secretary of State for the Environment is not only unnecessary but creates ad hoc control by the Secretary of State which we would not favour. A well-established procedure is involved here by which Parliament is giving detailed consent.
    My point is fairly minor: that we believe that the Secretary of State should not further intervene in the process which Parliament has approved. That is the only comment that the Government have to make on these amendments and why we would not favour them.
    Dr. David Clark: Let me take up the point with which the Minister left us because in a sense it is at the core of the thinking behind this group of amendments and the new clause. As I understood it, the Minister was basically arguing that new clause 2 was not applicable because if the Bill had gone through the necessary stages of Parliament, Parliament would have so decided and therefore it was not necessary for the Minister to be consulted.
    In the debate yesterday it became clear that if the Bill becomes law, it will override the wider Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as that appertains to sites of special scientific interest. Therefore, this Bill affects the overall judgment of the major Wildlife and Countryside Act of Britain. In that sense, an additional safeguard, which is only a time safeguard — essentially that is what new clause 2 and the subsequent amendments are about—is well justified.
    New clause 2 relates to clause 7 which places a constraint on the types of operation and works which can be undertaken by the company.
    Before I develop that point, let me return to the problem which seems to be causing a great deal of difficulty for some hon. Members and which is one of the reasons why we feel that new clause 2 is necessary. That involves the issue of the site of special scientific interest which will be affected, and, indeed, destroyed by the Bill. I do not think that any hon. Member would deny that. The only point of difference is that those who support the Bill say that the site will be destroyed, but it will be improved because 500,000 trees will be planted. It is worth making the point, crucial to new clause 2, that the site was declared to be of special scientific interest because of the estuary, the wetlands, and the bird population which, at certain critical times of the year, occupies those mudflats.
    We do not really understand all the meanderings and wandering of birds. We cannot understand the migratory

    929
    patterns of swallows or wintering birds. It is a finely tuned operation. It is quite clear that if we remove the wintering area of some of those birds, we threaten the species. It is as serious as that. I use the poignant example of Duich Moss. The reason why the EEC is threatening the British Government over Duich Moss is that, if that area, where about 8,000 to 10,000 white-fronted Greenland geese are present over the bad months, is excluded, it is quite likely that the whole species will disappear. I am not arguing that that will apply directly in this case, because it is not as critical as that. What we suggest in new clause 2 is a limitation of time which will allow the birds to continue wintering in certain respects.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: I respect the hon. Gentleman's sincerity, as I hope he does mine. It is not fair to describe the alternative as the 500,000 trees. About 176 acres of arable land in the Trimley marshes will be converted to grazing marsh — that is, part wetlands. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has said:
    "with suitable management, such as that practised by ourselves in Elmley in Kent and elsewhere, it would be possible to create a worthwhile reserve on these Trimley marshes that would probably attract birds in nationally significant numbers."
    The hon. Gentleman and I have considered the RSPB's letter. The RSPB is specific that the development would create a reserve able to
    "attract birds in nationally significant numbers."
    That is the important point.
    Dr. Clark: I wish, in a sense, that the hon. Gentleman has not raised that point, for the simple reason that I had not intended to quote from the letter from the RSPB. Quite rightly and fairly, he quoted from the letter yesterday and today. What he said was absolutely correct. It is important to note that the RSPB—I know that the hon. Gentleman will check it—went on to say:
    "We have considered this most carefully and have decided that we cannot restrict ourselves in this matter."
    The RSPB said that it would
    "not withdraw its opposition and voluntarily enter into a `compromise' over the future of an internationally important SSSI".
    Additional land will be set aside. Hopefully, that will satisfy some, if not all, of the birds. However, we do not know that. I think that we all agree that it is a jump into the unknown. One can understand the RSPB, in a back-up or fallback position, writing in the way that is has about Trimley marshes. Let us not deceive ourselves. The RSPB still opposes the Bill. It has made that clear to me in a telephone message today, and by sending me a copy of the letter that the hon. Gentleman and I discussed earlier.
    New clause 2 tries to restrict the time in which the operations of the company can be carried out. It has been drawn up carefully by my hon. Friends and me. We took as a model the now defunct Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill which contained a similar clause. We believe that the clause is apposite to Parliament and is legally correct. The new clause would require the Secretary of State for Transport to give his consent for certain works involving reclamation. If the House permits the Bill to pass as reported from the Committee, we believe that it will allow the company to meddle in important matters of national and international policy. The key point is that the area is not only an SSSI. It is further designated as not only
    930
    grade 1 status but supergrade status by being declared under EEC directive 79/409. That gives the area further status.
    We believe that if a private company interferes in issues which are nationally and internationally important, it is wise for Parliament and for the Government to have as much restraint upon the company as possible. Therefore, when we deal with a site, such as an SSSI, and if it is to be disposed of, the final decision must remain with the Minister. That is what the new clause provides. We have given the matter considerable thought. We thought that perhaps the Minister should be the Secretary of State for the Environment, but we felt it was right that it should be the main Minister—the Secretary of State for Transport.
    If hon. Members agree to the new clause — I wish that the promoters felt able to agree to it; it does not restrict them too much — it may prevent the death of literally thousands of birds if major reclamation works are started and not completed. One might justify that if the economic expansion and industrial operation had got under way, providing jobs and employment. There is no guarantee of that. The new clause would try to restrict the development work within a time constraint. That would be a sensible move.
    The consequential amendments, Nos. 8 to 12, develop that further. We envisage the construction of a quay frontage along the lines intended by the company, but we would not allow the reclamation of the whole of Fagbury flats and the salt marshes immediately. In reality, we take a step-by-step approach. The amendments and the new clause require that. The company would have to justify every stage of development. We realise that the company has commercial interest to protect, and we acknowledge that, and we suggest that we concede powers to construct berthage, hard standing for cranes and the temporary storage of containers — in other words, the works and the facilities necessary for the ongoing construction.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has suggested, the development could be constructed on an island site rotated at the outer limits of the bay. That would allow the gradual development of the site to take place with the minimum threat to the wildlife. It would exclude the company from reclaiming a substantial area of mudflats and salt marsh on the landward side of the quay.
    We suggest the island site because that could be constructed in such a way as to maintain the tidal flow in a partly contained bay of Fagbury flats. The whole venture would be constructed to try to restrain as large a part of the mudflats system as possible, because that is the area that is regarded as the most valuable when it comes to the bird feeding area. We believe that that could be achieved quite easily.
    We submit that neither the company nor the Committee, when it reported on the Bill—we accept all its good endeavours — made any serious attempt to consider a port development which tries to retain, as far as possible, the necessary wildlife interests in the area. By tabling new clause 2 and the amendments, we have attempted to combine, as much as possible, what may appear to be diverse activities and to build in a kind of linkage system so that each stage of the development would not take place until there was an absolute necessity for it. By so doing, we would have the maximum impact

    931
    on the protection of the environment and the wildlife that lives on it For those reasons, we have tabled new clause 2 and the amendments.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: I hope that the House will follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Minister who spoke neutrally when he pointed out that new clause 2 would wreck the Bill. That is the intention of the Opposition and particularly of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), who has never made any bones about it. 1 was surprised to hear him in one of his many interjections earlier suggesting that if this Bill were passed, in 20 years' time Ipswich would be a ghost port. That is the sort of exaggerated language that should have no serious place in such discussions.
    8.30 pm
    Ipswich is an important, well managed, municipal port and complements the ports of Felixstowe and Harwich. It is one of a complex of ports in those estuaries which service not only eastern England. but, increasingly, the whole of our trade. There is an efficient division of labour between the group of ports. The growth of Felixstowe assists the growth of Ipswich. One port benefits the other.
    Dr. McDonald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: I would prefer to give way to the hon. Member for Ipswich, but if the hon. Lady wishes to intervene, she may do so.
    Dr. McDonald: I do not regard the hon. Gentleman's remarks as being entirely a private row between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch). The hon. Gentleman talked about a general division of labour between the ports. I do not understand what he means by that. Tilbury, for example, is an extremely important container dock and will be adversely affected by the development of a large new container berth at Felixstowe. Therefore, I cannot see what the hon. Gentleman is talking about when he speaks of a division of labour between the ports.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: If the hon. Lady had listened a little more attentively, she would have realised that I was dealing with the prediction that Ipswich would become a ghost port. I was saying that that was a hopelessly exaggerated statement which had no place in a serious discussion such as this.
    These amendments are primarily directed to the reclamation of land. It is important to keep the matter in some perspective. The shoreline of the River Orwell where the development is to take place is 22 miles long. The proposed extension of the port area is about half a mile of that shoreline, which is 2·5 per cent. of the entire area. Therefore, the development cannot be described as an environmental catastrophe, which was the language used by the hon. Member for Ipswich. Some 97·5 per cent. of the shoreline will remain completely untouched.
    Obviously, I regret any intrusion into an area of outstanding natural beauty. Indeed, I had some part in establishing those areas. However, I must remind the House that of that 151 square miles of outstanding natural beauty in Suffolk, one third of one square mile will be covered by the port extension. I am advised that that is just under 0·25 of 1 per cent. That puts the matter into some perspective.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the promotion of earlier Bills, in relation to the
    932
    docks at Felixstowe? Does he accept that the argument is always that only a little piece of land will be taken, and that in the end all the extra pieces build up to the destruction of the whole environment?
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: I understand the piecemeal argument, but if the hon. Gentleman will study the Bill he will see that it provides a guarantee against the further movement of the port upriver. The promoters inserted that specifically to deal with the anxiety that he has raised.
    I came across the problem of bird life when I sat on the Front Bench, taking the Maplin measure through the House. It was extraordinary how much time we spent on Brent geese. I am worried about the bird life, but it is to the credit of the promoters of the Bill that when the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds intervened, they immediately financed 75 per cent. of the cost of an extensive bird survey — the best that has been done in the area. The survey was carried out by the Suffolk Trust for Nature Conservation. I hope that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) will accept that the trust is an entirely objective and deeply concerned body.
    The report showed that the dock extension was in an area that was certainly important for three of the 30 species of birds to be found there. Therefore, we are talking about a small fraction of the bird population. Moreover, the count showed a considerable migration of birds in the Orwell and Stour rivers area. That has strengthened the view that development would displace a relatively small number of birds and would not disrupt the ecological balance of the estuary as a whole.
    I must accept that any development such as this requires a balance. It would be absurd to suggest that there is no environmental impact, because obviously there is. However, one must balance that against the replacement of that lost proportion of land by alternatives. One of the alternatives, which I have already suggested in an intervention, is that a substantial area will be changed from arable land into grazing marsh. That will assist the bird life in the area. A great deal more assistance will be provided by flooding areas that are not now regularly flooded. The combination of the trees, the grazing marsh and the prevention of further movement up the estuary adds up to an enhancement of the total environment. Judged as a whole, there are gains and losses, but there is no environmental catastrophe of the sort forecast by the hon. Member for Ipswich.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us which of the three bird species the Suffolk trust said would be most affected, and whether the replacement land would be of any use to those birds?
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: I hesitate tonight to quote from the report, but I shall be pleased to obtain that information for the hon. Gentleman, if he wishes to press me for it. I suggest that he writes to the Suffolk Trust for Nature Conservation.
    Dr. David Clark: The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point that the ecology and environment of the area will he changed, and, rightly, talks about the flooded areas and marshes. However, it is not merely the ecology that could be changed, it is the ecology of those three bird species that is at risk. I think that they are the grey and ringed plover and the turnstone, which are rare birds. The marshes are of no particular use to them and are much more suited to

    933
    Brent geese and other species. The key point is that we must consider not only the ecology of the area, but the existence of the three rare species of bird.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: I respect the hon. Gentleman's concern in the matter and he will understand that my concern is no less than his. I remain of the view expressed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, that with suitable management—all reserves need that these days —it would be possible to create a worthwhile reserve on Trimley marshes which would probably attract birds in nationally significant numbers. It is a matter of balance, but I do not believe that that balance was remotely accurately described by the hon. Member for Ipswich, when he described the proposal as an environmental catastrophe. That is an absurd exaggeration and he knows it.
    New clause 2 would wreck the Bill because clause 6 is the essence of this development. Clause 6 confers powers on the docks company to construct the proposed works. Clause 14(1) provides that those powers may be exercisable for a period of 10 years from the passage of the Bill or for such extended period as the Secretary of State may allow.
    The effect of new clause 2 would be to restrict the docks company's powers to construct the works by requiring the company to obtain the consent in writing of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before the company can exercise any of the powers where land reclamation was involved. Since the entire development requires land reclamation, that would mean that the Secretary of State and his civil servants would have to give their consent to every item of contruction or development that was required.
    The docks company may have every confidence in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State taking a sensible and objective view of these matters. I am delighted to see the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food — my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)— sitting on the Front Bench. He represents the area where these developments are to take place. It was only because my right hon. Friend has many duties to perform in Brussels — which he performs so well—that he was unable to present during our prolonged debate last night. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would take a sensible view in that case.
    Having listened to the language of Opposition Members and the interventions by the hon. Member for South Shields, I would not be surprised if a developer or customer of the port of Felixstowe, at home or abroad, believed that a Secretary of State of a Labour persuasion would take a biased and prejudiced view of the development of Felixstowe. The Opposition have demonstrated perfectly clearly — yesterday and today—that they would use the new clause to wreck the Bill if they were in office. That is a good reason why we should reject the new clause.
    Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 10, with which new clause 2 is grouped, would produce an absurd position. If passed, they would reduce the area over which the new works could be constructed by removing any power to reclaim land. I am advised that that could be the effect of the
    934
    amendments. Since the works cannot be constructed without reclaiming and that is an essential feature of the work, the result of carrying the amendments would be to make it impossible to proceed. The amendments are simply nonsense.
    Amendment No. 11 would also require the docks company to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before any work could be carried out — the same approach as that under new clause 2. In effect, that means that the company would be put into the leading strings of the Department of Transport. It would effectively make the company a branch of the Civil Service and tie it hand and foot to whatever view was prevailing on the items of contruction and reclamation involved in the work. The House would not sensibly wish to tie the hands of any private developer in that fashion. Worst of all, the amendment would effectively put the decision of the House into commission. Notwithstanding the view of the House — I remind the House of the overwhelming majority on Second Reading—
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Weetch: That was the payroll vote.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: If the hon. Member for Ipswich wishes to intervene, I will give way.
    Mr. Weetch: One of the laughable things about this debate is the Government's "neutrality". It is the oddest form of neutrality that I have ever seen. Last night, the Opposition polled about 38 votes, but at least we made no attempt to make this a party political matter. The Bill has been pushed through by the payroll vote. This is a piece of Government legislation masquerading as private business.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman's comments illustrate the point that I have been making. Every hon. Member in this House is responsible for his vote to his constituents and to his conscience. It is a slur on the 140 hon. Members who voted last night for the hon. Member for Ipswich to describe them as he did. Only 38 Opposition Members could be bothered to support his shenanigans. It is rare for a private Bill to attract a vote of 201 to 54, as was achieved on this Bill's Second Reading. Since such a majority is unprecedented, the hon. Member for Ipswich should not have used such language to cast a slur on those who voted.
    Mr. Peter Hardy: As one of those hon. Members who took part in the Second Reading debate, may I remind the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) that apparently the reason for the 201 Conservatives voting the way they did was that one of their colleagues, speaking on behalf of the Bill, made the assessment that all that was in question were some utterly worthless mudflats. The 201 Conservative Members who supported the Bill were prepared to accept that description and prepared for Britain to ignore an important international commitment to which it should pay much more regard.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: I do not doubt that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) will develop that point if he has a chance to make a speech later. I was trying to deal with the issue raised by the hon. Member for Ipswich, who cast a slur on those who voted. We have been in this House long enough to see major decisions taken on the nationalisation and denationalisation of industries

    935
    carried by tiny majorities. A majority of this size should not be treated as lightly as the hon. Member for Ipswich suggests.
    The crucial point is this: the purpose of new clause 2 and the opposition which the hon. Member for Ipswich has mounted is to wreck the Bill, and to deny to East Anglia—
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that we had established that the Chair does not select wrecking amendments. It is insulting for the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) to describe the selected amendment as a wrecking amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not as sensitive in these matters as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) suggests. No hon. Member has been critical of the Chair. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) is making a perfectly legitimate comment on the amendment, and he is in order.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: I repeat the words that I used. I said that the purpose of the amendment is to wreck the Bill. That has been the aim of the hon. Member for Ipswich right from the start. He seeks to deny to East Anglia the opportunity of modernising its leading port. He seeks to deny to our industry and trade the opportunity, through a modernised port, to compete more effectively, not only for the North sea traffic but for the great world-girdling container lines. He seeks to deny us the opportunity to compete more effectively for that trade of the future.
    The hon. Gentleman seeks to prevent the jobs being created in Felixstowe and in his own constituency of Ipswich. In so doing he flies in the face of the stated wishes of the Transport and General Workers Union. Brendan Lambe, the regional secretary, has said time and again that that union wishes the Bill to proceed. The hon. Gentleman seeks to deny to that union the jobs that its members wish.
    Dr. McDonald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: I shall not give way. I shall finish my speech.
    The hon. Member for Ipswich further seeks to deny to that part of East Anglia the new investment that will enable us to improve our infrastructure. He is giving the lie to his party leader's frequent demand for more investment and more jobs. Here is more investment and here are more jobs. Here is a chance for us to be more competitive. I should have thought that a Labour party that brags about its desire to reduce employment and to create more jobs would have welcomed the Bill, instead of which the hon. Gentleman stands there seeking to wreck, to deprive, to deny and to destroy. He should be ashamed of himself. The House should reject the new clause.
    Mr. Leadbitter: The House might show considerable interest in the manner, approach and vigour of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who, in view of his constituency responsibilities in Bury St. Edmunds, does not appear to me to have any particular interest in ports. I have an interest in ports as a constituency Member, and I have had some experience of such legislation, so I believe that the House should be wondering at the excitement, the aggravation and the charges that the hon. Gentleman is making. I wonder whether it is connected with the relationship that may exist between the Felixstowe docks authority and the
    936
    Conservative party. I do not know. I have heard suggestions that that company contributes large sums to Conservative party funds. Of course, I do not know. 1 am merely wondering why the hon. Gentleman is behaving in the way that he is.
    Mr. Rhodes James rose—
    Mr. Leadbitter: Another hon. Gentleman is rising. I understand that some of the land is owned by Trinity college, Cambridge. The hon. Gentleman is anxious to intervene, but I want to test the veracity of the words spoken by the Secretary of State. I want to put things in such a manner as to test the House, by asking a simple question. Where does truth really lie'? Who is shifting whose feet'? On the Opposition Benches, it is impossible for us to be charged in that respect, because this is not our Bill. We are merely reacting to submissions that have been made to us from communities in the area that is affected. We are reminding ourselves of the undertakings that the Secretary of State gave, to which I shall refer.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman says that he is representing the communities in question. I take it that he would suppose that the local authorities of the area in question would be representative. Suffolk county council does not oppose the Bill. Ipswich borough council does not oppose the Bill. Suffolk Coastal council does not oppose the Bill. Let the hon. Gentleman tell the House who those representatives of the local area are who oppose the Bill, because one thing is for sure — the hon. Member for Ipswich does not represent them at all.
    Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Member for Hartlepool who, for the hon. Gentleman's information, happens to be the person holding the Floor at the moment, never suggested that he represented the communities in Suffolk. I said that I had a port interest. It so happens to be the third largest port in the United Kingdom—the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. I was saying that I had had some experience of such legislation as is now before us. I emphasise that in point of fact the hon. Gentleman's attitude raised self-evident questions in the minds of reasonable hon. Members on both sides of the House. But I said that I did not know. I am told that there is a relationship. I am told that there is a funding relationship. I am told that that has not been rebutted. The hon. Gentleman is not in a position to rebut it, either.
    The only point that I am making in a debate as serious as this is that where there is genuine opposition to the proposals, the House must be concerned. In addition, we still do not have a Minister from the Department of the Environment. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds apparently has no port interest in the sense that his whole time in the House of Commons is concerned with two things. The first is his proper responsibility as the Member of Parliament for Bury St. Edmunds. The second is that he is a paid officer representing the police.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am allowing the hon. Gentleman a fairly long preamble, but I am looking forward to his coming to the amendment.
    Mr. Leadbitter: I apologise.
    The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said in his intervention that Suffolk county council was not an objector. It so happens that Suffolk county council, not unlike some other county councils, changed its mind when pressure was put on it. Originally, it objected, as far as I

    937
    am aware. The proposals are in direct conflict with the county council's structure plan, which was approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment in August 1979. It is interesting that there has been that movement in the county council from a position that was agreed to by the Secretary of State.
    I now come to a matter that fascinates me. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds described the position thus: the proposal involves only half a mile in a shoreline of 22 miles. Experience suggests to me that, once there is an incursion into land which has been designated for a particular purpose — in this case, in the words of the Secretary of State for the Environment — that is a precedent for further incursions. The nibbling process continues after that first weakness of changing one's mind about the designation.
    The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds referred to the half mile out of the 22-mile shoreline to show the minimum impact of these proposals on the area, but he was not even correct in that respect. The Bill's sponsors sent out a memorandum which stated:
    "The extension area is about one third of a square mile"—
    that is a bit of a difference—
    "and comprises a relatively small south-eastern corner of a strip of roughly 150 square miles."
    Notice the trick—only a square mile, which is a linear measure, compared with a square measure. The innocent who reads the document may think that not much land is really affected because it refers to a minimum amount of land, as shown by the linear measurement, along the coastline.
    9 pm
    The sponsors are not content with that. After all, they think that hon. Members are rather innocent. The memorandum continued:
    "The extension area therefore is about 0.25 per cent. of the area of natural beauty and comprises about 90 acres of poor — that is, heavy clay — low lying, level, agricultural land separated by a clay wall from an area of roughly 140 acres comprising a small area of salt marsh and creeks and a larger area of mud flats which are only exposed at low tide."
    That is all to tell us that we are making noises about an exceedingly small area and land of exceptionally poor quality.
    On 29 July 1982 the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
    "in general,"— referring to this land— "it would be inconsistent with the aims of designation to permit the siting of major industrial and commercial development in AONBs. Only proven natural interest and lack of alternative sites can justify any exception" — [Official Report, 29 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 708.]
    Why was there a change of heart within such a short period? I spent some days looking up evidence which might be helpful to the House, and to me, so that I might address myself fairly to the substance of clause 6. Part of my exercise involved considering the 23 sittings of the Committee. I noticed something strange but understandable. The Felixstowe port authority appeared to be bringing before the Committee witnesses who had a special relationship with it—they were either on friendly terms, were directly related to trading within the port or had
    938
    shipping and other agency interests. One such person was Mr. George Patrick Gardiner who was sworn in on 5 December 1985. He agreed that he was
    "a director of a number of companies concerned with transport matters and transport facilities".
    Further questioning brought out the fact that he had a much closer relationship with the company doing the main business in representing shipowners in the United Kingdom, sometimes but most specifically at Felixstowe. I was fascinated with that use of witnesses.
    When Mr. Gardiner was cross-examined, Mr. Whybrow, representing the petitioners, said:
    "You said last that it was essential for Felixstowe to continue to expand. Would you be prepared to accept the qualification to that expression of opinion, 'Unless suitable alternative facilities are available'?"
    The witness replied:
    "Yes. In the context of the national interest, of course".
    He was further asked:
    "And you have already agreed with Mr. Fatchett that there are potentials in other sites, Bath Side I think?"
    The answer was:
    "Yes."
    That is a fascinating observation.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment laid down two conditions. First, there was the national interest; secondly, there were alternative sites. Those were the two conditions that had to be met before there could be an alteration of the designation. The witness to whom I have referred is a man of considerable experience and authority. He appeared before the Committee purportedly to assist in upholding the proposals set out in the Bill, but under cross-examination from the petitioners he admitted that other sites were available for the development that the docks authority had in mind. Once that has been made abundantly clear, the House must draw back from the emotive expressions of concern that we have heard lately and ask itself where the truth really lies.
    The Conservative Administration made certain things abundantly clear. They stated that there were only two exceptions that would prevent an intrusion. One was the national interest and the other was the lack of alternative sites.
    What were the three main reasons for the Bill and the proposed works? It is rather surprising that only three proposals in principle and in purpose were outlined in Committee by Mr. Ryan, QC. He said that the first reason for needing the land and for having works on it was that of international trade. He claimed that the facility was required for major shipping lines in the container business. The second reason was the justified expectation of a substantial increase in trade. We did not have any figures—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the new clause and the amendments that are before the House. We are dealing with whether the consent of the Secretary of State should be required for certain works. We cannot go over the arguments that were advanced in Committee; nor can we have another Second Reading debate. The hon. Gentleman's remarks must be related to the new clause and the amendments that are grouped with it.
    Mr. Leadbitter: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the difficulty in which the Chair finds itself. The first two lines of the new clause read:
    "The Company shall not exercise the powers conferred by section 6"—

    939
    I must refer, therefore, to section 6—
    "of this Act without first obtaining the consent in writing of the Secretary of State in any case".
    The difference between section 6 and the wording of new clause 2 is that the section provides that the work outlined shall he allowed to proceed without the Secretary of State's permission. New clause 2 seeks to have the Secretary of State's permission attached to the same works. That being so, I must apologise to the House for finding it necessary from time to time to refer to the objectives and purposes that were outlined in Committee in the use of the designated area and the works that are outlined in section 6.
    It was argued that the works should go ahead because of a justifiable expectation of a substantial increase in trade. I have seen no figures to support that expectation of trade. There are many imponderables, not the least of which is the Channel tunnel proposal. There are no projected statistics that make it clear that the designation of the land in question should be impinged upon in the interests of urgency or essential need.
    The final reason that Mr. Ryan gave in his submission to the Committee was that the proposal was in the national interest. Therefore, this half mile of land, as it was described by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, or two thirds of a mile of land, as it was described by the Felixstowe harbour authority, apparently has become of national importance and interest. How can that be when it is agreed that there are sites available on the east coast and on the south coast? How can that be when there are areas already designated for industrial development at Port Harwich? Where does the truth lie?
    There is clearly on the Conservative Benches a commitment to support the Bill, because the Bill is there and because it has come from a Committee set up to consider opposed private Bills. Conservative Members are not saying clearly why they turn their backs on their own assurances to that area and to the people in it. The land was designated for a particular purpose and accorded that designation by the Secretary of State, yet they say that it does not matter. If it does not matter now, am I to understand that, when the Secretary of State made the designation in 1979 and his statement in 1982, it did not matter then?
    How can responsibility accrue to the House of Commons if hon. Members are conveniently going to forget their responsibilities and obligations to a community after firm commitments have been given? How can we test the House of Commons if Conservative Members are shy and coy about declaring the extent of their party interest? If the undertaking that was given does not matter now, and the Bill is essential for a small piece of land in the national interest, then we have to say that the Minister and the Secretary of State did not mean what they said in 1982 and in 1979.
    Here is a situation of power and influence overriding the parliamentary protection of the people whom we represent. That is what it is—overriding roughshod and horse trading. How many hon. Members when the Bill is passed will sit in the dining room congratulating each other on how Parliament was used in this way, with the Opposition virtually neutralised?
    Mr. Rhodes James: Is the hon. Gentleman alleging—and he is a member of the Speaker's Panel of Chairmen —that I am corrupt?
    Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman has a remarkable record in the House of Commons of which, I am happy to say, he ought to be proud, and the House should not in any way impugn his character by words of the kind that he has used. That is not the intention. It was not he, but the Secretary of State, in the name of his party, who gave certain undertakings only a short while ago; and those undertakings have been breached.
    Private Bills should be channelled through the House so that proper opposition can be expressed with the ability to challenge the exercise of responsibility of Ministers who are answerable to the nation. I submit that the House should have concern in this respect, and shall express a view as forcibly as I have. In my view, the House should consider the necessity to change its rules. Opposed private Bills in Committee cannot have—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot go into private Bill procedure on this amendment.
    Mr. Leadbitter: I shall try to make the same point and keep in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the example that I have described to the House, the use of this land in a further incursion into the environment would have devastating effects on an area that has been agreed by the Government to be an area of natural beauty. It is a pity that we have not been able to defend the Secretary of State's first assertion because the procedures of the House do not allow us to do so. I have made the points that I wanted to make, and there rests my case.
    9.15 pm
    Mr. Hardy: I shall be brief because my voice would not allow me to emulate the passion that my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) has deployed.
    I was very angry during part of the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). He misinformed the House. I hope that he will allow the record to be corrected. He told the House that Ipswich borough council was not opposing the Bill. What I think he meant to say was that the borough council did not petition against the Bill.
    Mr. Rhodes James: That is what he said.
    Mr. Hardy: No; he said that the borough council did not oppose the Bill.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) is a modest man. His local authority did not petition against the Bill because it knew that it need not waste ratepayers' money on the lavish fees that lawyers would have required. The council had every confidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich would put the case against the Bill as well as a whole army of lawyers. Of course, the ratepayers of Ipswich have benefited greatly because my hon. Friend has demonstrated over the months that no one, whether or not a lawyer, could have opposed the Bill with greater consistency or ability. Even his political opponents must concede that my hon. Friend's efforts have been honourable and remarkably effective and competent.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman suggested that I had misinformed the House. If he had been here yesterday when we were dealing with the matter, he would have heard me say precisely that Ipswich borough council had not petitioned against the Bill. Tonight, in saying that none of the local authorities is opposing the Bill, I was using the word "opposing" in the technical sense in which

    941
    we deal with these matters. It was open to the borough council of Ipswich to petition against the Bill. It elected not to do so. When the county council decided to withdraw all further opposition, the borough council of Ipswich could, if it had wished, have tried to introduce a petition. It decided not to do so. I was entirely correct in informing the House that none of the local authorities is opposing the Bill.
    Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman may indulge in semantics as much as he likes. The fact remains that the hon. Gentleman said that Ipswich borough council was not opposing the Bill. I presume that he wanted to create the impression that Ipswich borough council and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich are on opposing sides of the argument. That is not the case. My hon. Friend's local authority is opposing the Bill but it has not wasted ratepayers' money, for which the ratepayers will in due course be grateful. My hon. Friend has performed a remarkably effective role.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Is Ipswich borough council opposing the Bill?
    Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, whom I am sure the hon. Gentleman will believe, as I do, has assured me that Ipswich borough council is opposing the Bill. My hon. Friend knows his borough council and his constituency far more intimately than anyone else. I accept my hon. Friend's word. I hope that no Conservative Member is casting doubt upon it. It is a pity that doubts were cast.
    I could not take part in yesterday's debate. Hon. Members may have gathered that my voice does not have its normal mellifluous quality. Even so, it would have been impossible for me to be here yesterday. I have an interest in the subject. I should declare an interest because I am a member of the council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I am concerned that the views of the society should receive proper respect. I have not yet had an opportunity to read Hansard, but I have been informed that a Conservative Member suggested that the RSPB was somehow in favour of the Bill. I am glad that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has made it clear that he did not offer such an imputation. I do not wish to pursue the matter at length, because I want to confine my remarks wholly to the amendment.
    Dr. David Clark: As aspersions have been cast on the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, it is incumbent to put it on record that the society telephoned me today to say that it still opposes the Bill entirely.
    Mr. Hardy: I am very glad to have that clear message from my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). It confirms the view that I had formed.
    I have not devoted a vast amount of time to the Bill, because the arguments that were advanced on Second Reading were sufficiently powerful to convince Her Majesty's Government about the proper and responsible role and attitude that they should have adopted. I regret that the Government have been pressurised—no doubt by the regional interests—to take a view. That is quite wrong, and it is an example of very serious misjudgment. I shall turn in a moment to that statement and to the reason for the importance of the amendment.
    942
    The evidence presented on Second Reading justifies the amendment. It demonstrated that the port is unnecessary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) pointed out, Britain has adequate port facilities. The Government are pursuing a dreadful and inaccurate obsession. Britain is a mercantile country. At one time it had a great merchant fleet. The General Council of British Shipping used to be the biggest financial contributor to the Conservative party, but it is so busy developing ports that it seems to be paying no attention to the fact that the British merchant fleet is disappearing—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying very wide of the new clause and the amendments.
    Mr. Hardy: I shall not pursue that point. All I am trying to suggest is that the amendment would provide Ministers with an opportunity to reflect upon realities of this kind.
    My major reason for involvement in this debate is that I am chairman of the Council of Europe's environment committee and that I have been acting as chairman and rapporteur on matters relating to the natural environment for a very long time. For the last few years I have been able to do so on a non-partisan basis. Conservative Members who serve on my committee have always agreed with the line that I have taken. That was certainly true in April of this year when I took the Committee through a report on the implementation of the Berne convention.
    Throughout this period of five or six years, Conservative and Labour Members have sought on the Council of Europe—the leading international body on conservation matters — to try to ensure that Britain's leadership on conservation is maintained. I hope that the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment will take note of the fact that, if we do not confer upon the Secretary of State the power that is contained in this amendment, our international position will be gravely embarrassed. Many other countries have copied the United Kingdom's example. If the other signatories of the Ramsar convention on wetlands see Britain going headlong into retreat in the face of the Ramsar commitment, they will do the same.
    On Second Reading, Conservative Members said that this was an area of unimportant, valueless and uninteresting mudflats. Conservative Members appear to have learnt a little during the proceedings on the Bill, because of the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich. They now recognise that this is an area of both national and international importance. It would be remarkably injurious, not merely to the ecology of the Suffolk coast but to international integrity and to the example that our country should continue to set, for this project to go ahead. If the amendment is accepted, it should be borne in mind by Ministers that this port development was demonstrated by the RSPB study to be utterly unnecessary.
    That is a particular cause of offence no doubt to those in Suffolk and certainly in the rest of this country, who are concerned that we should fulfil our international commitments. If we do not fulfil our international commitments to conservation, it will be little use hon. Members saying what should happen in other parts of the world. That is the nub of the argument, and as I have said, I do not want to speak for too long.

    943
    I urge Ministers to recognise that the voice of constituency interest should not necessarily be paramount. Ministers from the Suffolk region may feel that they can dictate Government policy but no wise Administration would ever set such a precedent. The views and advice of Ministers from that locality should be discounted as a matter of principle; that is particularly true when national and international interests are before us. If the Minister allows the national interest to be subordinated to the commercial interest that Conservative Members so ably serve, he will be acting in a very damaging way. One of the most important wetlands in western Europe will be destroyed or imperilled. Moreover, if he allows that to happen, it will greatly embarrass the significance of Britain's international conservation lobby.
    Mr. Malcolm Thornton: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but, having listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), I felt that I had to comment. He asked where the truth lies. Well, it certainly does not lie in the distortions that we have heard from Opposition Members.
    Mr. Leadbitter rose—
    Mr. Thornton: I should like to finish my point. I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech with some attention. But aspersions have been cast on me and other Conservative Members, if not by name by implication. If the truth lies anywhere, it lies in the 23 sittings that took place when only two of us, as the original members of that Committee, listened to every word of evidence put before us. I am prepared to be told that we are wrong, but I am not prepared to told that I was subjected to influences that in any way affected my judgment of the facts put before me. I bitterly resent some of the statements made tonight, last night and in Committee.
    The hon. Member for Hartlepool talked about the neutralising of the opposition, but the opposition neutralised itself by refusing to serve on the Committee. The Committee had to have its quorum reduced to two in order for the Bill to proceed in the way that the House had determined. It is important to say these things. The onus on the promoters was to deal with the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in 1982. That was all that they had to do. I say that, but it was a major task, because they had to prove that an incursion was being made into an area of outstanding natural beauty and into a site of special scientific interest that was in the national interest, and that there were no suitable alternative sites. That is what they had to do, and we thought that that is what they achieved.
    As I said, there were 23 sittings of the Committee. We heard witnesses on behalf of the promoters. If the hon. Member for Hartlepool is somehow suggesting that the promoters should not bring forward witnesses to testify to their case, I wonder what he feels they should bring witnesses forward to do. He, as an experienced Chairman, knows full well that the private Bill procedure is quasi-judicial and that the witnesses who come before us are on oath. Therefore, in the course of examination and cross-examination there are statements which conflict from time to time. However, extracting one statement here or there and having no regard to the vast weight of the evidence of the witness is the sort of distortion I was referring to.
    9.30 pm
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed most hon. Members to have a fairly long preamble. The hon. Gentleman must now come to the amendments that we are discussing.
    Mr. Leadbitter: I suggested to the House that there were two major conditions laid down by the Secretary of State. One was national interest and the other was the lack of alternative sites. My submission is that in the 23 sittings of the Committee the national interest was not made out and it was substantially proven that there were alternative sites. That was my point.
    Mr. Thornton: That may well have been the hon. Gentleman's point. However, in seeking to make that point he introduced other factors. I am sure that he will understand why I took such grave exception to them. I reiterate all that I have said. I merely wanted to put it on record.
    I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) that the new clause, which would destroy the Bill, does nothing to circumvent the Secretary of State's powers in this matter. It is for the House to decide having gone through the proper procedures.
    I cannot see that the clause will do anything other than destroy a Bill which was given massive support on Second Reading, which has been the subject of lengthy deliberations in Committee and which is now properly on Report. In the interests of all that we have done so far, the new clause should be rejected.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I seek to intervene for two reasons. I thought that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) cast a serious slur on my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), on Opposition Members and many Labour councils up and down the country. I also feel it important to intervene because there seem to be fundamental planning implications in this legislation. I noticed, as no doubt you and the House did, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we had a fleeting visit from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. Alas, it was too short because many Opposition Members are concerned about the environmental and planning implications of the Bill.
    My first point relates to the remarks which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds made about m) hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich and about the Labour party, represented in different parts of the country. He was, in effect, saying that the main reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, myself and others were opposed to the Bill was that we were opposed to industrial and commercial development. At least, that was my understanding of what he was saying. He then went on to suggest that the Labour party, or a future Labour Government, would do everything possible to prevent such development and therefore allow the persistence of unemployment in areas such as Felixstowe and other parts of the country.
    That is pretty ripe coming from a Member of the Conservative party supporting a Government who have caused the present massive unemployment. It is even riper when one considers the magnificent record of the Ipswich borough council, the Greater London Enterprise Board, the West Midlands Enterprise Board, and m) own

    945
    borough council, to name just a few Labour authorities, which have played a major part, in spite of the Government's economic and employment policies, in bringing jobs to their areas.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has given his preamble. He must come to the new clause and amendments.
    Mr. Barnett: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; that was precisely what I proposed to do.
    You may be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in the previous Labour Government I occupied the position in the Department of the Environment which is currently occupied by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold). A number of planning decisions came my way on appeal. I am taking part in this debate because I am seriously concerned by the general principle that the planning power as laid down in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 should be derogated and that the situation should arise whereby the Secretary of State for the Environment appears to have no say about the forms of development which may take place, anything up to 10 years after the Bill becomes law.
    The amendment which has interested my hon. Friends and myself is amendment No. 11 which proposes to insert
    "and subject to the consent in writing of the Secretary of State for the Environment.".
    That is absolutely vital. In clause 14 there is considerable derogation under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 which will allow a development to take place at any time over the next 10 years without any intervention from the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    I began my preamble in the way that I did because decisions of this kind are inevitably extremely difficult. My hon. Friends and I are very concerned about the environmental development in and around Felixstowe and the effect that it would have on bird life. Those arguments have to be balanced against developmental arguments. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds clearly believes that these outweigh the environmental argument.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths indicated dissent.
    Mr. Barnett: The hon. Member shakes his head, but that was the purport of his speech, to which I listened with care.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am quite sure that it is, as the Committee reported, in the national interest that this development should go forward. I am certain that any economic development has an impact on the environment. On Second Reading, I said that I could not support the Bill unless it contained an environmental enhancement as well as an economic development. The balance between the two is the result of the Committee's work and the negotiations between the promoters and the petitioners. We have achieved a balance that enhances the environment and also achieves the substantial economic expansion of the port.
    Mr. Barnett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not know how he knows such things. How does he know what will happen in the future? Let us take a parallel case which is of great concern in my area of London.
    Under the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 the Government introduced legislation—late in the
    946
    Committee stage—to make possible the development of enterprise zones. This measure was passed into law and the assumption behind it was that it would enable small businesses to develop with the minimum of interference.
    One enterprise zone was set up on the Isle of Dogs. An enormous international combine has come along and wants to build a vast office complex on the Isle of Dogs —Canary wharf. I am told by the Secretary of State for the Environment that he has no power to intervene. That is why I am disturbed by attempts to derogate from powers contained in town and country planning legislation, thereby removing from the Secretary of State any power over future developments.
    The hon. Gentleman has only to re-read clause 6 which gives the promoters enormous powers over the future development of the land in question. One of the consequences of one piece of development may be that it would have a serious impact upon the bird life there. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is an expert on bird life and knows a great deal about the way in which they react to environmental changes. But how do we know how migrating birds will be affected and whether they will cease to come to Britain or perhaps die as a consequence of any development that may take place?
    That kind of thing needs to be monitored, and that is why I am strongly in favour of amendment No. 11. That is vital in the Bill in order that the national interest should continue to be protected over a period of development or redevelopment, as is contained in clause 6, which may take place som years hence. The right way for such things to be considered is through the planning procedures that are now a vital part of the protection of Britain's environment. For that reason, I give my full support to this vital amendment.
    Mr. Weetch: I wish to say a few brief words in support of new clause 2, but I really want to address some remarks across the range of the first group of amendments. Let me cut through a great deal of what I wanted to say because it has already been said and at this late stage in the debate it is better for me to come to the brass tacks of what new clause 2 is about. Its centrepiece is contained in subsection (2)(a), (b) and (c).
    At the beginning, my hon. Friends and I took close professional advice on the new clause. In no sense was it put forward to wreck the Bill. We have taken a great deal of trouble over the amendments and they are as thoughtful as we could make them. My hon. Friends and I have not flooded the Order Paper with amendments, as we could have done. We have a small number of groups of amendments which we wanted to make as thoughtful as possible.
    I shall not respond to all the flak that has come in my direction because I want to deal with the meat of the new clause which I thought, among other things, would help the environmental purposes of the Bill which, at the end of the day, is what we set out to do.
    Sub-paragraph (2) says:
    "The Secretary of State shall give his consent under this Section in any case where he is reasonably satisfied that—

    (a) further development of the land which is to be reclaimed will be commenced not later than one year after the date on which the works of reclamation have been substantially completed".

    That means that we want to keep within a reasonable time limit because there are many uncertainties in the growth

    947
    of traffic and there are many complexities in considerations of this kind. We want to be sure that if land is reclaimed and developed it is needed. Once this wildlife facility is destroyed, it is destroyed for ever and paragraph (a) was put in to try to help the environmental cause of the Bill.
    I should have thought that paragraph (b) could have been accepted by the promoters without any arguement. One of the conditions is outlined in paragraph (b) which states:
    "no reasonable alternative site for that further development is available on other land within the area of jurisdiction of the Company".
    In other words, the company should look carefully before damaging the wildlife irrevocably. It should see whether any other land is available. That is a simple proposition. I should have thought that it was a valuable part of the new clause. Paragraph (c) reads:
    "the area of land to be reclaimed is no greater than that which is reasonably required to accommodate that further development"
    That point sprung directly from the Committee's evidence that I read carefully. One of the principal things in dock economics that is becoming a marked feature of dock development all over the country is that with modern equipment, dock work requires a smaller space. If space is to he an integral part of dock economics, I should have thought that that part of the new clause would have appealed to the promoters.
    Subsection (4) reads:
    "A consent given under this Section shall come into force as soon as it is given and shall remain in force for a period of one year for for such longer period as may be specified by the Secretary of State when he gives his consent".
    In other words, we are talking about a reasonable time scale in the whole of the development. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made the point — he made it much better than me—that we are saying, quite emphatically—we have taken a good deal of professional advice on the new clause; it is the principle of the group of amendments — that while the Bill provides authority and power to make work and to do certain things, it is by no means the end of the matter. We believe that any development that takes place should be thought about carefully and should be supervised on environmental grounds so that we can engage in the process of environmental damage limitation. Even though the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has permission to do certain things, the amendments try to establish a framework of safeguards to say that it should do so in a certain way in order that the process can be monitored.
    9.45 pm
    For the life of me, I cannot see that that is a wrecking proposition. I have been accused of trying to wreck the Bill when, frankly, all I have tried to do is to avail myself of my constitutional rights to scrutinise what the company is doing. If at the end of the day I am accused of trying to wreck the whole measure, as far as I am aware, I have not spoken out of order. I have stuck to the point. I am trying to make the points that are directly relevant to to the amendments.
    The new clause requires the consent of the Secretary of State before certain works can be undertaken. I hope that officers from the Department of the Environment are here in spirit if not in person. Perhaps the Department is rather like the Phantom of the Opera. I want to bring out a
    948
    number of points on which I genuinely need guidance on environmental grounds. The new clause relates to clause 6 of the Bill which gives the company authority and power to make work under subsection (2), to which our new clause relates. It gives the company power to
    "reconstruct, renew, alter, replace or relay the work and may maintain the same as reconstructed. renewed, altered, replaced or relaid."
    Clause 7 relates to the deposition of spoil material in connection with land reclamation. I shall not develop the point because it has already been dealt with.
    The Secretary of State for Transport is required to give consent to certain works containing reclamation, but not all. In addition, the provision does not apply to works which are not works of land reclamation, landscaping works, peripheral reclamation or deposit materials of any kind, although we argue that some of the amendments will damage wildlife in the areas to be reclaimed.
    The purpose of the new clause is to provide certain safeguards for wildlife in the interests of international and national conservation. Unless the reclamation takes place in closely monitored conditions, we shall lose some of these facilities for ever more. The new clause seeks to ensure that that should not happen needlessly.
    The evidence states that the development will mean "legalised concrete". I have not come across that phrase before, but I could not find a better description in the evidence if I tried. Together with all the hack-up and buildings which go with quay and related development, the Secretary of State must have powers of permission and control to see that any development is carried out in as thoughtful a way as possible. That is in accord with our other amendments, to which I shall speak shortly.
    I refer the House to the evidence of Dr. Michael Edward Moser, the national estuarial officer for the British Trust for Ornithology, given on Wednesday 26 February. He was a most distinguished witness and one can quote from almost any part of the conservation evidence. Dr. Moser examined the significance of the Orwell estuary and, within the estuarial area, the significance of Fagbury flats as a feeding and roosting area for wader and wild fowl populations. All the information was scientifically gathered from a birds of estuaries inquiry based on monthly bird counts on fixed dates which has been continuing since 1969. I am advised that all such counts are made at high water and with great thoroughness and industry.
    I would not emphasise the point but for the tone adopted by the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company and underlined by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths)—that, since only a small proportion of the estuary will be affected, it does not matter. The heart is only a small proportion of the body, so, purely on size and area, its critical function is completely underestimated. All the evidence given to the Committee showed that that small area was absolutely critical.
    We are making our case in the light of the dismissive attitude to the new clause. It is necessary to have these procedural safeguards over the company's actions, although overall permission is given in clause 8 for the power of work to he exercised for reclamation.
    Some points need to be cleared up and I shall ask some questions because I am genuinely seeking information on one or two matters. I am holding a letter from the Nature Conservancy Council which relates to the Orwell estuary

    949
    and notification under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The letter sets out the responsibilities to the developer. In paragraph 4 it states:
    "You are required to give written notice to the Nature Conservancy Council (directed to the Assistant Regional Officer), of your intention to carry out any listed operation and you may not proceed with the work unless:

    (a) the operation is carried out with the written consent of the Nature Conservancy Council;

    (b) it is carried out in accordance with a management agreement under section 16 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 or section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 or

    (c) three months have expired since the Nature Conservancy Council received notice of your proposal to carry out the work".

    I understand that that point is in dispute by the promoters of the Bill. If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds would listen to me, I would like him to clarify that point. I am genuinely seeking information on these points.
    The letter from the Nature Conservancy Council contains an appendix headed
    "Operations requiring prior consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council."
    There must be certain forms of notification before development can take place. In that appendix, 13(b) states that there must be notification of
    "Modification of the structure of watercourses, [e.g. rivers and drains], including their banks and beds, as by realignment, regrading and dredging."
    Appendix 17 refers to reclamation of land from
    "the sea, estuary or marsh."
    As I understand matters from the original letter, the developer is required to give written notice to the Nature Conservancy Council. I understand from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds that that point is disputed by the company. If that is so, I would like to know whether the promoters can tell me whether that is right.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has stressed the international importance of the area. He was absolutely correct to do that. The crux of the points which the Opposition are trying to make about the procedures for the framework of protection, occur in amendment No. 11. Amendment No. 11 is very important. It states:
    "Page 6, line 2 [Clause 6], after 'above', insert 'and subject to the consent in writing of the Secretary of State for the Environment.'"
    Whatever alterations take place and when the company exercises its power to put works into operation, the Secretary of State on behalf of the environmental interest of the country should seek close monitoring of the position.
    Amendment No. 11 requires the authority of the Secretary of State for the Environment for works which involve the enclosure and reclamation of the bed of the sea, the river and its foreshore. It is a normal provision of ports and harbour legislation for the authority of the Secretary of State for Transport to be required for such work.
    Sir Eldon Griffithsrose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question put, That the Question be now put;
    The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 100.

    Division No. 259]

    [10.00 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Ancram, Michael

    MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

    Arnold, Tom

    MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

    Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

    Maclean, David John

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Major, John

    Baldry, Tony

    Malone, Gerald

    Bellingham, Henry

    Marland, Paul

    Best, Keith

    Mates, Michael

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Mather, Carol

    Blackburn, John

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Bottomley, Peter

    Mayhew, Sir Patrick

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Bright, Graham

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Neubert, Michael

    Burt, Alistair

    Newton, Tony

    Butcher, John

    Norris, Steven

    Butterfill, John

    Osborn, Sir John

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Conway, Derek

    Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Coombs, Simon

    Pollock, Alexander

    Cope, John

    Portillo, Michael

    Couchman, James

    Powell, Rt Hon J. E.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Crouch, David

    Price, Sir David

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Raffan, Keith

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Rathbone, Tim

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Dover, Den

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Dunn, Robert

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Eggar, Tim

    Rowe, Andrew

    Evennett, David

    Ryder, Richard

    Eyre, Sir Reginald

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Fallon, Michael

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Farr, Sir John

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    Shersby, Michael

    Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

    Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

    Gale, Roger

    Sims, Roger

    Galley, Roy

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Spencer, Derek

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Gorst, John

    Squire, Robin

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Stanley, Rt Hon John

    Greenway, Harry

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Gregory, Conal

    Stern, Michael

    Ground, Patrick

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John S

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

    Terlezki, Stefan

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Henderson, Barry

    Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

    Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Thurnham, Peter

    Howells, Geraint

    Waddington, David

    Jackson, Robert

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Jessel, Toby

    Walden, George

    Jones, Robert (Herts W)

    Waller, Gary

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Watson, John

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Wheeler, John

    Lester, Jim

    Whitfield, John

    Lilley, Peter

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Wilkinson, John

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Wolfson, Mark

    951

    Wood, Timothy

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Mr. R. Rhodes James and

    Sir Eldon Griffiths.

    NOES

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Hardy, Peter

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Ashton, Joe

    Home Robertson, John

    Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

    Barnett, Guy

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Beckett, Mrs Margaret

    Janner, Hon Greville

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Kennedy, Charles

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Lamond, James

    Boyes, Roland

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

    Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

    Litherland, Robert

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

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Caborn, Richard

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

    McGuire, Michael

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    McKelvey, William

    Clay, Robert

    Madden, Max

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Marek, Dr John

    Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Corbett, Robin

    Maxton, John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Michie, William

    Craigen, J. M.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Dalyell, Tam

    Nellist, David

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

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Deakins, Eric

    O'Brien, William

    Dewar, Donald

    Park, George

    Dixon, Donald

    Parry, Robert

    Dormand, Jack

    Patchett, Terry

    Duffy, A. E P.

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

    Pike, Peter

    Eadie, Alex

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Eastham, Ken

    Radice, Giles

    Ewing, Harry

    Randall, Stuart

    Fatchett, Derek

    Redmond, Martin

    Faulds, Andrew

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Rogers, Allan

    Forrester, John

    Sheerman, Barry

    Foster, Derek

    Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Silkin, Rt Hon J.

    Hamilton, James (M'well N)

    Skinner, Dennis

    952

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

    Wareing, Robert

    Stott, Roger

    Weetch, Ken

    Strang, Gavin

    Welsh, Michael

    Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

    Thorne, Stan (Preston)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Tinn, James

    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Mr. Eddie Loyden.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Speaker: The Question is, That the clause be read a Second time. As many as are of that opinion say Aye.
    Hon. Members: Aye.
    Mr. Speaker: Of the contrary, No. I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it. The Question is, That the clause be added to the Bill. As many as are of that opinion say Aye.
    Hon. Members: Aye.
    Mr. Speaker: Of the contrary, No. I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it.
    It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
    Mr. Speaker: Bill to be further considered, what day? No day named.
    Later—
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was, of course, listening carefully to your calls from the Chair on new clause 2 to the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. Due to the noise in the Chamber I was unable to hear the motion that was put. Consequently—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I put the Question very slowly and I was looking at the hon. Gentleman when I put it. I did not hear any objection to it.

Bexley London Borough Council Bill (By Order)
Mr. Speaker: Second Reading, what day? No day named.

European Community (Drivers' Hours)
10.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move,
That the draft Drivers' Hours (Harmonisation with Community Rules) Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it will be convenient to take at the same time the following motions:
That the draft Drivers' Hours (Goods Vehicles) (Modifications) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
That the draft Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment (Exemptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
That the draft Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.
Mr. Bottomley: The regulations and the order form part of a comprehensive revision of rules governing the driving time and rest periods of goods and passenger vehicle drivers and the use of tachographs. Taken as a whole, the new European Community and domestic rules will benefit drivers by reducing the maximum number of driving hours in a fortnight from 92 to 90 and by increasing the requirement for normal weekly rest from 40 to 45 hours. There is provision for this to be reduced, but the reduction has to be compensated within a three-week period. The minimum break time for most drivers will be increased from half an hour to three quarters of an hour and it will be made easier for drivers to vary their driving hours so that they can reach their homes and relax properly rather than be forced to spend nights in their cabs.
The new rules pay attention to the needs of drivers and they are not too complex to enforce. The Government are firmly committed to effective enforcement of the existing and the new regulations. The new European Community regulations clarify and enhance enforcement officers' powers to inspect and seize charts. They place a new duty on operators to check that their drivers are observing the rules and to take action if they are not.
We shall continue our vigorous enforcement policy and will be consulting both sides of the industry about ways in which it can be made even more effective.
This subject has been under discussion in the European Community for four years. Most goods vehicles over 3·5 tonnes and most coaches are subject to the EC regulations on drivers' hours and tachographs unless they fall within a derogation.
New EC regulations 3820/85 and 3821/85 were agreed by the Council of Ministers on 14 November 1985 and will come into effect on 29 September 1986. Hon. Members will recall that in their draft form they were debated in the House on 3 December 1984. They apply directly to the United Kingdom and are not the subject of today's motion, apart from provisions for permissible derogations, but they underlie our debate.
The new EC regulations result from many months of negotiation and reflect the views of all the member states. We are not entirely satisfied with either the content or the drafting, but taken as a whole we believe that they are a significant improvement on the existing regulations and will bring benefits to both drivers and operators.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Minister confirm that the British Commissioner responsible for road traffic matters and transport matters has indicated that he does not support the regulations and sees no need for their introduction? Will he also confirm that there is no mandatory obligation on the British Government to introduce these regulations and, as a great many drivers see no need for them, will he respond to that feeling by not bringing forward the regulations?
Mr. Bottomley: The Commissioner is well able to speak for himself and give his own views. As for the second part of the question, I intend to cover it in what I have to say.
Drivers in this country are subject not only to the EC rules on driving time and rest periods but also to the provisions of the Transport Act 1968 on duty periods, the total time a driver may work. Drivers not subject to the EC rules are subject to the provisions in the Transport Act 1968 on driving, rest and duty periods. With the introduction of the new EC regulations, it was necessary to re-examine the 1968 Act.
Under the present EC regulations, the existence of two overlapping sets of laws complicates operational planning. Under the new regulations, this duplication would be largely unnecessary since the new provisions on rest periods will on their own effectively limit the hours a driver can be on duty. To retain our existing weekly duty limit of 60 hours would prevent the use of a new EC provision which allows weekly rest to be reduced in one week provided it is compensated within the following three weeks. So we are proposing to abolish all 1968 Act limits on duty hours in so far as they apply to driving subject to the EC rules.
Turning to the four instruments before us, the Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment (Exemptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 1986 will provide for permissible derogations from the two Community regulations; where the drivers' hours regulation gives member states an option to modify the application of that Regulation, take advantage of that option, and require the installation and use of tachographs in certain parcels vehicles.
Regulation 1 revokes existing regulations providing for exemption from the existing EC drivers' hours and tachograph regulations. Regulation 2, with the schedule, provides for permissible exemptions from the drivers' hours regulation. In most cases the vehicles exempted correspond precisely to the categories of vehicles specified in article 13(1). The exemption limit for buses and coaches is increased from a maximum of 15 seats to 17 seats, both including the driver. This will be of particular benefit to private users of such vehicles. Hitherto we have taken the view that private driving was not subject to the EC regulations, but the new texts make it clear that they do apply to passenger transport. This is something we have asked the Commission to re-examine. In any case, our power of derogation will be used to ensure that, on journeys within the United Kingdom only vehicles with more than 17 seats will need to comply with the EC drivers' hours rules and to fit and use tachographs.
Part II of the schedule contains exemptions from the drivers' hours regulation under article 13(2) of that regulation. These exemptions require authorisation from the Commission. Application has been made for such authorisation and the regulation will not be made until it has been granted.

955
Regulation 3(1) extends to national non-regular passenger services the concession allowing the weekly rest period to be taken after 12 days of driving instead of six days. Regulations 3(2) and 3(3) provide that an alternative break provision can apply to regular national passenger services operating into or out of central London. For those services the three quarter hour break after four and a half hours of driving can be replaced by a half hour break after four hours of driving under certain circumstances. We are considering whether this might be extended to other cities.
Regulations 4(1) and 4(2) provide exemptions from the tachograph regulation for vehicles exempt from the drivers' hours regulation and also sea coal vehicles. The exemption provided by regulation 4(2) also requires authorisation from the Commission.
Regulation 5 applies the tachograph regulation to all vehicles carrying postal articles, other than letters, which would otherwise be exempt. "Letters" is defined by reference to the Post Office inland post scheme 1979.
In regard to the Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment Regulations 1986, this draft instrument made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 makes consequential textual changes to primary and secondary legislation to take account of the repeal and replacement of Council regulations 543/69 and 1463/70 by regulations 3820/85 and 3821/85.
I turn to the Drivers' Hours (Good Vehicles) (Modifications) Order 1986. This draft instrument is made under the powers in section 96(12) of the Transport Act 1968 to modify the domestic drivers' hours code for goods vehicles which are outside the scope of the EC regulations. Under regulation 2 all of the domestic drivers' hours code is disapplied except for the daily driving limit in section 96(1) and the daily duty limit in section 96(3)(a). The time structure provided by a limit on spreadover in 96(3)(b) is removed. In consequence of the disapplication of section 96(4) of the 1968 Act, which provided for a statutory period of rest between two successive days, the definition of "working day" is amended. Regulation 3 replaces the existing provisions which provide for further exemptions for light goods vehicles with new provisions which have been altered to take account of the fact that all the domestic drivers' hours code, except for the two provisions on daily driving and daily duty mentioned, are disapplied under regulation 2.
Finally, we have the Drivers' Hours (Harmonisation with Community Rules) Regulations 1986.
This draft instrument is made under sections 95(1) and (1A) of the 1968 Act. Regulation 2 provides that the domestic drivers' hours code shall not apply to Community regulated driving but that the periods of driving subject to Community rules count towards limits in the domestic drivers' hours code. Regulation 3 alters the definition of "working week" so that, consistent with the definition of the "week" in article 1 of the drivers' hours regulation, it runs from midnight Sunday/Monday. This change is needed to synchronise the operation of the domestic drivers' hours code with the new Community provisions. Traffic Commissioners will be able to vary the date of making this change to suit the needs of individual PSV operators.
Taken as a whole, besides the benefits that I spoke of at the beginning of my speech, the new EC and domestic rules will benefit coach operators by making possible some longer day trips using one instead of two drivers; by easing
956
the time pressures on some scheduled journeys; and by applying the same rules to tours within Britain as to international tours. They will provide benefits for lorry operators by allowing more flexibility in arranging work schedules, by removing the existing limits on duty time and by exempting operators on small islands, including the Isle of Wight, if the vehicles do not leave the island. They will benefit farmers by exempting from most limits their vehicles when used to carry goods within 50 km of base. They will benefit small businesses by exempting from most limits vehicles up to 7½ tonnes carrying materials or equipment for use in the course of the driver's work within 50 km of base.
Finally—
Mr. Gavin Strang: The Minister used the word "Finally". I hate to think that he intends to present such a one-sided account of the regulations and then sit down. Does he intend to address the very real concerns, of which he must be aware, that have been put forward by the Transport and General Workers Union before he sits down?
Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman was probably here at the beginning of my speech, when he heard about the benefits that the regulations will bring to drivers. I intend to finish my speech and then to listen to the debate and respond.
The proposals contained in these instruments pay proper regard to road safety and they are consistent with our policy of reducing unnecessary burdens on industry. Trade unions and employers will be able to negotiate together new patterns of work which will allow both drivers and operators to benefit fully from the increased flexibility that is now available to them. I commend the draft statutory instruments to the House.
10.26 pm
Mr. Roger Stott: I listened with interest to the Minister's speech. I was amazed by the Minister's complacency when he moved these very important and significant recommendations. I sense that both sides of the House agree with that statement.
Mr. Conal Gregory: Rubbish.
Mr. Stott: Occasionally remarks like "rubbish" are made from a sedentary position.
These are very technical regulations, and by their very nature they are somewhat desiccated, as was evident from the Minister's monosyllabic delivery when he read his brief. However, just because they are technical and detailed does not mean that they are unimportant. They are very important. Many of my hon. Friends wish to speak during this one and a half hour debate. Therefore, I shall endeavour to keep my remarks to a minimum, but I make no apology for spending some time upon a very important and technical matter.
Before these regulations were laid before the House, the 1968 regulations provided for up to 10 hours driving at the wheel, up to 11 hours on duty, including driving, up to 12½ hours spread over—that is, booking on and booking off — and at least a half hour break for rest and refreshment after 5½ hours on duty. There were at least 11 hours of consecutive duty.
Because the law for the majority was simple to understand and enforce, it led to an improvement in road safety standards. That is demonstrated by the fact that the

957
United Kingdom has a higher road safety standard than any other member state in the European Community. I am not proud of that, because there are still far too many accidents, but at least we can take some comfort from it.
In November 1984, statements were made by the Government in both this House and the other place about their intention to revise United Kingdom legislation which imposed limitations on regulation 543/69 for national journeys. The contention was that the proposed changes would eliminate the need to continue the limitations. The new regulations have now been published, and the Minister has told us about them.
Contrary to what the Government said, the new regulations will fundamentally change the hours of work and the rest periods, providing for an extension of driving hours and of the working day, and allowing, overall, for shorter rest periods. If the Government go ahead with these regulations, the permutations that will be available after 29 September will, in my view, and that of many people, especially those who drive heavy lorries, be impracticable and unenforceable.
In these regulations, the EC has apparently endeavoured to create greater flexibility for road transport operations and greater simplicity of enforcement, while increasing road safety and improving the working conditions of drivers. Against that, we must carefully examine what the Minister has said. Most United Kingdom drivers and operators are subject to national rules, which apply to journeys within Great Britain in vehicles over 3·5 tonnes maximum authorised weight.
In the past, national rules have comprised EC regulations and certain provisions of the Transport Act 1968. The new Government proposals, which are contained in these draft regulations, attempt to abolish the duty limitation on driving and work. I shall give four examples. We are now talking about statistics and figures. The current daily driving day, under existing legislation, is eight hours, but the Government's proposals will mean nine hours. The current number of hours for continuous driving is four, and the Minister now proposes four and a half hours. Weekly rest now totals 40 hours, and the Minister proposes that the figure should increase to 45 hours. Daily rest currently amounts to 11 hours, and in that regard, the Minister seeks no change.
Let us look at the figures for the current hours. They may be extended twice in any one week to 10 hours. Member states may fix minimum breaks of 30 minutes after driving periods not exceeding four hours for national passenger carriage on regular services. The daily rest periods may be reduced to 36 consecutive hours if taken at the base of the vehicle or driver, or 24 hours if taken elsewhere. Each reduction may be compensated for, en bloc, before the end of the third week in question. I apologise for giving such detailed information, but it is necessary to understand these regulations.
The emphasis on driving time limitations and the absence of any duty limits in EEC 3820/85 and the proposed national rules demonstrate a complete misinterpretation of the origins of driver fatigue. It reflects the commonly held view that driving fatigue is merely a factor of the length of time spent behind the wheel. It may be convenient to legislate for limits on driving times, but there is no empirical evidence to support driving time limits on road safety grounds.
958
Evidence showing that time spent behind the wheel is not a major factor in fatigue accidents was reported by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory in 1984. In a survey of 2,000 motorway accidents, involving heavy goods vehicles and passenger service vehicles it was found that fatigue was responsible for 11 per cent. of them. But the more important statistic is that 62 per cent. of those drivers had their accidents within 100 miles of beginning their journeys.
This is quite inconsistent with the view that limitation in driving time alone will reduce accidents caused by fatigue.
Research suggests that fatigue accumulates from mental and physical work in general and from irregular working hours which disrupt sleeping patterns and bodily rhythms. Many scientific examples demonstrate that. Dr. Ivan Brown, the assistant director at MRC Applied Psychology Unit, Cambridge, argues:
"There is a potential serious road safety problem among commercial truck and bus operators, where chronic fatigue is largely the result of bad law, which constrains hours of driving but fails to control hours of work, resulting in widespread flouting of the EEC Regulations and the general loss and disruption of sleep among drivers."
There are other examples where scientists have found that it is not the time behind the wheel that counts, although that is important, but the working day and the accumulation of fatigue over that day. The chap clocks on and starts to load his vehicle, drives down the motorway for the maxiumum four and half hours under these proposals, then unloads his vehicle, loads it again and goes back to his depot.
The amount of time that the driver of the heavy goods vehicle is subjected to fatigue is not necessarily manifested in the time that he is behind the wheel. Fatigue is the combination of the time that he is behind the wheel and the time that he is at work. That is the significant point which the Minister has missed. What we must do is to put a duty limitation on the time of work, not on the time behind the wheel.
At some pain to my researchers and myself, I have worked out a couple of examples. As my basis, I used the regulations which the Minister has just annunciated from the Dispatch Box. Driver X takes nine hours rest period, which he is permitted to three times a week, from midnight until nine o'clock in the morning. He begins work at nine o'clock with loading and unloading work at the depot until 13.30 hours. He then drives to his destination, without a break, for four and a half hours. He will arrive there at 18.00 hours. At this point he has been on continuous consecutive duty for nine hours. He takes a break of 45 minutes and at 18.45 pm unloads and loads his vehicle for three hours until 21.45 pm. He then starts his four and a half hour drive back to the depot, arriving at 2.15 am.
The new regulations will allow him to work in this fashion until 15.00 hours on day two when he will have taken his daily rest periods. I have not made that example up. That is what will happen under the new regulations.
Let us take a further example: the abolition of the limit of 11 hours on daily duty. Driver Y takes his daily rest period between midnight and 9.00 hours and loads up at eleven o'clock He then drives to his destination without a break, arriving at 15.30 hours. After a 45 minute break he unloads and loads his vehicle commencing at 16.15 pm and continuing until 19.30 pm. He finishes his days work with a four and a half hour journey home and arrives at

959
midnight. Driver Y would be operating legally within EC 3820/85 and he could repeat this 14½ hour work schedule for three consecutive days.
Over the past few weeks, I have painstakingly worked out what could result, in terms of a working schedule, if the regulations went through. The Minister may say that, in reality, that would not happen because the employer would not want his driver to do what I have described.do not know about that. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the employer is an enlightened employer, and he may not want his driver to do that. However, there are many thousands of what are euphemistically called "cowboy operators" in the public transport field who would. Moreover, it would be legal for them to do so. They could do what I have described, and it would be completely legal.
There is no argument between the Minister and myself — nor was there with his predecessor — about the importance of road safety. I have stood at the Dispatch Box continually since 1979 and have addressed myself to the issues of road safety. I will not be found wanting by anybody in my concern for road safety. I do not doubt the Minister's concern either. I think that he is going about it the wrong way. I do not believe that it is a political issue. It is a common sense issue. I wish that the Minister would reconsider what he proposes, withdraw the regulations and have another think about them. If he does not do so, in my view and in the view of many people, he will be taking a retrograde step.
10.41 pm
Sir John Wells: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport will be acutely aware of my personal anxiety about all matters of road safety. I shall not speak about the case in my constituency that is sub judice, except to say that I do not believe that drivers' hours contributed to that great tragedy. There have been other tragedies in my constituency over the past two years where drivers have conceivably dozed off for a second or two. There have been subsequent accidents with the loss of human life where the driver has not paid a heavy penalty, for reasons best known to the courts.
Many lorries from the continent go to the town of Maidstone and its neighbourhood. Maidstone anticipates the Channel tunnel in the foreseeable future, and it welcomes fruit lorries because they are its life-blood. Drivers work long hours. The fruit markets up and down the country keep hours rather like the House of Commons. The people of Maidstone see those drivers thundering through their town at every hour of the day and night.
The picture painted by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) of the changed hours in the two examples he gave of driver X and driver Y filled me with horror and dismay. I was also perturbed that my hon. Friend brushed aside the question that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) raised of the traffic commissioner of the EEC Why did my hon. Friend say that the traffic commissioner could speak for himself? I do not see him in the civil servants' box. I do not see him at the Bar of the House. He cannot speak to the House for himself. As God's representative in the House, perhaps my hon. Friend will speak for God for a moment.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Financial Times of 5 July reported Mr. Stanley Clinton Davis as saying:
960
"I would have been happier if the council could have accepted other aspects of the proposal, notably the equivalent of a full weekend's rest for drivers and a better system for the control and enforcement of these regulations."
That is clear enough, as are the EEC press releases. It is frivolous and lazy for the Minister to give such an answer.
Sir John Wells: I understand why the Minister did so, but perhaps in his reply he will come cleaner with the House. Many hon. Members wish to speak and I do not want to waste the time of the House, but I must emphasise the great anxiety in my area about lorry and coach safety. We should like a little better assurance than we have had.
10.51 pm
Mr. Roy Mason: I have a special constituency interest in these regulations. Barnsley is only one and half miles from the M1 and only a few miles from the M6, so we have major motorways running north, south, east and west nearby. Consequently, it is in a perfect position for the siting of road haulage firms. Therefore, in recent years a multiplicity of large and small companies have come to operate from our area.
The Transport and General Workers Union branch 9/17 in my constituency, speaking on behalf of lorry drivers—the branch covers all the commercial firms and has up to 100 drivers in Barnsley and surrounding areas —is seriously concerned about the proposed changes in drivers' hours and rest periods. The drivers are not against change, but the present rules governing drivers' duty periods have been in operation for about 18 years, mainly to the satisfaction of lorry drivers, coach drivers, the TGWU and all the related unions. I am informed that all the unions affected by the changes are strongly resisting them. They fear — the Government appear to have admitted this—that within the regulations a 14 hour day is feasible. They have not agreed any of these changes with the Government, and there has been no unanimity on the new regulations on any of the European Economic Community Committees.
The TGWU sent a letter to the Department of Transport on 13 March setting out its objections to the regulations. It met Ministers on 30 April, and again expressed its concern. In particular, it stated strongly that the greater flexibility incorporated in the new regulations and the proposals to amend the provisions of the Transport Act 1968 would make enforcement more difficult and lead to increased driver fatigue. It is so seriously upset at the proposed changes that it is now issuing warnings to its men that being fatigued kills. It is so concerned about the well-being and safety of its members that its message is, "Sleep in bed and not at the wheel. Longer hours will lead to greater tiredness, and accidents will be inevitable." The union knows that bad employers will exploit the flexibility of the regulations to the detriment of its members. It fears that the effect of the regulations will be more tired drivers, and tired drivers are a threat to themselves and to everyone on the roads, including pedestrians.
Lorry, truck and coach drivers throughout the whole EEC, backed by the International Transport Workers Federation, have also combined to warn about the increased risk of accidents on the roads through fatigue. The ITWF has warned the Common Market Commission and the Council of Ministers that it is possible that a permutation of the new regulations could allow managers to operate drivers on six consecutive days, driving 12·5

961
hours on three days and 14·5 hours on three days. Two drivers on a vehicle could be on duty for a continuous period of 22 hours with two breaks of 15 minutes, and drivers on international coach trips could be on duty for 12 consecutive days before taking a rest day.
Employers can, and the fear is that some will, exploit the weaknesses in the regulations. There are bad employers and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) said, cowboy operators in the commercial truck business. Therein lies the danger and the unions' fears.
The Government intend to rescind the current 60 hours on duty limitation, and regulation 3820/85 recinds the current weekly driving hours limitation. Therefore, the union argues, driving hours will increase from eight to nine hours daily for all drivers, and, by the introduction of the sixth day working, they could then be called upon to work four nine-hour spells and two 10-hour spells, resulting in 56 hours driving and working in one week. They may not be called upon to operate for 34 hours the next week but what dangers will that one over-tiring and exacting week cause?
That is why the union, in its message to its membership, clearly states that the medical research studies in recent years have shown that excessive hours of work and inadequate rest lead to greater driver fatigue and increase the accident rate. The studies show that fatigue is often the contibuting or main cause of accidents. However, the employers and the Government have not accepted that. Drivers' health, safety and welfare are paramount. As the union states,
"Unless we can effectively campaign and succeed in retaining United Kingdom provisions for national journeys these will become secondary as drivers fall by the wayside, younger drivers will replace them, this is the practice now happening within the Community who have no on-duty limitations and work up to 90 hours in a week."
The Barnsley branch of the Transport and General Workers Union —9/17 branch —drew my attention to this final message which they endorse from practical experience.
The union has painted a very worrying picture. According to the union:
"There appears to be no comprehension in the Department of Transport about the physical and mental demands on a driver or the effects of fatigue. Various studies of illness and injury have been made. These showed increased rates of hypertension, coronary heart disease amongst drivers plus a high rate of insomnia, headaches, fatigue, ulcers and other digestive disorders as well as musculature problems including pain in the lower back and neck. Difficult working conditions associated with the lack of adequate toilet and meal facilities, noise, traffic, vibration, all contribute to stress-related factors affecting drivers."
However, the Department of Transport and the regulations take no account of that.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mason: I am making my conclusions.
My constituents say that they would like to know how rescinding the 11 hour on-duty time can be justified with no practicable means of enforcing the taking of the accrued rest hours. The Barnsley union continues:
"The change to a new fortnightly limit on consecutive driving will be impossible to monitor and enforce, while the abolition of the five-hour 30 minute continuous duty limit and its replacement with a four-hour 30 minute limit on driving will mean many drivers will never qualify for any break.
962
Drivers will work longer hours. The inability to enforce what remains of the law will allow cowboy operators a free rein. They will compel reputable operators to work at least to, if not beyond, what would be legal. Looser drivers' hours regulations, coupled with a reduced police inspection rate when the Health and Safety Executive take over responsibility for roadside checks on vehicles carrying hazardous loads, will result in a cowboy's charter."
My branch of the union has a great deal of responsibility for its membership and it is seriously concerned about the regulations. The Minister addressed the House with contempt this evening. I have never known a Minister bring forward regulations of such importance, of serious concern to many lorry, coach and truck drivers — I speak on behalf of my constituents — and make opening remarks that were an absolute disgrace. I hope that he will rectify the position when he replies. It is incumbent upon the Minister to answer the many queries that have been raised in all seriousness and I hope that he will be able to allay many of the fears that I have expressed.
10.54 pm
Mr. Conal Gregory: This is a matter of great importance and one that involves safety. I am sorry that the Opposition should seek to make strident party political points when we are dealing essentially with matters that go to the heart of our transport system. As one who does not depend upon a research assistant—as the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) did—but who has been involved in industry and seen much of the distribution system, I know that there is a major fallacy in the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic—[Interruption.] I appreciate that some hon. Members may not wish to hear the fallacy, but they should bear with me for a moment.
The hon. Gentleman miscalculated, because he did not take into account the fact that, in many cases, drivers do not load their vehicles. I have visited depots in and around York and met drivers who belong to the Transport and General Workers Union, about which the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) spoke, and I know that the vehicles are already loaded before the measured time commences. If the hon. Member for Wigan is serious about transport—I think that he is, for he is an honourable Member, whom I have faced across the Chamber for some years now — during the recess he should go into industry, where he will find support for the measures.
I shall not rely, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) did, on quoting the Socialist former mayor of Hackney as the source of all erudition in this matter. The Opposition Benches contain much more skill than that on which he could have called.
Let us go to the root of the matter and consider the safety aspects of transport. My hon. Friend the Minister must be due some praise, for an increase in the weekly rest period from 29 hours to a minimum of 45 hours must be of interest.
I would ask the House to consider the equivalent of pilots' licences for the heavy goods vehicle and passenger vehicle industries. In the airline business, the qualified pilot can work only for a given number of hours. He cannot come off a plane, of whatever dimension, and immediately fly a smaller plane or another type of plane. However, that does not apply in heavy goods or passenger transport. Drivers who should be entering periods of rest can pursue gainful employment as drivers of other coaches

963
or even taxis, for there is no correlation on the tachograph between the two forms of transport. I raised this matter in the House yesterday, in the hope that my hon. Friend the Minister would consider it today. We must consider the provision of personal logbooks for drivers. Then we could see the number of hours worked in a week or a month, which must be in the interests of traffic safety and of the drivers. Their periods of rest must be genuine, and not times when they are in gainful employment driving coaches and lorries.
Tourism has not yet been mentioned this evening. If, as is suggested here, there will be an increase in longer day trips for coach operators, and the application of similar rules to British and non-British companies, it must be in the interests of the development of United Kingdom tourism, which is the fastest growth industry in Britain. That is another reason for recommending the regulations to the House.
10.58 pm
Mr. John Cartwright: I found it no easier to understand the regulations than the Minister did to explain them. As someone who comes fresh to the problem, I am bound to say that the submissions of the Transport and General Workers Union were much easier to understand and a good deal more convincing than some of the Minister's comments. I know that he has valued his membership of the TGWU, and I should have thought that he would have given rather more weight to its submissions on the issue.
The Minister's case seems to rest on the argument of flexibility. and the fact that the new regulations permit daily driving and rest periods to be varied to suit operational requirements. I accept that that can be of great benefit to an operator, or a firm working on a tight schedule to get a job done or a delivery made. I also understand the Minister's point that on occasions that can be of great benefit to the driver, too. It can enable him to drive that bit longer to get home and have a decent rest rather than having a nap in the cab.
However, surely the message from various parts of the House is that flexibility involves risks, and the regulations provide for an almost infinite number of variations of daily, weekly, fortnightly and monthly driving limits and rest entitlements. Against that background, drivers will have great difficulty in keeping track of their own situation and entitlements. Whatever the Minister says about enforcement, it will be extremely difficult for enforcement authorities to keep track of what is going on.
The regulations provide the opportunity for unscrupulous employers, or indeed unscrupulous drivers, to take advantage of them, and to arrange for drivers to work over-long hours and to miss much-needed rest periods and meal breaks, with very little chance of getting caught. Such a situation must inevitably put pressure on the reputable haulier, the firm that is anxious to maintain standards and concerned about road safety. Such firms may be placed at a competitive disadvantage as a result of the operations of less scrupulous firms, which take full advantage of the flexibility that the regulations offer. That could lead to a general decline in the standards of the road haulage industry.
Other hon. Members have said that the 1968 limits that are being removed by the regulations were clear, precise and easy to understand. Since 1968, undoubtedly the situation on our roads has changed. In some ways, it has
964
changed for the better, and in some ways it has changed for the worse. We have more roads, and in some cases better roads. We have more motorways, but at the same time there has been a substantial increase in car ownership since 1968. Commercial vehicles are in many cases carrying much heavier loads than they were then, and they are operating at much faster speeds. All those factors have increased traffic congestion and have certainly increased pressure on commercial drivers. As a result, they have increased the risk of fatigue. It seems to many of us that this is hardly the time to risk aggravating that fatigue by enabling drivers to work longer hours.
I know that the Minister argued on 25 June that
"There is no clearly established connection between driving hours and fatigue." — [Official Report, 25 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 242.]
That is an argument that many of us who drive either professionally or on an amateur basis will find hard to accept. Whether we argue about that or not, one point that we cannot argue about at all is one put to me by the Woolwich district officer of the Transport and General Workers Union. He told me that under circumstances of congestion and pressure, fatigue can kill. None of us can dispute that. The TGWU quotes a 1985 survey of drivers in international transport, which showed that over 7 per cent. of those drivers had been involved in an accident caused by falling asleep at the wheel. I do not think that any of us would argue with the finding of my local TGWU official that
"Any legislation to encourage this trend would be criminal."
That is an indictment against the regulations.
I understand that after four years of negotiation in Brussels there is an inevitable temptation to take second best. The Minister has accepted that the regulations do not meet all the United Kingdom's objectives. When we are talking about vital issues of road safety, and thinking about the sheer size of the vehicles that are now on our roads I do not believe that we should accept the risks involved in accepting second best. I suggest that the Minister should take the regulations away and produce something that is a good deal more watertight and reassuring both to drivers and to the public.
11.3 pm
Mr. Simon Coombs: I speak in the debate with a constituency interest in having one of the nation's motorways, the M4, running through part of my constituency. The motorway brought good communications to Swindon, and at the same time it brought with it the risks to users of that motorway. It is with that issue in mind that I speak tonight.
The issue of road safety has been brought home to hon. Members very clearly today with the anouncement of increased accident figures for motorways in the past year. Clearly, we must consider that question. I pay tribute to the generally high standards of professional drivers of buses, lorries and other forms of transport who use the major road arteries of this country. With few exceptions, they demonstrate a professionalism and expertise that is a credit to their profession and an essential feature of high road safety standards.
We are discussing the marginal or grey area where the regulations can be broken and bent. We must ask whether the regulations, whether they are old or new can be adequately enforced. I ask the Minister to tell the House,

965
in closing the debate, how he equates greater road safety and security for all users of roads with an increase in the number of hours that a driver may drive on one day, whether it is from eight to nine hours, or indeed, on two days a week, for up to 10 hours. How is that conducive to greater road safety?
Secondly, how far would increasing the maximum number of hours driven in one stage from four to four and a half hours be conducive to road safety, when the break that follows that period is reduced from half an hour to a quarter of an hour? I am not sure what one can do in a quarter of an hour. I suspect that a driver can rush around to do the things that have to be done. Is that very much of a rest? I question the regulations on that basis.
The complexity of the regulations must be evident to all hon. Members. We have heard an explanation from both Front Benches. Most hon. Members would say that an administrator would need to concentrate hard to work out rosters with all the permutations and find out what can be done legally, let alone what they can get away with. I question the regulations on the basis of their complexity.
The advantage that has been put forward is in the flexibility of these regulations. I do not agree with that view. Flexibility, if it is positively and properly handled, can be beneficial. Then again, flexibility can lead to a labyrinth of complications that can be abused.
Finally, how can we be sure that these regulations, if they are passed by the House tonight, will be enforced properly? I would welcome perhaps a departure from his brief, and hope that the Minister will tackle the issue of road safety. Will the Minister say that we can expect to have an adequate level of enforcement of the regulations to ensure that they are not abused and that, as a result, the safety of other travellers on our roads is not put at risk?
I hope very much that my hon. Friend the Minister will take up the point put to him by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) in relation to a personal logbook. That seems to offer a way forward in ensuring that individuals will go by the book, literally. I hope that my hon. Friend will reply positively and sympathetically. I know that it is in his heart to do so because he shares my concern for road safety. I hope that the Minister will tell the House how he sees these matters and these problems being dealt with in the future.
11.8 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: Like right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, and I dare say some from the Government Benches, I have been approached by many drivers from my constituency. I wish that I could convey to the Minister the sense of outrage they feel about the introduction of these proposals. I must say that their sense of outrage would be greatly increased if they had been able to attend and listen to this debate.
An overwhelming case has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), speaking from the Front Bench, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason). Indeed, there has been only one speech from the Government Benches in favour of the regulations. A hon. Member thought that it was relevant to pour scorn on the traffic commissioner in Brussels, who holds the same view as we do about the measure. The performance of the Under-Secretary of State
966
has been pitiful and derisory. If the regulations are passed because of that type of persuasion, it will be an insult to the House and will do great damage.
All those who have discussed this matter listened with derision to the explanation of the Under-Secretary of State of what the regulations do:
"There is no clearly established connection between driving hours and fatigue.—[Official Report 25 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 242.]
What drivel! Apparently, that view is based on a proposition of the House of Lords Select Committee. I doubt that that Committee really believes that. It is especially comic that that statement was made at a time when the other place is complaining that it sits for too many hours and that it is suffering from fatigue. What ludicrous nonsense that is. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will listen carefully to hon. Members' comments. I am sure that he is passionately eager to assist with road safety and to introduce fresh measures to meet that aim. These regulations drive in the opposite direction. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed to proceed with them. If he does so, some of the blood will be on the Government's head. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the regulations and look at them afresh. That is what the House asks him to do.
11.10 pm
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I am a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union and I am currently chairman of the 31-strong group in the House. Yesterday, following a question by me we drew the attention of the House to the remarks of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport—the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) — in a written reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry). The hon. Gentleman made the idiotic comment that there is little relationship between fatigue and the hours that a driver spends at the wheel. The Minister's response was a carefully premeditated written reply to a written question. It was not made off the cuff.
The Under-Secretary of State comes to his present occupation with a reputation for caring about road safety. He is supposed to be an outstanding performer. We all care about road safety. If the House really cares, it will throw out these regulations. Conservative Members who are listening patiently must share our conservation and concern. They should not hesitate in the name of the House of Commons to reflect people's anxieties. They must say that they will throw out these measures and join us in the Division Lobby in opposition to them.
Mr. Barry Porter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bidwell: Not at the moment.
Reference has been made to no less a man than the transport commissioner. He happens to be a former Labour Member who represented Hackney, Central. His scepticism about the changes has been recorded. He thought that they were a backward step. The changes have been opposed also by other bodies within the EEC set-up. The measures have been introduced because they have been discussed for a long time.
The regulations are a backward step. Manipulation and confusion will result. Calculations will be changed—for example, the hours of required rest will be changed from one week to another and there will be confusion about

967
whether the hours driven in one week are to be added to the number for the following week. There will be hopeless confusion about the operation of the regulations.
I am disappointed that the Secretary of State for Transport is not present. The right hon. Gentleman is a newcomer to transport matters and I have been involved with them for a long time. I think that I am the senior member of the Select Committee on Transport. Most of the Select Committee's members are currently in Canada studying that country's railway system as part of a study of railways generally.
Commercial road transport drivers keep open Britain's main economic artery and we must be concerned with what they think about the regulations and the views of the union which mainly concerns itself with these matters. Surely the views of the drivers and their union are of great consequence. The International Labour Office has addressed its mind to transport matters, working conditions and safety generally. It has always emphasised that great weight must be attached to the views of employers and trade union organisations, and that above all responsibility should rest with Governments. The Government are evading the fundamental responsibility of ensuring that our roads are made safe by freeing them of fatigued drivers.
Mr. Porter: It would be helpful to the House to know if the hon. Gentleman is delivering his arguments, to which I am listening with great interest, as a representative of his constituency or as a delegate of a trade union.
Mr. Bidwell: Next week I shall be speaking at a public meeting called by my union to draw attention to the grave disquiet among union members and which should exist among the public once they become aware of what the Government are doing in imperilling their position on the highways.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory), who is no longer in his place, has said that he has evidence that some drivers support the regulations. It is significant that he did not produce any evidence to support that contention. There has been ample evidence presented to the House that all those involved in road transport are gravely disquieted by the regulations.
In formulating the regulations the views of the transport commissioner as well as those of the transport committee and the social and economic committee of the European Parliament have been ignored. The social and economic committee is the statutory body that the Council of Ministers is required to consult.
Flexibility for the benefit and use of employers is the proposition that is before us. That is all that has been achieved. Bad employers will be encouraged by the manipulation that is possible of the regulations. Long hours are a killer. They kill the driver at the wheel and those who load vehicles before they take to the highways. Excessive driving hours and working hours lead to fatigue and loss of concentration. The 1985 survey of international transport drivers showed that more than 7 per cent. of drivers had been involved in accidents due to falling asleep at the wheel.
These matters have been well ventilated, and so I shall conclude by alluding to the aims and considered judgment of the International Transport Workers Federation, to which my union, the Transport and General Workers Union, is affiliated. The aims are a proper limitation on
968
working hours as well as driving hours both daily and weekly, which is what the regulations do not achieve. There should be adequate rest breaks for meals and daily rest; the right of drivers to spend their weekly rest periods with their families; weekly rest periods long enough to allow drivers to enjoy a normal life to the maximum extent possible and simple understandable regulations— which these certainly are not—so that one knows what the position is and so that the regulations can be enforced to prevent the cowboy operators taking away work arid jobs. That is the aim of the decent drivers on our highways today who shoulder such a substantial burden of our economic welfare and our road safety combined.
11.19 pm
Mr. Gordon Oakes: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), I am proud to be a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, which I have been for 34 years, and I am a responsible member of that union.
To the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), I say that I will be speaking not only for lorry drivers and coach drivers in my constituency but for 100 per cent. of my constituents who are road users.
The regulations are quite appalling. The Transport and General Workers Union has made its views very clear to the Government, and has had a national campaign about the regulations. I found it appalling that the Minister, in addressing the House on these highly controversial regulations, gave an explanation that was less understandable than the explanatory memorandum contained in the regulations. There was not a mention of the enormous opposition that exists to the regulations. There has been a marked deterioration of working standards and conditions for drivers in this country that is dangerous not only to the drivers but to the public.
I wonder how the Minister will answer the figures put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). What my hon. Friend outlined could and will happen under these regulations that the Minister has brought in under the sacred name of flexibility. This is not flexibility, but a marked deterioration in the conditions of work.
If I may turn to the public, as all my hon. Friends have said, a tired driver is a dangerous driver; that is inevitable, because he is tired. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan put his finger on the point when he talked about hours of work rather than hours behind the wheel. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory), who has left the Chamber, said that not all drivers load their lorries, and of course that is true. If the Government were concerned about road safety, they would have framed the regulations to deal with the driver who loads his lorry as distinct from the driver who does not. Just a little bit of care could have dealt with that. The Government have shown no sign of consideration for road safety.
What we are discussing for an hour and a half late at night after private business, tucked away at the end of July, will kill and maim people in the country. I beg the Minister to think again about the regulations.
As I have said previously when we have discussed harmonisation with Europe, let us realise what we mean by this. It must be borne in mind that the climate in this country is different from that in Europe. It is all right to drive on a lovely July night, but it is a different matter to drive through fog and snow in the winter. There are

969
conditions in this country that drivers in Italy, the south of France, Spain and Greece do not experience. Their hours of work and hours of darkness are different from ours. In Scotland in the winter months most hours are hours of darkness. On the continent the conditions are considerably better and the climate is better. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this and will make amends for the disgraceful way that he introduced these highly controversial regulations by telling the House that he will go back to Europe and will think again.
11.25 pm
Mr. Max Madden: I declare my interest at the outset as a sponsored member of the Transport and General Workers Union. I confess also—other hon. Members may do likewise— that I did not know that we were in EEC road safety year. It is clear from what has been said in these deliberations and from the remarks of the EEC Transport Commissioner that the regulations will do nothing to promote road safety.
The officer responsible for commercial transport matters in the TGWU, Jack Ashwell, wrote a blistering six-page critique of the regulations to the Minister on 3 June of this year in which he stated:
"There appears to be a mental block within your Department as to the consequences on drivers' health, safety and welfare".
As I listened for 14 minutes to the Minister recite his departmental brief, I could appreciate why Mr. Ashwell took that view.
Reference has been made to some aspects of the Minister's written answer of 25 June to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry). Other aspects of it were interesting. For example, the Minister said:
"The trade unions consider that our proposals will lead to longer working hours, increased driver fatigue and hence increased accidents. It is true that the flexible work patterns allowed by the new rules may make longer working hours possible for some drivers occasionally, but those whose main work is driving will still be subject to effective limits. There is no clearly established connection between driving hours and fatigue."
My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) completely demolished that argument. It is clear that these regulations will be a charter for the exploitation of many drivers, that they will assist the activities of the many unscrupulous cowboys who have a presence in the industry and that they will damage the promotion of road safety.
The Minister went even further in his reply of 25 June, for he said:
"We believe that our proposals are consistent with our policy of reducing unnecessary burdens on industry while having proper regard to road safety. It will be up to trade unions and employers to negotiate together new patterns of work that would allow both drivers and operators to benefit fully from the increased flexibility now available to them."—[Official Report, 25 June 1968; Vol. 100, c. 242.]
That shows that this is all about lifting burdens on industry. As we know, that is a euphemism for enabling exploitation to occur as some people make profits.
The letter from Mr. Ashwell added:
"The 1968 Act dramatically reduced the weekly on-duty hours from 72 to 60 hours. Yet with worse road conditions, greater traffic congestion, larger vehicles, higher speeds overall, all demanding physical and mental requirements on drivers, your Department sees fit to remove restrictions. There is no enhancement in either the driver's working
970
environment or working conditions. In fact, longer hours lead to greater stress on drivers through increased fatigue. Your Department does not even pay lip service to occupational safety and health in road transport. Extending a driver's hours of work is contrary to existing medical evidence."
Hon. Members have voiced their fears about the regulations. The Minister's pitiful attempts to justify the new provisions showed that the regulations are completely unsatisfactory and should be withdrawn immediately.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I am sure all hon. Members wish to hear the Minister. May I point out that he hopes to catch my eye at 11.33 pm?
11.29 pm
Mr. John Home Robertson: I am not a member of the Transport and General Workers Union but I am the holder of a class 1 heavy goods vehicle driver's licence, so I have experience of driving goods vehicles, filling in logbooks and so on which some hon. Members have been talking about.
I also represent a constituency that includes 30 miles of the Al trunk road that is not dual carriageway. My constituents will be worried about the prospect of drivers making their way home, perhaps at the end of their legal driving hours under the new flexible regulations. In such circumstances it is inevitable that people will be suffering from severe fatigue and there will be more accidents similar to those of the past.
We are all in favour of flexibility, but it must be compatible with safety. I want to draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 3(1) of part I of the schedule to the Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment (Exemptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations, which says:
"Any vehicle which is being used by an agricultural, horticultural, forestry or fishery undertaking to carry goods within a 50 kilometre radius of the place where the vehicle is normally based, including local administrative areas the centres of which are situated within that radius."
The Minister should ponder for a moment on the flexibility that that will provide in the far north of Scotland which my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) was talking about. The Highland region of Scotland extends to 10,000 square miles. I understand from the derogation that I have just quoted that it will be possible for anyone transporting timber, fish or agricultural produce within the whole of that area to be completely exempt from the drivers' hours regulations and from the tachograph regulations. Can such flexibility be justified?
11.31 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: I shall confine my remarks to the element of risk. The risk factor is mathematically calculable. There is a distinct risk that this ceiling could collapse. That is calculable. If any hon. Members think that is humorous, they should remember that the ceiling collapsed in another place, thankfully not on any of the Members and not causing severe damage. There is a risk that the seat on which the Minister now sits could collapse. That is calculable. There is an even greater risk that the seat which he represents in his constituency might be removed. That is certainly calculable.
There is even a risk that the Minister may give us straight answers to the questions that have been put to him and that he may choose a different tactic from that which

971
he adopted on 19 May when, in answer to questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), he frivolously engaged in phrases about
"frogs, which eat with their eyes closed,… Burkina Faso, the land of the wise men"
and said:
"We can say that Anne Boleyn had six fingers or that 18 per cent. of people share their baths."—[Official Report, 19 May 1986; Vol. 98, c. 10.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the motion that is before the House. His remarks must not get too wide.
Mr. Cook: I am pointing out the risk that we may get straightforward answers to straightforward questions rather than hearing the Minister engaging in party games in the treatment of the nation's serious affairs. These statutory instruments are being given scant attention. All but two hon. Members have spoken vehemently and articulately against them. I hope that the Minister will treat them with the seriousness they deserve.
We have heard about wagons of fruit in Kent and about the lower incidence of risk in certain methods of transport. I represent a constituency in Cleveland where frequently ethylene oxide, caustic chlorine, highly concentrated sulphuric acid and other volatile and hazardous commodities are conveyed around the area. By increasing the hours of driving and the element of risk, we add to the danger of transporting such commodities.
If the Minister is content to run the risk of having to stand before us and report a major road traffic accident, he will also run the risk of having a name attached to him.
11.35 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I begin by dealing with the speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). Once I met an old friend of his and, although this is probably an apocryphal story, when I asked him what the right hon. Member was like in his youth, and why he was such a good writer and made his newspaper so popular, his answer was that the right hon. Member was good at vituperation when he had not concentrated on the detail. The right hon. Member's remarks about the speech that I made earlier this evening are ones which in the light of day when perhaps he is feeling less tired, he will wish to reconsider. I would not ask for an apology, but I think he treated the House and my speech with a degree less of respect than might have been expected.
I assumed at the beginning of the debate that hon. Members wanted to be taken through the regulations. As the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) said, they are complicated and technical, and they should not be made the subject of party politics. It is worth noting that not a single Opposition Member referred in detail to the regulations, or said which of them they regard as acceptable or unacceptable.
A number of serious points have been made on both sides of the House. I have had the opportunity to listen twice to Jack Ashwell, the national organiser of the Transport and General Workers Union. The union has some serious points to make and it performs a useful function in an industry that is difficult to organise. With better operators, with or without union representation, there is concern for the safety and welfare of the drivers. I pay tribute to the union—as I would, even if I were not, as the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) pointed out, a member of the union.
972
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) referred to the personal logbooks of airline pilots. We shall consider that point. We remember the very grave doubts of the Transport and General Workers Union over the tachograph. For many years it was referred to as "the spy in the cab." I wonder whether the union or its members would favour a proposal that appeared to increase what could be interpreted as interference by the law in their lives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and other hon. Members referred to the professionalism of heavy goods vehicle drivers. I emphasise the tributes that have been paid to them. Their standard of driving has improved. The safety of heavy goods vehicles has also been improved. The roads have also been getting better.
At the beginning of my speech I said that I thought that the new rules would benefit the drivers. Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends have said that if drivers' hours are unduly extended, they will lead to greater fatigue and therefore to greater risk. That is self-evident. In my written reply I said that the link between drivers' hours and fatigue had not been clearly demonstrated, but that referred only to the narrow changes that we are discussing. I did not say that if people drive for hour after hour, or become involved in the kind of concoction that the hon. Member for Wigan described, there will not be a greater degree of risk.
Fatigue also affects those who are not the drivers of heavy goods vehicles. If hon. Members work through until about four o'clock in the morning, return to work at nine the same morning, work through until about eleven in the evening and after that, if it is a Thursday, drive for four or five hours back to their constituencies, I suspect that they are substantially more at risk of falling asleep at the wheel than are most heavy goods vehicle drivers.
If the maximum number of driving hours in a fortnight are reduced from 92 to 90, that is welcomed. If the requirement for normal weekly rest is increased from 40 to 45 hours, that is also welcomed. If the minimum break time for most drivers is increased from half an hour to three-quarters of an hour, that helps to deal with the point about 15 minutes which was also made in the debate. If it is made easier for drivers to vary their driving hours so that they can reach home and relax properly instead of being forced to sleep in their cabs, that, too, is welcomed.
I do not want to make too much of it, but it is fairly normal for a driver, because of congestion on the roads, to find that he has exceeded his hours, so he has to stop, find a telephone box and telephone his depot. Somebody has to drive a car to the vehicle and change places with the heavy goods vehicle driver. The new driver then takes the heavy goods vehicle back to the depot while the old driver takes the car back. That practice meets the letter of the law, but the flexibility provided by these regulations will reflect reality more, as long as there is compensation.
I was not surprised to see my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells) in the Chamber, and I listened carefully to his speech. He referred to the possibility of international drivers, carrying fruit through his constituency, having accidents. He also made an appropriate but non-specific reference to a recent accident in Maidstone. By regulations affecting drivers' hours and by every means possible, I am determined to improve safety. That may mean enforcing the tests on heavy vehicles,

973
where more could be done, or ensuring that there are more weight testing stations. Vehicles could then be checked for overloading, and for the number of drivers' hours.
In my speech, I mentioned a commitment to consult the drivers' unions and operators on how to make enforcement even more effective. I suspect that Britain's enforcement is the best in Europe, and that we take our rules much more seriously than some other countries. I hope to be able to work within the EC with both sides of the haulage industry. The best practices may then be spread, and we may be able to learn from others just as they can learn from us.
I actually welcomed some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. He is always worth listening to, but other hon. Members made rather more specific points. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) is in the Chamber. The Health and Safety Executive must be the enforcement authority, because under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act, there can only be one enforcement authority. We came to the view that as most mistakes or criminal errors among those carrying dangerous goods occurred at the place of loading, or at the place that the vehicle was operating from, it was better to transfer sole enforcement to the Health and Safety Executive. I explained carefully to a symposium in Middlesbrough, which was run by the Cleveland police, that safety was not being diminished. We can concentrate all the reports, some of which may draw prohibition notices. The police have the power, in effect, to take a vehicle off the road and to ensure that the report goes through.
I seriously believe that the new arrangements will lead to better safety as long as people get the right message. I could send the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central a copy of the relevant press release, and he might then be able to join me in spreading what I hope is the right message. The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) referred to his position as chairman of the Transport and General Workers Union group in Parliament. Two Opposition Members wrote to me quite separately from any representations made by that union. Most of the representations have come—
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 104.

Division No. 260]

[11.45 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Brooke, Hon Peter

Amess, David

Bruinvels, Peter

Ancram, Michael

Buck, Sir Antony

Arnold, Tom

Burt, Alistair

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Butcher, John

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Butterfill, John

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Baldry, Tony

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Batiste, Spencer

Chope, Christopher

Bellingham, Henry

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Best, Keith

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Cockeram, Eric

Blackburn, John

Colvin, Michael

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Conway, Derek

Bottomley, Peter

Coombs, Simon

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Cope, John

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Couchman, James

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Cranborne, Viscount

Bright, Graham

Crouch, David

Brinton, Tim

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Dickens, Geoffrey

974

Dorrell, Stephen

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Dover, Den

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Durant, Tony

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Eggar, Tim

Pollock, Alexander

Evennett, David

Porter, Barry

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Portillo, Michael

Fallon, Michael

Powell, William (Corby)

Farr, Sir John

Powley, John

Forman, Nigel

Raffan, Keith

Galley, Roy

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Rathbone, Tim

Glyn, Dr Alan

Rhodes James, Robert

Gorst, John

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Gregory, Conal

Roe, Mrs Marion

Griffiths, Sir Eldon

Rowe, Andrew

Ground, Patrick

Ryder, Richard

Gummer, Rt Hon John S

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Hampson, Dr Keith

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Heddle, John

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Jackson, Robert

Speed, Keith

Jessel, Toby

Spencer, Derek

King, Rt Hon Tom

Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lawler, Geoffrey

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Lawrence, Ivan

Stern, Michael

Lester, Jim

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Lilley, Peter

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Lyell, Nicholas

Sumberg, David

Macfarlane, Neil

Taylor, John (Solihull)

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Terlezki, Stefan

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Maclean, David John

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Major, John

Thorne, Neil (llford S)

Malins, Humfrey

Thurnham, Peter

Malone, Gerald

Twinn, Dr Ian

Marland, Paul

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Marlow, Antony

Viggers, Peter

Mather, Carol

Waddington, David

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Walden, George

Merchant, Piers

Waller, Gary

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Watson, John

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Miscampbell, Norman

Wheeler, John

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Whitfield, John

Moate, Roger

Wiggin, Jerry

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Wilkinson, John

Moynihan, Hon C.

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Murphy, Christopher

Winterton, Nicholas

Neale, Gerrard

Wolfson, Mark

Nelson, Anthony

Wood, Timothy

Neubert, Michael

Woodcock, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Yeo, Tim

Norris, Steven

Oppenheim, Phillip

Tellers for the Ayes:

Osborn, Sir John

Mr. Francis Maude and

Ottaway, Richard

Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Boyes, Roland

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Ashdown, Paddy

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Bruce, Malcolm

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Caborn, Richard

Barnett, Guy

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Barron, Kevin

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Beith, A. J.

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Clay, Robert

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

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Bermingham, Gerald

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

Bidwell, Sydney

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Corbyn, Jeremy

975

Craigen, J. M.

Madden, Max

Crowther, Stan

Marek, Dr John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Dalyell, Tam

Maxton, John

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

Maynard, Miss Joan

Deakins, Eric

Michie, William

Dewar, Donald

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Dubs, Alfred

Nellist, David

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Eadie, Alex

O'Neill, Martin

Eastham, Ken

Park, George

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Parry, Robert

Ewing, Harry

Patchett, Terry

Fatchett, Derek

Pendry, Tom

Faulds, Andrew

Pike, Peter

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Flannery, Martin

Prescott, John

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Raynsford, Nick

Forrester, John

Redmond, Martin

Foster, Derek

Richardson, Ms Jo

Foulkes, George

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

George. Bruce

Robertson, George

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Hardy, Peter

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Home Robertson, John

Skinner, Dennis

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Stott, Roger

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Strang, Gavin

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Tinn, James

Lamond, James

Wallace, James

Leadbitter, Ted

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Leighton, Ronald

Wareing, Robert

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Weetch, Ken

Litherland, Robert

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Loyden, Edward

Welsh, Michael

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

McGuire, Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Mr. Chris Smith and

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Mr. Don Dixon.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Drivers' Hours (Harmonisation with Community Rules) Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (DRIVERS' HOURS)
Ordered,
That the draft Drivers' Hours (Goods Vehicles) (Modifications) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
That the draft Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment (Exemptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
That the draft Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 16th July, the Motion in the name of Mr. John Biffen relating to Office, Secretarial and Research Allowance may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, and if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of by that hour Mr. Speaker shall put the Question on any, Amendment which may have been moved, and shall then put forthwith the Question of any other Amendments selected by him which may be then moved, and on the Main Question or the Main Question, as amended.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Wedholme Flow
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
11.55 pm
Mr. David Maclean: I wish to raise before the House an issue of considerable significance to conservation generally which touches on the long-established interests of my constituents on the Wedholme Flow just off the Solway coastline, 10 miles west of Carlisle.
Wedholme Flow is one of the three largest sphagnum peat bogs in production in the United Kingdom. Through the years, the use of peat has changed. At the turn of the century peat from Wedholme was used to bind up the wounds of those wounded in the first world war. Indeed, in Scotland one thinks of Flanders moss as one of the best known sphagnum peat bogs. Then the peat was used as moss litter for bedding horses and, finally, peat has now been developed by the horticultural industry as a suitable medium for enriching the soil throughout the gardens of England.
Wedholme peat is rated as being the finest sphagnum peat produced in the United Kingdom, and, indeed, the wrapper on a bale of peat produced there states,
"internationally acclaimed Golden Moss Peat the world's finest Sphagnum Moss Peat".
The peat works are an integral part of the small community around Kirkbride and peat has been cut there for over two centuries. In the Enclosures Act 1816, an area of peat moss was allocated to named individuals actually residing at that time within the parish who became in effect the freehold owners. The principle of the award was a residential qualification. Every household was apportioned a strip approximately one chain wide and extending to an area of about three acres. A similar award was made to Newton Arlosh parish in 1814. These are, therefore, long-established rights worked over many years by the residents of Kirkbride and Newton Arlosh.
However, over the past few months a cloud has been hanging over the moss. The Nature Conservancy Council is endowed by Parliament with important functions which my constituents appreciate. In 1959, just over a third of Wedholme Flow was designated a site of special scientific interest. Some 270 hectares was so designated. Mr. D. A. Radcliffe, the chief scientist for the Nature Conservancy Council, in 1977 wrote in his book "A Nature Conservation Review" that Wedholme Flow,
"forms a single extensive raised mire unit, but is severely modified and …only a very limited section of the mire system is now viable".
By "viable" Mr. Radcliffe means viable for conservation purposes, and he goes on to note that
"the area of intact Sphagnum rich raised mire vegetation is now reduced by cutting and by recent fires to a section about 0·4 kilometres long by only 90–180 metres wide."
The maximum area, therefore, intact is only just short of 18 acres and yet some 667 acres have been included within the original site of special scientific interest. Now with its richer purse, the Nature Conservancy Council is having another bite at the cherry and it wants to include some 780 hectares or almost 2,000 acres, which is more than 100 times the size of the original unspoilt part.
The stint owners now face a greatly enlarged SSSI. In support of its notification, the council has published a great list of species alleged to be special on the moss, but

977
my constituents' researches have revealed that only one species on the entire list is not a "bog standard" species. Indeed, nearly all the species are listed and drawn on a poster produced for children describing sphagnum bogs and produced by the British museum. As part of its extension of operations, the council proposes to raise the level of the water table which will make the bog unviable to work for peat cutting and will undermine the areas of grassland on the fringe which for some reason the council has decided to include, which have been grant aided for drainage purposes in the past. Indeed, it is ironic that the only species of any rarity on the moss, Sphagnum Molle, like a dry site and the Council's very efforts to alter the hydrology of the district could kill the only species that can be said to be in any way rare.
My constituents have consulted one of Britain's top experts on peat and he has confirmed that, whilst the existing SSSI is indeed special, there is no justification for extending it by more than 100 times. The Nature Conservancy believes, apparently, that in order to protect the existing SSSI it needs a huge buffer zone where it can control the activities which would — in its view — endanger the existence of the current site. However, my constituents' specialist has confirmed that the two areas are quite hydrologically separate and therefore there is no need for such a large buffer zone. Nor is there anything special on the proposed extension of the SSSI which would justify the designation as "special". The whole of the stint owners' area has been worked on for over two centuries, and there is no way that the original mire can be intact, and we come back with the basic question, what is so special about the site? Is this really a site of special scientific interest? Why have there been no scientific papers written on Wedholme Flow in the past? Why have students of flora and fauna not been flocking there?
Unless it is thought that the existing peat workings are injurious to conservation, it must be explained that this is not the case. Even on areas which have been worked, these are now returning to a sphagnum lawn—even near drained farmland.
At the core of this application is the council's assertion that it needs this massive amount of extra land to protect the existing site. What expert evidence has the council for this assertion? It wishes to raise the water table but has not produced a detailed hydrology report on what the proposals would mean for the water table, nor has the council provided a proper detailed scientific analysis of the bog. My constituents' expert has said that the two areas are hydrologically separate and one could not support the other. This is borne out by a Mr. D. A. Greg, who was commissioned by the NCC in 1975 to make a report on the various mosses in the area. In his report he states:
"On a large scale Wedholme Flow can be divided into three areas. The central band of peat workings spreads right across the bog from east to west leaving two sections of raised bog which are isolated from each other."
The council seems to be relying on this report and that of a busy young lady, Miss Jane Smart, who in November 1980 recommended that the SSSI boundary be extended. She visited four bogs between 1 August and 5 August 1980 before reaching this conclusion on Wedholme Flow—but even then she said:
"A full survey would need to be carried out to determine the precise limits of the area."
Where is the NCC's
978
"full survey to determine the precise limits"?
In lieu of that survey, is the council going for a catch-all 2,000-acre plot instead?
Having established that the flow is not special, how do my constituents challenge the NCC? The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the subsequent financial guidelines for management agreement make no provision for compensation for members of the public who defend their own and who protect their family's long-cherished property. My constituents have been advised that they must now seek professional advice, which will obviously cost them considerable sums of money. How do they best protect their own, when taking on the might of the Nature Conservancy Council, with its far greater financial purse?
The council has listed an impressive array of 28 operations likely to damage the special interest which completely erodes the basic fundamentals of ownership of the land. The stint owners have been advised that the only way that they can achieve proper compensation is if planning would have been forthcoming for their part of the bog. This has been no problem in the past, and the stint owners would naturally expect to sell part of their bog to the commercial company operating the peat working there. Very little land in acreage terms is involved, but it is a right that the stint owners have exercised for 200 years and a right that they wish to pass on to their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. They will now be deprived of that right, because the county council will automatically reject any planning permission for commercial peat workings if the NCC expresses an interest in the land. In any event, if the council raises the water table, the place will be too wet for milling and selling of peat and all workings will become worthless. That could have severe employment repercussions for the area in the longer term.
A further scandalous part of the council's powers is its position as judge and jury. If the stint owners apply for planning permission for their area for commercial peat extraction, who does the county planning authority have to consult? None other than the Nature Conservancy Council. And will the council give its approval to further peat extraction if it means it having to fork out four, five or six times the amount of compensation than if planning permission was not forthcoming? Clearly the council has a vested interest to say no to further planning consent to extend its ambitions to acquire the land. The stint owners are caught in a classic Catch 22 situation—if they apply for planning consent, nothing can be more certain than that the council will be unable to find a reason for granting consent.
One other worrying feature of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is that it introduces no independent body to assess whether those sites are of special scientific interest. Section 28(1) states:
"Where the Nature Conservancy Council are of the opinion that any area of land is of special interest by reason of any of its flora, fauna, or geological of physiographical features, it shall be the duty of the Council to notify that fact."
Why should the stint owners have to resort to judicial review to assess whether the council has properly assessed the site as being special in its entirety? Why is there no provision for independent consultants to give their opinion?
In this instance, the council has not begun to attempt to satisfy the scientific interests of the stint owners as to

979
its proposals. More seriously, it has completely overlooked the terms of section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968, as amended. The section reads:
"In the exercise of their functions under this Act and the Act of 1949"
and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it shall be the duty of every Minister, and of the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and local authorities,
"to have clue regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas."
Can it be in the economic and social interests of rural areas to bring about a cessation of all peat workings to attempt to expropriate their land with as little compensation as possible? Is not the enclosure award of 1816 of equal historic and hence scientific interest? For two centuries now, peat from the flow has gone to heat the houses of the residents, to dress the wounds of the afflicted in the first world war and to bed Army horses. Now the produce of Wedholme flow is being spread, even on this very day, among the gardens of England, including my own, introducing conservation and beauty into the back streets of the depressed areas of England —I include my back garden in that description! Has the council really had,
"due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and the economic and social interests of rural areas"
in its desire to control this land? Does it really need 100 times the special mire area, when it already has under its control a large number of mosses and bogs, including Glasson Moss, of more than 259 hectares, and Bowness common, of 802 hectares? Indeed, the Bowness common notification is very similar in terms to that of Wedholme flow.
I must say to my hon. Friend the Minister in conclusion that I consider this a form of back-door nationalisation. I see no need for the NCC to take over all that extra land when there is more variety of surface microtopography on the existing SSSI. This is too complicated an issue to go into in this short debate, and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to a meeting between herself and representatives of the stint owners who are affected. I hope that when she replies she will agree that commercial workings of peat and conservation of bogs can go hand in hand, and I hope that she will conclude from the evidence I have given her tonight that an extended Wedholme Flow is not really all that special.
12.11 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has raised with considerable eloquence and forthrightness a number of important issues relating to the present system for selecting and notifying sites of special scientific interest and the impact of SSSI notification on the owners and occupiers of the land concerned. I shall try to deal with them as fully as possible in a way which I hope will demonstrate that the current arrangements are both necessary and appropriate.
As my hon. Friend has said, under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Nature Conservancy Council has a statutory duty to notify as an SSSI, land which is in its opinion of special interest by virtue of its flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features.
980
In the case of Wedholme Flow, in my hon. Friend's constituency, the site is an extensive lowland raised mire, which is the largest of a series of raised mires on the south Solway plain, as he describe. They now represent the largest and finest concentration of that particular type of habitat in Britain. Lowland raised mires have, since the 1800s, been subject to significant losses. I am advised by the Nature Conservancy Council that the total remaining area of the habitat in Britain, which now possesses relatively few major concentrations of such bogs, amounts to approximately 1,800 hectares, of which almost half is within the north Cumbria complex.
Wedholme Flow is thus one of the largest and best remaining examples of the lowland raised bog habitat in Britain. It also possesses great conservation interest, and that has been recognised through its notification as a site of special scientific interest.
My hon. Friend inquired at length about the basis of the decision. I am advised that the NCC in fact conducted a considerable amount of scientific research over a substantial period before deciding on the area of the site to be renotified. Since as long ago as 1959, the site has been under continuous study by the NCC and others and several scientific reports, including those to which my hon. Friend—referred have been produced. I have not had the opportunity to study all of them in detail, but I understand that they confirm the importance of Wedholme Flow in conservation terms, and I should point out that, although the area of the original SSSI is of slightly higher quality, the northern area — that is the part within the proposed extension of the SSSI — is richer in species and has substantial conservation interest.
In 1984 and 1985 the NCC carried out detailed scientific surveys of the site, which involved the careful identification and recording of data on the species of the area and investigations of the topography of the basin in which the site is located, the surface contours and peat depth. The outcome of that work has confirmed that the whole of the renotified site is a single and discrete hydrological unit rather than several separate units, as has been suggested by some others. The NCC's decision was a careful and informed one and was based on detailed scientific investigations. The NCC concluded that the extension of the area of the SSSI was necessary for two reasons.
First, the additional area is considered by the NCC to have sufficient intrinsic scientific interest to merit notification in its own right. The totality of the site is important. The section comprising the Newton Artosh peat awards includes the best intact raised bog surface, with original surface pattening, in England. It supports a complete range of raised bog vegetation from high hummock vegetation to aquatic pool vegetation. It also supports several rare plant species such as bog rosemary, several rare sphagnums and all three of the sundews.
Secondly, knowledge of peatland hydrology has increased significantly since the original notification of the site. Since the early 1980s, the NCC's understanding of peat hydrology has been radically changed as a result of its own researches and there has been a series of publications by British and European specialists. I have a list of these publications, which I will send to my hon. Friend if he considers that they would be helpful.
This body of informed scientific opinion now suggests that, if the existing conservation interest of the site is to be maintained, it is necessary to ensure that the whole of the

981
basin in which Wedholme Flow is located, rather than just a proportion of it, needs to be conserved. Because the existing SSSI and the northern extension form one hydrological area, if the northern extension was not included, peat digging would continue and the quality of the whole mire would deteriorate. This would lead to the loss of peat deposits, peat wastage, the threat of oxidation, drying out of the surface, the loss of pattening and the loss of vegetation areas, and the part that forms an integral part of this basin and is thus important to the well-being of the site as a whole.
Having said all that, however, and in the light of my hon. Friend's constituents' specialist views, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 procedure includes provision for interested persons to make representations or objections to the NCC concerning particular notifications. The NCC is statutorily required to consider such representations or objections in deciding whether a particular notification should be confirmed and could be challenged if it failed to do so.
I therefore suggest that if my hon. Friend believes that his evidence suggests that the NCC may have got it wrong in this case, he should pass this to the NCC as soon as possible so that its objection procedures can proceed, as set out in the Act.
The NCC is a responsible scientific body and I am satisfied that it will give careful and objective consideration to any objections or representations of this kind. I do not think that it would be appropriate for the Government to seek to intervene.
Now, as my hon. Friend knows, having notified the site, the NCC considers that the continued extraction of peat from Wedholme Flow would be incompatible with the maintenance of the conservation interest of the site and has therefore included peat extraction in the list of potentially damaging operations. That means that owners or occupiers who wish to extract peat from the site, on whatever scale, would need to go through the statutory notice procedures set out in section 28 of the Act. All this my hon. Friend has clearly understood and also clearly rather dislikes. However, this would enable the NCC to consider the impact of particular proposals and, if necessary, to explore the possibility of protecting the site through some form of voluntary agreement that could include provision for payment and compensation.
As to the effect of SSSI notification on those with ancient rights to cut peat, I understand that, in the case of those who currently exercise the right to take peat for domestic purposes it has been the NCC's normal practice to grant a time-limited consent for such operations for a period of two years.
It is during this two-year period that the NCC would try to reach agreement with the stint holders concerned about ways of conserving the special interest of the site. That could involve the payment of compensation in respect of the value of the peat not cut. Alternatively, the NCC might be prepared to offer to buy out the stint or even to direct the peat cutting to another area of the site where it could go ahead without serious damage to the conservation interest.
There are, however, a number of stint holders who do not currently exercise their rights and would thus be ineligible for compensation. It seems to me logical that compensation should not be payable in respect of rights
982
which are currently not being exercised, the suspension of which would not result in any actual loss to the stint holders concerned.
The arrangements whereby the NCC has to be consulted on all planning applications affecting SSSIs are designed to ensure that, in deciding such applications, conservation factors are given due weight along with other relevant facts and arguments. This procedure provides an important safeguard for some of the most important areas of our national heritage. It is true that the NCC would not compensate the owner or occupier of an SSSI for not carrying out an operation for which planning permission had been reflected, possibly on NCC advice. I can see nothing objectionable in that.
Owners of other types of land who are refused planning permission do not, as a general rule, have any entitlement to compensation. It would, in my view, be inequitable to treat owners of SSSIs more favourably, and would indeed give them a positive incentive to put forward damaging proposals.
As for the general arrangements for notifying SSSIs, my hon. Friend has suggested that the cards are stacked against owners and occupiers of such land and that they should therefore be given a right of appeal against SSSI notification. I do not think that the current system is weighted against the interests of owners or occupiers or that the existing safeguards for such interests are inadequate. I shall briefly explain why.
The machinery in section 28 is essentially a delaying mechanism. Its purpose is to provide a period of temporary protection for a site — four months — to enable the NCC to discuss, and if possible agree, with the landowner or occupier, suitable arrangements for the long-term management of the land. Landowners may thus be constrained only for a maximum of four months by notification of their land as an SSSI. Unless during this period the land were to become subject to some other form of statutory constraint, the owner would thereafter be free to proceed with whatever operations he wished, subject of course to the necessary consent under planning legislation. Parliament therefore concluded that SSSI notification does not involve any ultimate loss of rights over land and decided that an appeals machinery was unnecessary. This remains the Government's view.
If voluntary agreement cannot be reached during the four-month protection period, the NCC could ask the Secretary of State to make a nature conservation order to extend the period of protection for up to 12 months. Alternatively, it could seek to acquire the land compulsorily by asking the Secretary of State to approve a compulsory purchase order. In the case of a proposed nature conservation order or a CPO, the landowners would have a statutory right to object to the proposals and to have their objections tested against the NCC's case at a public inquiry. Indeed, several nature conservation orders have been challenged in this way and one has been revoked. It seems that the existing arrangements contain sufficient safeguards for the rights of landowners.
The NCC has a duty under section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968 to consider the economic and social interests of rural areas, which my hon. Friend has mentioned. The NCC is very aware of this duty in carrying out its other and equally important duty to notify SSSIs. Its procedures are designed to ensure that these considerations are given due weight in decisions affecting individual sites. The NCC accordingly consults my own

983
Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Forestry Commission and local and water authorities about all extensions to SSSIs, and would take careful account of any comments or observations from any of these committees.
Another important safeguard is that all renotification proposals have to be approved in advance by the appropriate NCC advisory committee. These committees, which are in effect the NCC's board of directors, are broadly based and include representatives of farming and landowning interests as well as scientists and academics. The composition of these committees ensures that the NCC's renotification proposals are subject to the scrutiny of a wide range of interests other than purely conservationalists. However, the fact that section 37 considerations have to be taken into account does not mean that they will always win, and there will inevitably be occasions when the interests of conservation should be given precedence over economic or social considerations.
I hope that it will be clear from this explanation of the background that the procedure for the notification of sites
984
of special scientific interest and their protection are designed to facilitate and encourage discussion, negotiation and voluntary co-operation. They are intended to provide a period of protection for the land, a breathing space, during which the Nature Conservancy Council can explain to owners and occupiers the nature of the importance of a site in conservaion terms, and discuss with them suitable and mutually acceptable arrangements for the future management of the land.
I hope that I have managed to convince my hon. Friend that the arrangements set out in the 1981 Act strike a fair and reasonable balance between the legitimate interests of landowners and occupiers and the need to conserve the natural heritage. However, if he wishes to bring the stint holders to discuss this matter more fully with me, I would be more than happy to meet them at a mutually convenient time and place.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Twelve o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Soviet Compensation
  Soviet Compensation
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Spain
  Spain
CIVIL SERVICE
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
ENERGY
  SEVERN BARRAGE
  SEVERN BARRAGE
  North Sea Oil (Illegal Exports)
  North Sea Oil (Illegal Exports)
  Gaelic Language
  Gaelic Language
  Magnox Reactors
  Magnox Reactors
  Offshore Production Licensing
  Offshore Production Licensing
SOCIAL SERVICES
  NHS (Doctors)
  NHS (Doctors)
  Health Personnel (Statistics)
  Health Personnel (Statistics)
  NHS (Services)
  NHS (Services)
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Ambulance Service, Manchester
  Ambulance Service, Manchester
  Mortuary Staff (Tameside)
  Mortuary Staff (Tameside)
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Medicines Inspectorate
  Medicines Inspectorate
  Glaucoma
  Glaucoma
  Gaelic Language
  Gaelic Language
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  South-West Thames RHA
  South-West Thames RHA
  Cervical Screening
  Cervical Screening
  Mortality
  Mortality
  Captain Balnave
  Captain Balnave
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Devon Schools (Visits)
  Devon Schools (Visits)
  Village Schools
  Village Schools
  Mathematics and Physics Graduates
  Mathematics and Physics Graduates
  Welsh Plant Breeding Section
  Welsh Plant Breeding Section
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Cement (Imports)
  Cement (Imports)
  South Africa (Computer Equipment)
  South Africa (Computer Equipment)
  Krugerrands
  Krugerrands
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  Allied-Lyons
  Allied-Lyons
  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Furniture (Flammability)
  Furniture (Flammability)
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Dog Owners (Prosecution)
  Dog Owners (Prosecution)
  Court Proceedings (Gaelic)
  Court Proceedings (Gaelic)
  Gaelic Language
  Gaelic Language
EMPLOYMENT
  New Business (Derbyshire)
  New Business (Derbyshire)
  Education and Training
  Education and Training
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  GCHQ, Cheltenham
  GCHQ, Cheltenham
  Long-term Unemployment
  Long-term Unemployment
  Job Creation (Take-up)
  Job Creation (Take-up)
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Gaelic Language
  Gaelic Language
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee
  Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee
TRANSPORT
  British Rail (Rolling Stock)
  British Rail (Rolling Stock)
  Motorcyclists (Headlights)
  Motorcyclists (Headlights)
  Railways (Dangerous Freight)
  Railways (Dangerous Freight)
  Gaelic Language
  Gaelic Language
  National Bus Company
  National Bus Company
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sea Pollution (Liverpool Bay)
  Sea Pollution (Liverpool Bay)
PRIME MINISTER
  Macclesfield
  Macclesfield
  Dewsbury and Batley and Spen
  Dewsbury and Batley and Spen
  Official Papers
  Official Papers
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
ENVIRONMENT
  Litter
  Litter
  Fly Tipping
  Fly Tipping
  Land (Thamesdown)
  Land (Thamesdown)
  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Albert Dock Village, Liverpool
  Albert Dock Village, Liverpool
  Task Force (Merseyside)
  Task Force (Merseyside)
  Long-term Water Research Committee
  Long-term Water Research Committee
  Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission
  Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission
WALES
  Sheep (Restrictions)
  Sheep (Restrictions)
  Radioactivity
  Radioactivity
  Leaflets and Forms
  Leaflets and Forms
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Orders in Council (Northern Ireland)
  Orders in Council (Northern Ireland)
  Select Committee Reports
  Select Committee Reports
  Travel Vouchers
  Travel Vouchers
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Prison (Drugs)
  Prison (Drugs)
  Republic of Ireland (Extradition)
  Republic of Ireland (Extradition)
  Crime Clear-up Rates (Leicester and Brighton)
  Crime Clear-up Rates (Leicester and Brighton)
  Fraud
  Fraud
  Johnson Matthey Bank
  Johnson Matthey Bank
  Strip Searches
  Strip Searches
  Gaelic Language
  Gaelic Language
  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Prisoners' Letters (Censorship)
  Prisoners' Letters (Censorship)
  Prison Workshops
  Prison Workshops
DEFENCE
  Western European Union
  Western European Union
  Royal Wedding
  Royal Wedding
  Royal Navy
  Royal Navy
  Racial Discrimination
  Racial Discrimination
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Gurkha Regiments
  Gurkha Regiments
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  British Nuclear Test
  British Nuclear Test
  Defence Contracts
  Defence Contracts
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Advanced Early Warning System
  Advanced Early Warning System
  RAF (Aircraft Procurement)
  RAF (Aircraft Procurement)
  Nimrod Programme
  Nimrod Programme
  Small Ship Orders
  Small Ship Orders
  Willsworthy Shooting Range
  Willsworthy Shooting Range
  Type 23 Frigates
  Type 23 Frigates
  Arms Limitation
  Arms Limitation
  Basic Training Aircraft
  Basic Training Aircraft
  Trident Submarine
  Trident Submarine
  Formaldehyde (Gruinard Island)
  Formaldehyde (Gruinard Island)
  Nuclear Deterrent
  Nuclear Deterrent
  Western Europe
  Western Europe
  Drugs Misuse
  Drugs Misuse
  Ethnic Monitoring (Armed Forces)
  Ethnic Monitoring (Armed Forces)
  Payments Policy
  Payments Policy
  RAF (Woolwich)
  RAF (Woolwich)
SCOTLAND
  Housing Study Courses
  Housing Study Courses
  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Patients (Waiting Lists)
  Patients (Waiting Lists)
  Patients (Cross-boundary Inflow)
  Patients (Cross-boundary Inflow)
  Dundee Dental Hospital
  Dundee Dental Hospital
  Gaelic Language
  Gaelic Language
  European Bureau for Lesser Spoken Languages
  European Bureau for Lesser Spoken Languages
  "Management Training for Leisure and Recreation in Scotland"
  "Management Training for Leisure and Recreation in Scotland"
  Dounreay Reprocessing Plant (Inquiry)
  Dounreay Reprocessing Plant (Inquiry)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Gaelic Language
  Gaelic Language
  EC Budget
  EC Budget
  Customs Officers
  Customs Officers
  Scottish Trustees Savings Bank
  Scottish Trustees Savings Bank
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Donaghadee Road, Ballyharry
  Donaghadee Road, Ballyharry
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Board and Lodging
  Board and Lodging
  Rented Accommodation (Subsidies)
  Rented Accommodation (Subsidies)
  Strip Searches (Women Prisoners)
  Strip Searches (Women Prisoners)
  Portadown (Incident)
  Portadown (Incident)
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Anglo-Irish Agreement

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

Marine Anti-fouling Paints: Controls
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the provisions of the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985 are to be extended to cover marine anti-fouling treatments and whether the list of such treatments will include all organotin anti-fouling paints including those not currently listed under the control of anti-fouling paint regulations.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we have laid draft regulations on the control of pesticides for approval by the House. They provide that controls over marine anti-fouling paints will come into force on 1st July 1987. The coverage of these controls would extend to all anti-fouling paints applied to vessels and structures below the waterline.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he mean that all anti-fouling paints which contain even small amounts of organotin will be included? Is he aware that this substance accumulates in the food chain and is causing a number of bird deaths—and they are birds protected under the Berne Convention? Is in fact the whole range of anti-fouling paints included, or just a specified few?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it will include all anti-fouling paints. The form of control will depend on the nature of the anti-fouling concerned and its intended use.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, now that the regulations are to be made under food and environment Acts rather than the pollution Act, as he originally suggested to me when I first raised this question, can my noble friend say whether there is any danger to human beings through the food chain? Is that the inference we should draw from the change from one Act to another?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the reason for the control of anti-fouling paints is that comparative field trials, and indeed other tests undertaken, have shown that these paints undoubtedly have a severe effect on shellfish around the coasts.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord when he looks at the regulations to make sure that they are satisfactorily comprehensive? Is he aware that a number of oceanographic stations—I believe
790
Bangor, Plymouth, and probably others—have been concerned about this? I have the impression that there may be new products of a kind which may not be covered, though we are grateful for the noble Lord's assurance that they will be dealt with.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, new paints would of course have to be cleared under the regulations. Indeed, our procedures here would be in line with, but no more onerous than, the European Community's directive on the notification of new substances. The regulations will be subject to debate in your Lordships' House before the House rises for the Recess and are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, will the regulations be applicable to vessels owned by nationals other than British nationals? One can understand that policing can be carried out in regard to boats that are berthed in this country, but what will be the position regarding foreign owners of boats?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the boat is painted in this country, it will be subject to the regulations; but my noble friend asks a good question because we have no controls which apply to vessels which are painted abroad and which then enter United Kingdom waters. We have, however, kept the Commission of the European Communities informed of our initiative and have urged it to consider a Community-wide system of controls.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in the light of the questions that have already been asked today, may I ask the Minister whether he has had any discussions with the small boat manufacturers in this country regarding this matter? It could have serious consequences for them in terms of employment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there have of course been discussions with the paint trade on this particular matter. That is why the controls are not due to come into force until 1st July 1987; that is to say, in a year's time.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his reply is disappointing in one respect? July is after the main boat-painting season, and that means in effect that we shall possibly have a further year of the wrong kind of paints being used.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, boats are repainted as the season progresses. I do not think that the controls will miss all the boat painting in 1987.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, as an anti-fouling paint must automatically be bad for the marine life that it is meant to keep off the bottom of boats, is there one that can be applied which does the job and is not bad for other marine life?
Lord Belstead: A copper-based one, my Lords.

Vehicle Security and Crime Prevention
2.41 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action is being taken to provide better security for cars and other vehicles in order to reduce crime.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the first part of a British standard on vehicle security, which is being prepared with the co-operation of motor manufacturers, will be published in the autumn. It will define, for the first time, a performance based specification for secure locking systems. We will also continue to urge car owners to use the security equipment available to them. We are undertaking a wide range of publicity campaigns, and the motor manufacturers will be improving the advice on car security which they give to car owners.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interesting reply. May I ask him what will be the cost to the motor manufacturing industry? Does what is proposed also take into account laminated side windows to improve safety for car passengers as well as security?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the competitiveness of the motor market makes it imperative that public demand is created. Cars with better security must be seen as more attractive than other cars. The fact that the motor manufacturers are beginning to realise that security can be a desirable feature is illustrated by the inclusion of improved locks on the Ford Granada and some other models. So far as laminated side windows are concerned, this is being studied from the aspect of both security and safety.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Viscount's Answer is very encouraging indeed. However, how far is the problem also due to the amount of street parking that there is, in particular in inner city areas, because there is no room at all for hard standings in front of houses and because there is a complete absence of garages? Also is there an absence of local policing?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with respect, that is outside the scope of this Question, which is to do with security of cars and car locks.

Motorways and Trunk Roads: Renewal
2.44 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many miles of motorway and trunk roads were renewed in 1985–86 and how many miles are expected to be renewed in 1986–87.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, 70 miles of motorways and 145 miles of trunk road were renewed in 1985–86, and we expect to renew at least 80 miles of motorway and 185 miles of trunk road in 1986–87.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. How much did we spend on capital maintenance of motorways and trunk roads in 1985–86? How much is being planned for 1986–87? May I also ask my noble friend what is the extent of motorway repairs to be carried out during the summer?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, in 1985–86 we spent £127 million on capital maintenance and this year we are planning to spend £156 million, an increase of 23 per cent. My noble friend's second supplementary question was to do with our plans for this year. There are 30 major motorway renewal schemes planned to be under way for at least some of the time between now and the end of September. These works cover the renewal of 74 miles of motorway, and the total cost is £78 million.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us how the scheme to charge people who are doing repairs to motorways according to the number and extent of lane closures is working out? Could he bear in mind that there is still a desire to cone off miles and miles of carriageway, particularly in the fast lane, and that then, after travelling five miles, you find just one vehicle renewing a light? Is this really economical use of very expensive carriageway?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, cones are required for various reasons which are not always obvious: to protect concrete which is still curing; to protect excavated areas or damaged safety fences; to provide a safety zone for workmen, and to provide access for contractors' or emergency vehicles. Nevertheless, we have reminded our agents to remove cones as soon as is practicable and also to make use of daytime work more than the night.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, despite the first Answer which the noble Viscount gave, is he aware that the 1985 national road maintenance survey showed that there had been a deterioration in the condition of trunk roads since 1982, and that the condition in 1985 was significantly worse than in 1984 and significantly worse than in 1977, when the national surveys first started? Is it not the case that the standing committee on highway maintenance complained of the shortage of finance for the maintenance of roads over the past five years and that in March two press notices from the Department of Transport stated that the Minister concerned, Mr. Peter Bottomley, had said that the elimination of the problem could not take place until the early 1990s? Is there not therefore a case for greater expenditure on this matter?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, there have been backlogs, but since 1979 the annual mileage of motorways renewed each year has been doubled. By continuing to spend at the present level we should eliminate the backlog of maintenance on both motorways and trunk roads within five or six years.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, can my noble friend say how much longer it will take to turn the dual carriageway section of the M.5 into a three-lane section? They have been at it for a very long time already.
Viscount Davidson: I am afraid I cannot, my Lords. However, I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that he is spending enough on trunk road crossing places? On a double track trunk road in the county of Angus a number of people have been killed and there have been far too many accidents involving people crossing the double track, because there is not enough space. Does he not think that perhaps more roundabouts are indicated for these crossing places on trunk roads? I am not talking about motorways.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am afraid I do not know the example that the noble Lord speaks about, but I shall bring it to the attention of the department.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, will the Government encourage the doubling of the Dartford Tunnel, which is likely to lead to very great congestion if it is not remedied soon?
Viscount Davidson: I think that is another question, my Lords.

Money Supply
2.47 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they intend to take to bring the 33·5 per cent. annualised rate of growth of the broad monetary aggregate in the latest three months more nearly into conformity with the target ranges set out in the Budget speech.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the object of monetary policy is to maintain the conditions needed to reduce inflation. Sterling M3 is only one of the indicators of monetary conditions. Taking all factors into account, including MO and the exchange rate, there is no reason to believe that monetary conditions are currently too loose.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his reply. May I therefore take it that in setting the target for M3 in the budget his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was doing no more than talking in the air?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords. The annual target for M3 is in the range of 11 to 15 per cent. It is true that the annual rate to June was 18¼ per cent. and is above that target range. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer continually reminds us all that that is only one of a number of indicators. He has to consider all factors in the conduct of monetary policy.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend for denying to him and particularly your Lordships' House the opportunity to discuss this interesting information in response a month ago. May I ask him whether he is satisfied that, if one looks at all the various indicators, apart from MO (which, frankly, has a rather limited fan club), it does not begin to appear, when one considers not only the broad aggregates but also bank lending to the private sector and now the exchange rate and the movement in house prices and in other real asset prices, that there are accumulating indications of excessive laxity in credit conditions? Does this not possibly suggest an acceleration of inflation in 1987?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the proof of the pudding has to be in the eating thereof. If we look at the conduct of monetary policy over the last five or six years, we see that there has been steadily reducing inflation combined with a steady growth of 3 per cent. a year, which, at least in terms of the economy, is as good as that of any of our competitors in Europe. I think that we have to take all factors into account. The pound sterling and the economy have ridden a substantial drop in oil revenues; the economy is strong and we have to look and react to events when they occur.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he has still not answered my noble friend's Question which asked the Government,
"what steps they intend to take to bring the 33·5 percent. annualised rate of growth of the broad monetary aggregate in the latest three months more nearly into conformity with the target ranges"?
The noble Lord has not answered the Question. What steps do the Government propose to take to bring the rate of growth more into conformity? Is the noble Lord saying that it lies outside the power of this Government to take steps; and is he aware that for many years the M3 indicator was taken as the predominant influence on Government policy? Will the noble Lord give some indication or forecast as to what effect he thinks the extra billion to be injected into the economy for electoral purposes is likely to have on the future M3?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I am sure that it was only by accident that he obviously misheard my reply. I said that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes into account a number of different indicators. His responsibility is in looking at monetary conditions as a whole. Sterling M3 is only one of a number of indicators, and it would be quite wrong to isolate one particular indicator.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, may I suggest that the noble Lord has still not answered the Question, and that if the answer that he is trying to give to your Lordships' House is that the Government intend to take no steps whatever, perhaps he will be good enough to say so?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, when the Question was first put down it referred to 39 per cent. annualised rate of growth of the broad monetary aggregate. When the Question comes to be answered it

795
is 33·5 per cent.—and this on a three-months' rate. I keep on making the point that it is no good taking a three-months' rate. We are talking of conditions over 12 months, and we shall have to look to see whether or not the present 18·25 per cent., which is the annual rate for June in sterling M3, would in fact come within the broad range, which is 11 to 15 per cent. I say again that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We must look at the rate of investment, we must look at the rate of growth, and we must look at inflation in our society.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us which are the other factors which enable the Chancellor to ignore the extraordinary variation in this rate?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, there are many factors. There are, of course, all the other indicators to which the Treasury pays attention; but it would be wrong to single out one. What we have learnt over the years is that the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to take an overall look at the whole of the economy. In the end what happens will speak for itself.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that times have changed when all the opposition parties want to make sure that we understand the importance of monetarism; that in fact we have always taken into account other factors, including the state of our own economy generally and that of America; and that I hope that the Government will continue to look at all these factors?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for reminding me that times have changed; I am not sure that those sitting opposite have.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether the target ranges set out in the Budget speech had anything whatsoever to do with the statement that he (the noble Lord) made in this House that, because of that Budget speech, there could well be a big reduction in unemployment by Christmas? Is that still the position, notwithstanding the statements and despite the fact that the targets set out in the Budget speech have not been attained? Will that mean that there will not be much reduction in unemployment after all?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for giving me the opportunity to remind the House once again that the only forecast I have made is that when the figures for Chistmas become apparent long-term unemployment will be seen to be down. I have at no time made any forecast about the level of unemployment itself. This is solely due to the Government recognising that a very real problem in our society is the plight of those who have been out of work for more than a year and taking steps towards helping that.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, will the Government continue stoutly to resist all the attempts of the
796
Opposition to increase Government expenditure in endless amendments to every measure that comes before the House?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Government have succeeded for the past seven years and I am quite sure that they will succeed for the next seven.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, to return to money aggregates, would the noble Lord the Minister help us as to what is the policy of the Government with regard to these aggregates? Do they recommend them as being helpful? Do they take the view that they are to be regarded as helpful on some occasions when the thermometer registers the temperature that they think it ought to register and not on other occasions when it does not. The House is in total confusion as to what is the Government's view of targets.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, should be in a state of confusion. Let me endeavour to bring him out of it. The purpose of the Government is to look after the health of the patient. The temperature registered by the thermometer is another matter. The health of the patient is the only thing that really matters.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, in view of the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, may we take it that the "Chunnel" is now out?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords, we may take nothing of the sort.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Secretary of State reaffirm that it is Government policy—and I quote from the medium-term financial strategy of 1980—that there is no question of departing from money supply policy which is essential to the success of any anti-inflationary strategy? Is this the policy of the Government or is it not? If this is the policy of the Government, will the noble Lord please answer my original Question?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, surely the experience of the last few years continues to confirm the value of a clear commitment to medium-term financial strategy and the ultimate objective of continuing lower inflation. The record on money GDP growth, which has halved while output has continued to grow at an average of 3 per cent. per annum since 1981 and inflation has gone down from 18 per cent. to 2·5 per cent., demonstrates the success of that strategy; and we will continue, I hope, to demonstrate that success.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Social Security Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approxi-mately one hour and that during this adjournment the

797
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 1986, the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Amendment) Order 1986, the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1986 and the Hovercraft (Civil Liability) Order 1986 will be taken.

Ipswich Port Authority Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Social Security Bill
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Trumpington, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
BaronessEwart-Biggs BaronessEwart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
School meals
("(1) An education authority shall exercise their power under subsection (l)(a) of either section 22 of the Education Act 1980 or section 53 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, in relation to any pupil whose parents are in receipt of family credit, so as to ensure that such provision is made for him in the middle of the day as appears to the authority to be requisite and shall make that provision for him free of charge.
(2) If, having regard to the particular circumstances of any pupil or class or description of pupils, they consider it appropriate to do so, an education authority may treat him or them, for the purposes of subsection (1) above, as if his or their parents were in receipt of family credit or may remit any part of any charge that would otherwise be made for anything provided by the authority under subsection (l)(a) of either of those sections.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 45, which is in my name and the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. The purpose of this new clause is to restore free school meals to children whose parents will receive family credit, and also to allow local authorities to continue to exercise their discretion in favour of children from low income families who do not qualify for either income support or family credit.
The aim is to ensure that these children have the opportunity to eat a nutritionally-balanced meal in the middle of the school day. Our concern at the Government's proposals has been great. We are concerned that they plan to give cash compensation through family credit to low wage earning families in lieu of the free school meal, which of course goes direct to the child. Indeed, we have already argued against this new scheme on two occasions in Committee, and each time the Minister in her answers did nothing to dissipate those worries. The noble Baroness merely
798
said that we produced the same arguments—which of course we had done, because we had not previously received an answer which satisfied us.
Therefore, if I may rapidly repeat those arguments to your Lordships today, first, we want to know whether this cash compensation offered in the Bill will be sufficient to provide an alternative to the present free meal. The sum proposed is £2.20 per week during the whole year, which comes to 44p per meal. There is worry among certain local authorities; and the AMA's recent analysis shows that in certain authorities the price is already at 60p. If fewer children take up the school meal entitlement it will be difficult to keep the price down to an economic rate.
Secondly, we would want to know whether the cash compensation would be targeted on the poorest families because, of course, this is a major objective, as the Government say, in this particular clause. Again, there is concern as to whether the children at present benefiting from local authority discretionary schemes will be covered by family credit and therefore eligible for cash compensation. In particular, these are children of families not working and not receiving income support, or families on invalidity or widows' pensions.
The Government have actually given no figures, but the Derbyshire County Council say that as many as 68 per cent. of their children are on discretionary schemes and may therefore lose their entitlement to free school meals under this Bill. We also need an answer from the Minister regarding those very poor families who are on family credit and also receive housing benefit. Through the interaction of these two benefits, they will receive only 44p cash compensation per week for meals instead of the £2.20. This poverty trap has been caused because family credit will count as income for housing benefit purposes. That question has been put to the noble Baroness because it is very worrying that the very poorest families should be penalised in this way and get less cash compensation for their children, who presumably will be most in need of a good school meal.
Thirdly, will that money really translate itself into a nutritious meal for the child? This is perhaps the major worry that we have felt and the one which has been expressed to us from many quarters. We are worried that families under great pressure might put aside the whole of their family credit without taking out that sum which is allotted for the school meals and will put it into the housekeeping or use it to pay some pressing bill. Indeed, the North Yorkshire County Council has shown its very great worry about this. I quote part of a letter which they have written to me. The say:
"The average number of meals per day which would no longer be available free of charge if the Government proposals were implemented would be about 2,800. There is no guarantee that the parents of these children who would no longer be entitled to receive free meals would make satisfactory arrangements for their children to have a midday meal, to the detriment of the children. It is this aspect which is primarily causing concern to the education committee".
That comes from the North Yorkshire County Council, which I believe has a very balanced representation of parties on its education committee.
Then, supposing that the child gets this 60p and goes to school with it—again, we have gone through these

799
arguments before, but I must repeat them—many children are easily diverted by junk food. Junk food has become one of the great worries for all our children, and not only those from hard-pressed families. I think a great number of children would like the novelty of going into a little cafe and buying some junk food, so that they would not get a carefully worked-out meal such is as at present available to them.
These are the major worries which make us favour retaining the present system. There are several reasons why we believe that the present system is right, although of course we should like to build it up even more—and in some ways it is improving itself. To begin with, on the point of nutrition, since the 1980 Act a great deal of work has gone into seeing that there is a greater nutritional content in school meals, because the local education authorities realise the very great need for children of poorer families to get that meal, which will be of such benefit to them in the middle of the day.
Again, the local education authorities know that for many children that is the main meal of the day—there is no question about it—and that in the evening they will have a bag of crisps or something which has very little nutritional value. Also, there is a great deal of medical evidence concerning the great need for these school meals. I do not know whether any of your Lordships saw the letter in the Guardian yesterday from Sir Douglas Black, but I found it really very telling. I should like to quote one paragraph from it. He says:
"In 1980 a DHSS research working group, of which I was chairman, said in its report Inequalities in Health"—
and he quoted from the report. He went on:
"In our view any reduction in the provision of school meals or in eligibility for free school meals would mean putting further at risk the development of significant numbers of children."
He then went on to say:
"Nothing has changed except the accumulation of medical evidence showing that children need to be adequately nourished to achieve their potential for healthy growth and development. In view of this and the increase in public awareness and concern about the nation's health, this move by the Government seems the height of folly."
That is what Sir Douglas Black said.
The school meals service has very much improved since 1980. I do not know how many of your Lordships have been to schools at lunchtime to see children eating their meals, but I have been to several and I assure you that everything has changed. There is now a choice, the food is very attractively presented, there is a cafeteria system and children help themselves; they sit at little tables rather than at a long, old table, such as we all sat at, and there is a very great feeling of enjoyment. The proof of this is that the take-up of school meals has increased, which surely means that there is no criticism of it.
From the other point of view, I believe—and I think that many people agree with me—that the school meals service should be seen as an integral part of our school system. After all, we provide playing fields and physical education and we try to improve the classrooms to make them lighter and more airy. All these facilities have health interests at heart. So surely,
800
in the same way, a good midday school meal is of benefit to the health of our children.
Some people argue that other countries do not have this service, but surely in this case we are leading other countries and they might well take the lead from us and copy our excellent system of having a school meal which fits in with the curriculum. There is no doubt that giving them something in kind rather than cash is the best way of helping disadvantaged families who are under pressure.
As I said earlier, the school meals service has improved but it can be run only when a certain number of children have a meal from it. If there are more children bringing packed lunches or having lunch out, there will be a lower take-up. The worry of teachers is very great, because they point out that they will be in a heartbreaking dilemma when children come without that 60p because it has gone to help pay the gas bill. What will the school do? Will it give such a child a meal and pursue the parents, or not give the child a meal at all? It has put the school teachers into a very great dilemma.
Who supports the view put forward by the teachers? The first and very important group indeed is the mothers. A survey shows that mothers would very much rather have the certitude that their child is getting a meal at the middle of the day. That gives them peace of mind and there is a lack of worry that, when the children get home, they will have to be given something substantial to eat. Every mother in the world would like to know that her child is being cared for from the point of view of nutrition.
I received a tele-message this morning which proves what I say. It came from Cheshire and said:
"Eleven thousand Cheshire Women's Institute members are mandated to support the amendment to rescue free school meals. We know when our next meal will be. There are hungry and under-nourished children in this country today. There should not be one".
I cannot believe that the members of the Women's Institute in Cheshire are a bunch of dangerous Reds, but they are clearly concerned, and that is how they showed it.
The last group concerned is the local education authorities. They have written in great numbers about their worries. I should like to quote one letter from the Hertfordshire County Council, which said:
"An attempt was made to restrict free school meals to those pupils statutorily entitled in September 1984. This had to be modified after two months because a number of children were found to be suffering hardship and an element of discretion was reintroduced".
So that education authority realised the necessity for going on with the system.
May I end by saying I am convinced that this is the best way of helping families under pressure and it will not cost more. We are not asking for more money. We are simply asking to go on with the present system and to improve it. There are many issues which I have argued in your Lordships' House, but none with greater conviction and greater sincerity than this one. I beg your Lordships to listen to the arguments that will be put. My Lords, I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, perhaps it would be helpful, as my name is attached to this amendment, if I gave briefly the view from these Benches. The

801
Government propose to restrict free school meals to children whose families are on income support, and this means that 470,000 children will lose the entitlement which they in fact have. This proposal is misguided for a number of reasons. Those on the new family credit scheme are to be compensated by a cash allowance, but as I showed at Committee stage this will in many cases be less in real terms than the £2.20 proposed, owing to its interaction with housing benefit. I shall not go into all the figures again, because I did so at some length at a previous stage of the Bill. Also many local authorities' meal charges are rising well above the proposed compensation level.
I turn to the question of stigma, to which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, referred at Committee stage. To provide free school meals for income support children only increases rather than reduces stigma, as the group is smaller than before and a distinction is made between poor children who have working parents and poor children who do not. We on these Benches are totally opposed to driving this wedge between poor children from families in work and those who are, temporarily maybe, out of work. If dad gets or loses a job, the child jumps immediately into a different category from his or her playmate, and that cannot be right.
Perhaps the most objectionable of all the Government's proposals is the quite unwarranted removal of local authority discretion. One of the reasons given by the Government for removing from local education authorities the statutory duty to provide school meals under the 1980 Education Act, while permitting a measure of discretion in the operation of the free school meal scheme, was precisely to allow local authorities to make provision more directly appropriate to the needs of their area. That was the Government's argument. At present, children from families on supplementary benefit and family income supplement are statutorily entitled to receive these meals. However, in 64 local education authorities children from low income families also receive free meals through local discretionary schemes.
In a letter back in 1979 Dr. Rhodes Boyson, then at the Department of Education and Science, justified the removal of most statutory duties concerning school meals by saying that the action was in tune with the Government's commitment to give local authorities a larger say in the provision of local services. It appears that the Government have changed their tune.
Local discretionary schemes, as well as increasing unemployment, have contributed to the increase in the percentage of children taking free school meals in recent years. In 1981–82 10 per cent. of meals were free and in 1985 the figure had risen to 15 per cent. Local authority discretion to provide meals for low income families is now to be removed and this will deny many children the meal they need. Also, the effects on local democracy and local accountability are to be deplored. A total of 470,000 will lose entitlement and 340,000 of these will lose their meals due to the loss of these discretionary schemes. The rest will lose them because they will now be on family credit and receiving the inadequate compensation to which the noble Baroness has referred.
802
Those are some of the reasons why we support this amendment. There are, of course, several others which I shall not go into in detail. Perhaps the most important is, quite simply, the nutritional value which was referred to by the noble Baroness. But there is also the effect on the viability of some school kitchens and, indeed, on women's jobs. The Secretary of State for Employment, the noble Lord, Lord Young, was earlier referring to projected decreases in unemployment, but I would remind the Government that the school meals service employs more than 200,000 women, largely in part-time jobs, and some of them are quite likely to suffer—in fact are almost certain to suffer—as a result of the Government's proposals in this Bill. On all these grounds it seems the wrong moment to introduce this change; at least until we see how the new system embodied in this Bill works out in practice. I hope very much that the Government will think again.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, put as one of his objections to the Bill as it stands what he described as the restriction of local authority discretion. But of course he must be aware of the fact that the amendment to which his name has been put also exercises a very considerable restriction on local authority discretion. It is quite explicit. The amendment begins:
"An education authority shall exercise their power under subsection (1)",
and so on. Therefore, if we are looking at this matter on its merits, it is not quite fair for the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, to call in aid of his side of the argument the importance of local authority discretion, to which we all attach importance.
I now come to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I hope she will not mind my saying that I found, as I always do, her speech most impressive and persuasive. She certainly put a case, with which I do not happen to agree, as effectively as I think any of us could imagine it being put. However, she did not make clear in the course of that speech, although she implied it I think, whether the free school meals which would be mandatory under her amendment would be in addition to, or in lieu of, the £2.20 under the family credit scheme. In her speech she seemed to take it for granted that this was in lieu; no doubt that was the basis on which the argument proceeded, as it did on the two previous occasions when you Lordships' House discussed it. But in point of fact, if one studies the amendment, one cannot see any provision there that it should be in lieu. If one reads the amendment by itself—and it may be that some other clause of the Bill of which I am not aware affects this—it looks as though this would be in addition, if your Lordships were to accept the amendment. As I understand the noble Baroness's speech, that was not the intention. She was, if I may use the language of the race course, backing the horse of school meals as against the horse of the family credit provision, which is initially to be £2.20.
The House has certainly discussed this matter at very considerable length. Your Lordships will recall that at the Committee stage we spent a good deal of time on it. I make no complaint because it is an important issue. But your Lordships' House has so far taken the view that the cash payment is to be preferred to the provision of meals in kind—
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that has been the view that the House has so far taken. It is a view which personally I share.
There is one point which was made forcefully during the Committee stage debate which the noble Baroness did not answer in the course of her speech. It is that while school meals may be an admirable provision, they are a provision only during school term. If you eliminate the family credit of £2.20, you leave the school holiday period entirely uncovered. Moreover, if we consider the school holiday period—and your Lordships know that school holidays now are very long: they are not only long during the normal holiday period, but most schools now have, in certain terms at any rate, a full week's half-term holiday—we see that there are a considerable number of weeks when the child is at home. If we eliminate the £2.20 allowance, we are making no provision for the child's mid-day meal during those school holidays. The argument therefore for the cash provision as opposed to the provision in kind is that the cash provision continues throughout the year whereas the school meals are provided only during school term.
Indeed, it is not absolutely certain that school meals are provided during the school term. Your Lordships will recall that during the recent action by the National Union of Teachers in the education dispute one of the first directions in which the union withdrew its labour was in the supervision of school meals. Your Lordships will know that considerable confusion resulted from that, I think, very anti-social action by that union—action which persisted in some schools for quite a considerable period. We all hope that this kind of thing will not be repeated and that in future the teachers' unions will behave more responsibly than they did earlier this year and last year. Nonetheless this introduces another element of doubt in to relying solely on school meals as opposed to cash provision. The cash provision goes to the mother, and she surely has towards her children a sense of responsibility which is greater at any rate than some teachers showed during the recent dispute.
The noble Baroness did not seem to have very much confidence in the mother. Indeed, she said that the mother might use the money provided for the child to pay some urgent bill. Nobody can generalise about every mother in the country. There are no doubt irresponsible mothers, as there are irresponsible elements elsewhere. But in general, surely your Lordships are not going to take the view that a mother provided with money for the feeding of her children is going to use that money for other purposes and let the children go short. To take that view would be a very serious reflection on the mothers of this country; and what is more important it would be a wholly unjustified one.
The ordinary mother will use her resources to provide for her children. It is surely also the fact that the ordinary mother will better know what are the needs of her children, inlcuding the dietary needs and the medical situation of the children, than can any school meals organisation. Your Lordships know that there are certain children who are allergic to certain
804
items of diet and indeed are postively harmed by them. How you cope with them under the school meals service I do not know. The mother knows the position of the child. That is one of the arguments, apart from the very potent argument of the school holidays, for why it is safer to entrust the important question of the feeding of our children to the mothers rather than to the local authorities.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I should like to say a few words concerning this amendment. I do not agree—and I often have not agreed—with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He is always trying to persuade me to do things that I do not want to do. He has not always been successful. The Government's desire to provide freedom of choice for school meals is appreciated, and in my view is very worthwhile. I should like to say to the noble Lord who has just spoken that there is no reason so far as I can understand why the £2.20 should not be paid direct to the mother during the school holidays. She could go along to the post office and draw it out.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me, that is not proposed in the amendment before the House.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, this amendment may not be perfect. If we can find out the things that are not right now, perhaps we can find a better amendment for the next time we discuss this matter.
In the absence of adequate resources, what we have just heard is meaningless. Even where the cash compensation corresponds to the value of the school meals it is intended to replace, it does not compensate the mothers for the cost of time, thought, planning and catering for the lunches of the children who are at present automatically entitled to free school meals.
I still feel that the LEAs should be the judge of what children need, according to their areas. I shall concentrate on the rural areas. The rural areas have great difficulties. In a family of two children, one child may have to walk to school because the distance is just under 3 miles (there is a three-mile limit) and the other may have to catch a bus to go to his school. The buses often tour round many villages because there is a shortage of buses. In addition, the buses have to start very early. I have often seen a school bus going through my village and returning late in the evening. So there are two packed lunches which have to be provided. Freedom of choice may mean that the children do not like the same food, and there is not much choice with packed lunches, anyway.
A survey has shown that compensation will not reach the mothers and nor is it likely to be spent on children, however loving is the mother. The survey showed that one in five wives said they did not expect their husband to pass on the cash received. Single mothers who work said they might have to give up their jobs. Owing to the closure of many village schools the journeys to school have become longer and longer. Also, many villages do not have a local shop. There will be a shop in towns but the women will not always choose the best food with the money. In rural areas wages are very low. Many people earn as little as £75

805
to a week, so it often means that both parents need to work.
Surely it would be best for the LEAs to decide what is best for the children in their areas. They can consult the head teachers and the health visitors in the local areas. Daily packed lunches can never be as nutritious as a hot meal. The school meal may be the only hot meal for children on weekdays, except on Sundays, when most mothers try to produce a hot meal, but one in a week does not go very far. All mothers, without exception, in the Poverty Action Group survey stated a clear preference for school meals over cash compensation of the same value. One mother said, "School meals have become part of the school day". Our country and our children would be worse off without them.
Turning to diet, I remember that there was a time in this country when it was said in Europe that rickets was "the English disease".
School meals have tended to overcome all those difficulties. It was quite amazing at the beginning of the war, when children came on to school meals, how well they thrived and became stronger, and so on. They were also better clothed, but it is the food they need to make them grow well.
Therefore, before making a final decision, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consult the LEAs. I feel certain that most ratepayers will not want a change. The young have to walk to school in the cold winters, with snow on the ground, and on rainy days, most likely without a change of clothing. Those on the buses have to undertake long tours. Therefore, I recommend my noble friend the Minister to consider with the LEAs, particularly in the rural areas, the rather more difficult lives these children have and the need for excellent food, which can be given in the schools and which has done a great deal of good over many years.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, I support this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, spoke with eloquence in favour of the amendment and tribute has been paid to that, so I do not want to go over the ground she covered.
There are two categories—the poverty issue and the nutritional issue. I know that the Government have a policy, which is a good one, of trying to target help on to those most in need, but it seems to me that the Bill does not do that in respect of the effect this will have on the poorest of families. The Government have not said how many children receiving school meals will be from families who will receive family credit and how many will not. Families who will receive nothing are those families not working and not receiving income supplement—that is, families receiving national insurance benefits; and that would be invalidity or widows' pensions. Therefore, this is an example of where the resources are not being targeted on to particular circumstances of need.
From the nutritional point of view, I should like only to affirm what the noble Baroness said. All authorities speaking on this have made the same point as the noble Baroness. In 1986 the report of the Royal College of Physicians made the point that this country has one of the poorest health records in the developed
806
world. Following that, the Sunday Telegraph reaffirmed what the report said and added that the Government should take action; and take action that takes health into account. This, therefore, seems to be a very bad moment to be withdrawing schools meals.
As regards parents, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but I think he missed the point that for mothers in acute poverty—and there are probably 7 million souls in poverty in this country at present—however much they might want to be responsible, their circumstances make it very difficult to be so: where they are struggling with the burdens of deprivation and poverty, struggling with the burden of unemployment and with being a single parent family. The circumstances need a lot of imagination for us, who are fairly well favoured, to know what that feels like. There are many mothers who would not be irresponsible but who are burdened down by their cares and not able to make the choices that need to be made in the use of this money. For those reasons, I support what the noble Baroness is putting forward in this amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the Minister rises to reply, I should like to ask a question and give an example. How can it be ensured that the money given to the mothers will be spent on food for the children?
I was speaking recently to a young teacher from Leeds who had taken two small boys out for a treat. She had taken them to the cinema. On the way back she bought them some fish and chips and asked whether they wanted to eat it in the car or take it home. They said, "No, Miss, if we take it home Dad will eat it". There are parents who put themselves before their children. How can it be ensured that children will not go hungry? If they do, what can the teachers do? If the children come to school without money and food, what happens?
Lord Rea: My Lords, I should like to make a few remarks in continuing the debate about whether mothers will be responsible in finding the money for their children's school meals. During the passage of this Bill through the House I have spoken to a number of experienced teachers, school secretaries, school supervisors and managers. With one voice they declare that money paid to mothers of children who now receive school meals is quite unlikely to be given to the children to pay for school meals.
In order to qualify for a free school meal the child's family has to be very hard up. Many of us who are quite well off sometimes have troubles with bills—I know I do. If a person is on the breadline and has a couple of summonses sitting behind the clock on the mantlepiece it is obviously going to be very difficult to avoid paying them when there is the possibility of the bailiffs coming round.
I think it is my place to speak a little more about the health issues which this amendment raises and which the Bill will raise if it is enacted. I spoke about this matter at greater length at Committee stage, but, unfortunately, as it was after midnight I do not think many people were listening. I am afraid that the noble Baroness did not answer any of the points that she said I had raised. She said that no new points had been

807
brought up, but in fact that is not true because a number of the points that I raised had not been covered in this House before.
One point that I brought up was the fact that, as is now well known and as was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, this country is now falling behind other developed countries in its health care. One reason for this situation is the continuing and in some instances increasing gap between the better off and the poorly off people. The very next day the Faculty of Community Medicine of the Royal College of Physicians produced a report entitled Charter for Action with the aim of health for all by the year 2000, and it backed that statement up with a number of statistics.
I consider that not only do poor children need adequate food with sufficient calories but that school meals are a very important influence when it comes to preventing the scourge of coronary artery disease. We lead the world in the incidence of that disease, and it is now increasingly realised that dietary and nutritional factors play a major part in starting off the process of this disease, which begins in childhood. A very famous study was one which was done on young American servicemen who were killed in Vietnam. They were perfectly healthy young men, but when one looked at the inside of their artieries it was found that they were absolutely riddled with deposits of atherosclerosis, which is the precursor of coronary artery disease.
I consider that school meals when properly served (as many education authorities are beginning to understand) are an integral part of a campaign to improve the nutrition of schoolchildren and also to educate children to have good nutritional habits lifelong, some of which they may even take home and teach to their parents. I have no hesitation in supporting this amendment. I think it is extremely important that the Bill should be changed, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give us some reassurance on that matter.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to comment on one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. If I understood the noble Lord aright, he was concerned that there was no reference in the amendment to the notional amount of £2.20 included in family credit in order to provide for meals for schoolchildren. The noble Lord will no doubt recall that yesterday we were informed that the figures were purely illustrative. In fact, the figure of £2.20 is not in the Bill. The actual figures are not yet determined, and when they are they will appear in the regulations. No doubt when they are fixed this amendment will be taken into account if it is then part of the Bill, as I hope indeed it will be.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, a number of noble Lords have expressed concern that the trouble is that the money may not turn itself into nutritious food for the people who most need it. If one questions those people who have been close to school meals they will tell you that the people who most need nutritious food
808
are those who do not choose nutritious food but choose the rubbish.
Before the new system that we now have came into effect, which is a system where one has a choice and which often consists of a cafeteria system, there were set nutritious and well balanced courses. What used to happen was that the children who most needed the food did not eat it. It was thrown away, and there was enormous waste. That was generally acknowledged to be the trouble with the previous system, and so it was changed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, has pointed out, since the system was changed the take-up has greatly improved. However, what happens now is that the children who most need the nutritious food actually choose the least nutritious food and the cheapest, and that is balanced by the very good quality food eaten by the others, who are the ones who know best how to choose good quality food. This is the way the economics work.
Since packed lunches have been introduced, many of the less well off children have brought packed lunches—and some of them have been better than food they would have chosen themselves, but not much better, because the best packed lunches are brought by children whose mothers know how to choose the most nutritious food. The idea that they should have the money in their pockets rather than have tokens—the children are not given a free meal in school but a token, which is perhaps the equivalent of it—will not make any difference. In fact, there is one enormous advantage, which is that it will make it more difficult to identify who is receiving free school meals, because however hard one tries in a local education authority and however much one gives everybody tokens or tries to make the system as invisible as possible, many children know who are on free school meals. That will not now be the case.
Quite honestly, I think that this discussion concerns school meals as they used to be much more than as they are now. Though I know that the noble Baroness who moved the amendment has taken a lot of trouble to talk to people in the school meals service, they are not likely to be in favour of the radical change that is proposed because at the moment they do not know what the take-up will be. My guess is that it will be even higher than it is now.
I think that noble Lords are quite wrong to feel frightened that the people who most need nutritious food will not receive it under this system. I believe that this way will be far better. It is something for which I personally longed when I was responsible for the school meals service, and I think it would be a retrograde move if your Lordships prevented this big step forward.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I admired my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs when she moved this amendment this afternoon, and I appreciate the support that other noble Lords have given to it. For a long period of time I represented in Birmingham what is called an inner city area. I was a local councillor and later a Member of Parliament, and I can tell your Lordships that at that time in some of those schools in the inner city 95 per cent. of the children attending school were "free dinner" children. If your Lordships were now to visit such inner city areas that are

809
suffering very severely from unemployment, it would be found that the number of children who have to take school meals is increasing month by month. As unemployment is growing in the West Midlands so the figures are going up dramatically.
I have here some figures which were given to me by the principal school meals organiser for Birmingham. I am not picking and choosing these figures; I merely rang up and obtained them. In the last fortnight in Birmingham 46,100 children were receiving school meals. If the amendment which the noble Baroness has moved this afternoon is not accepted, then 15,000 of those children will fall through the net. So that means that 15,000 families will be suffering unduly.
I think it is important that in your Lordships' House we should not be complacent. We may not always be aware of the deprivation that exists. It is easy for us to gloss over the facts that perhaps a mother might have to pay the gas bill. These people are not in the fortunate position of being able to go to the bank manager and ask for an overdraft. They are not in that category, so they have to juggle with the money that they have. They cannot even juggle with the housing benefit money any more, which is automatically taken out of the social security payments and paid direct to local authorities. So people who are on very low incomes cannot even try to juggle with their money.
It is unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, picked out one point that my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs raised when she said that the difficulty arises when perhaps the gas bill has to be paid. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that if the gas bill were not paid then it may be that that mother would not be able to cook any food at all anyway.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I fully realise the emotions which this issue arouses. It is worth recalling that providing help in cash rather than in kind is very far from being as controversial as some may imagine. For example, both the Liberal Party and the SDP when commenting on last year's Social Security Green Paper supported provision in cash rather than by free meals in kind. I hope that I am not being mischievous or unfair if I refer to what the main Opposition spokesman on social services wrote in his general review of social security published last year. He described the kind of benefit structure envisaged by the Labour Party and said, quite unequivocally, that:
"Benefits should be paid in cash, not in kind".
Elsewhere in the same document the point was made again:
"All benefits would be cash benefits paid weekly. They would be uprated annually in line with prices or earnings, whichever is the higher".
I refer to those comments not to score party political points but to put these issues into perspective.
I do not doubt for one moment the sincerity of the concern which has been expressed, but I have to say that some of the arguments which have been put reflect a far too pessimistic view of what might happen as a result of the Government's proposals. So much so, I suspect that some noble Lords may have failed to grasp just what the new arrangements entail.
810
To begin with, the vast majority—around 800,000—of children now receiving free school meals will continue to do so under our proposals. There is no change to their position; and there is no question, for example, of the school meals service itself being undermined. Nor is any change proposed to the power of local authorities to subsidise the price of meals generally, if they so wish. If they wish to put resources into lower cost school meals for all children they may continue to do so; it is only differential pricing which is affected by our proposals.
I point out to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln and the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, that the poorest families generally are those on income support. They will still get free school meals. Most family credit families are on higher levels of income.
Therefore, what are we doing? Of course, as I have explained to your Lordships on previous occasions, we are providing a bigger and more generous benefit, reaching more families than at present. That means that help will be extended to more children by way of cash compensation in family credit than currently receive free meals through FIS and local discretionary schemes. More children, my Lords—over 60,000 more. The Opposition want the extra money put into the family and at the same time they want to keep up the cost of free school meals for the same children. Of course, the Treasury does not work like that. In any event, one of the reasons why the end result is what it will be is that we shall be helping more children.
In contrast, if we were to accept the amendment and retain free meals instead of the extra cash for family credit families it would actually imply spending less overall. This is because the consequence would be to reduce family credit entitlement for every family at the illustrative rates—and I repeat "illustrative rates"—by £2.20 for each child, and this in turn would reduce significantly the number of families actually receiving the credit and therefore passported to free meals. Moreover, there would be further losses for families where the children do not take advantage of the free school meal, including children under five, and for those families who would no longer be entitled to the credit and who live in localities where there was no discretionary scheme for them to fall back on.
It has been suggested that some families might put the extra cash to other purposes and send the child to school with no dinner money. I recognise the concern, but I have to say that it is something we must keep in proportion. It is something which can occur today and is certainly not created by this Bill. The vast majority of children who eat school meals today—over 2 million—have to pay for them, and of course it can sometimes happen that for one reason or another they or their parents do not bring the money when they should. That situation is met, when it arises, by the general administrative powers and by the common sense of the school secretary and if necessary the local authority. There is no reason why that should not continue. Quite frankly, those parents who neglect their children are in my view a matter for the welfare services.
I am also not sure whether the important practical advantages of our proposals, for the families and children concerned have been taken on board. First, provision in cash means that the help is provided

811
much more automatically. With our proposals only one claim is involved; all family credit families will automatically receive the extra cash as part of their normal entitlement.
Secondly, it means the help will be extended to many children who at present do not benefit from free school meals at all. It is not only those who would be eligible today but who, for whatever reason, do not bother to take the meal. It is also young children who do not attend school because they are not yet of school age. Their families too will receive the full cash compensation—at a rate which is significantly more generous than would be strictly necessary just to compensate those FIS families now getting milk or vitamins. We estimate that there would be around 200,000 children who would gain in this way, added to the 60,000 about whom I have already spoken.
Thirdly, providing help in this way will be fairer, more even and more predictable for the families concerned. It will mean that help is provided through-out the year, not just on school days, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. It will end the absurd position where whether you get any help, and if so how much, can depend on the accident of where you happen to live. It must not be forgotten that around a third of local authorities have no discretionary schemes at all, and the others have all kinds of different rules of eligibility. Quite apart from the lack of consistency, such variations increase complexity and make it even harder to understand and explain to people just what is available. Our proposals would improve consistency, fairness and simplicity and they will help more families actually to get what they may be entitled to.
Fourthly, cash avoids the worst of the poverty trap effects which can occur at present. A small increase in wages can mean that a family entitled to only a modest amount of FIS can lose both that benefit and their free school meals. Cash compensation avoids these steep steps and the possibility of an increase in earnings producing a marginal tax rate of more than 100 per cent. because of the loss of the free meals.
The point was raised again by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that the cash compensation to be included in family credit will serve only to reduce the amount of housing benefit due and that in effect there will be only 44p a week left to pay for the school meals. We really must keep this particular manifestation of the interaction between the two schemes—family credit and housing benefit—in perspective.
First, the mother will still get the full cash compensation because it will be paid, as part of the family credit, to her. Secondly, entitlement to housing benefit will be affected by a number of factors, including of course receipt of family credit. On the illustrative assumptions in the Technical Annexe to the White Paper, relatively few family credit recipients would also be entitled to housing benefit. As family credit will be more generous than FIS it will rule out entitlement to housing benefit in all but a small proportion of families—something less than 25 per cent. Of those, most only receive rate rebate, so the housing benefit loss is limited to 44p. Moreover, in those families receiving family credit and housing
812
benefit, we estimate that the great majority, around two-thirds, would still be better off overall—many of them by more than £5 a week.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, quoted from a letter written by Sir Douglas Black. I am happy to say that the Government agree with him on the importance of nutrition for all children and on the important contribution which school meals can make to that. They agree with him that many local authorities have done, and are doing, much to improve the nutritional value of school meals. They welcome those improvements which benefit children generally and not just those receiving free meals.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, urged that even if we are to replace free school meals with cash help to family credit families we should retain discretionary powers for local authorities to provide free or reduced price meals when they consider it appropriate. In the Government's view, the need to end LEA discretionary powers follows inevitably from the switch to cash provisions in family credit. Many of the working families that are helped under LEA discretionary schemes at present will become entitled to family credit.
To allow discretionary powers to continue alongside the cash provision would mean that LEAs could choose to provide free school meals for family credit families even though the latter were receiving cash compensation in their benefit to enable them to pay for meals. Such double provision from public funds would be an absurd waste of resources and unacceptable.
We believe that the Government's proposals will be a major improvement in the help provided for low income working families. We shall be devoting more resources and helping more children. Far from helping, the amendment would deprive families of those extra resources and would narrow the range of help provided. It would be a return to paternalism in the bad sense—the paternalism which does not even try to help those less well-off to enjoy the same opportunities and to shoulder the same responsibilities as the rest of us. I invite your Lordships to extend the help available to families, and to reject the amendment.
14 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, the noble Baroness has talked a great deal about the principle of cash benefits. Your Lordships would be in a better position to make some assessment if we knew how much the cash was. It has been pointed out that reference has been made to a mythical figure of £2.20, which the noble Baroness has described as an illustrative rate. None of us would like to go to our bank manager and take out a loan or obtain a credit card on the basis of an illustrative rate. It is an insult to your Lordships to ask us to deal today with this important problem when we have no figures—throughout our consideration of the Bill we have had no figures—on which we can make an assessment.
While I am dealing with figures, I must ask the noble Baroness on what basis she says that family credit will be more generous than family income supplement? We have no figures. How can she make that

813
statement? What figures will she put before your Lordships so that we can make a judgment? Until we know what cash we are talking about, we cannot talk about the virtue of cash benefits.
I was appalled when the noble Baroness said that parents who neglect their children should be a matter for the welfare services. We are not talking about parents who neglect their children. I say that especially to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who I know has a great deal of experience in this matter. We are thinking about mothers who may have to decide between the school dinner money and buying a pair of shoes for their children or, as my noble friend said, paying the gas or electricity bill so that they can keep their children warm. We are not talking about wicked, neglectful parents. For the noble Baroness to say that they can be pushed on to the welfare services is totally irresponsible and unfair.
References have been made to the fact that this arrangement will make it possible for there to be dinner money all the year round. Some noble Lords have suggested that during the holidays the money may not be properly spent. Are we saying that because children may not be guaranteed meals in the holidays we shall not guarantee them nutrition during the school term? That is the logic of what has been said.
I shall also inform noble Lords who do not seem to know a great deal about how these matters work, that many local education authorities keep their playgrounds and premises open in the holidays and use their discretion to provide refreshment and nutrition especially for children of single parents or for children with both parents out at work. The noble Baroness said that one-third of local authorities do not use their discretion. Is she saying that therefore the other two-thirds should lose their discretion? Again, that is the logic of what she has said.
I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said about the choice that many children make. We can all understand that. I think we have all done it. The answer surely is to alter the availability of nutrition in schools and not to put what is often called junk food before the children, and to ensure, as many local authorities do, a high standard of nutrition in the food that is offered.
I know that it is not customary to repeat points which have been made at an earlier stage, but on 30th June (col. 732 of Hansard) I asked the noble Baroness, although I regret to say that it was at 12.15 a.m., what consultation the Government had had with the DES, the teachers and the education authorities. They are the people who must put this absurd system into practice. She gave me no answer. Perhaps she does not have an answer. I should feel more sympathy for her if she does not have an answer.
I asked her what guidance was to be given to teachers when children arrive at school without dinner money. Good teachers have a pastoral care for their children. If the child comes from a family which the teacher knows to be poor and the child is known to be under-nourished and comes to school without the dinner money, is the teacher to refuse to give the child a dinner and throw away the dinner?
These are the practicalities which worry some of us. Some of us talk to teachers, and they put those
814
problems to us. They already have them. There is always a child who has lost his money. One always wonders whether or not he has lost it. At present there is an element of discretion. The Bill would take away that discretion. I have had no answer from the Minister as to whether there have been discussions with the education authorities. Because she cannot give me an answer, I must conclude that it is in the negative.
The noble Baroness has not told me what teachers are to do when children turn up without money. I suspect that she has not given me an answer because she does not have one. The noble Baroness. Lady Ewart-Biggs, made an incontrovertible statement. If the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, thinks that there is some defect in the amendment, I am sure that he will help us to put it right with an amendment on Third Reading. The principles contained in the amendment are seemingly incontrovertible. I look forward to your Lordships making an intelligent and compassionate decision.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, and with the leave of the House, she has challenged me on several points and I feel that I should do my best to reply. She mentioned the adequacy of cash compensation. The figures have to be illustrative because the scheme does not start until 1988. The figure of £2.20 in the technical annexe to the White Paper should be seen as no more than illustrative. I have repeated that several times. It was based on the latest information available at the time relating to 1984, of the national average cost for fixed price meals, converted to an average over a full 52-week year rather than just in term times.
Of course, noble Lords can point to increases in the price of meals since then. We shall obviously have to look at the up-to-date position when we come to settle the benefit rates for 1988 at the time the new scheme is introduced. Only at that stage will the actual amount of the cash compensation be decided. There is no mileage in trying to argue a point on the basis of a figure of £2.20.
The noble Baroness also said that I had never replied to her questions about consultation. I have a perfectly good answer in that our Green Paper on the reform of social security, published early last year, was, as she knows, a consultative document. Indeed, it was so successful that 7,000 organisationsȔ
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, has the noble Baroness the leave of the House to speak again?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords, I asked.
Lord Soames: They hate hearing the truth.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, our Green Paper on reform of social security published early last year was a consultative document. It was so successful that 7,000 organisations, authorities and individuals wrote to my right honourable friend expressing views. They included representatives of children's groups, teachers' associations and local authority bodies. Their concern was primarily with the level of the cash benefit and paying money to the mothers rather than through the

815
wage packet. But the proposals were fully aired, and I see no need to consult further. I hope that the noble Baroness has been able to hear something of my answers.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to thank those noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I am most grateful for the support that I have received from noble Lords in all parts of the House. Only two have spoken against the proposal, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and, I am sorry to say, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. I can perhaps say one thing to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I was grateful to the noble Lord for his suggested changes to the amendment. It has already been said that if there is need for further change, we would be delighted to do that on Third Reading. The noble Lord may have an awful lot of experience, but he has not had the experience of being a mother. I do not believe that he can possibly know, amid all the preoccupations that mothers have at tough times in their lives, how the removal of one preoccupation—namely, the knowledge that their children are being properly fed at lunch time, without the worry of finding the money, saving it or losing it, or stopping the husband taking it to the pub—represents a most important factor. I should have thought this was borne out by the fact that 80 per cent. of mothers, far from feeling that it was patronising or that their dignity was at risk, said that they should like to go on with the school meal and not have the cash benefit, even if it was higher. That is surely incontestable.
As to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, I agree that there will always be children who like junk food. However, from what I saw of the meals offered to them, there was no junk food. Surely the fact that children may choose the least nutritious food does not mean that we should not offer nutritious food in a school meal. That does not seem an argument against continuing the long haul towards producing good school meals for our children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in my view, left a lot of questions unanswered. She did not mention the fact that the present take-up of school meals is 70 per cent., that the present take-up of FIS is 50 per cent., and that the expected take-up of family credit could be 60 per cent. The figure of the enormous extra number of children who will gain from the cash benefit is really only notional. I do not believe that she can lay it down in black and white in any way at all.
The noble Baroness did not answer questions as to whether families out of work or families receiving widow's invalidity insurance would benefit from the scheme. Those families, I should have thought, are the poorest. Having heard her answers I am not really any happier than I was previously. I realise, however, that there is a feeling among certain noble Lords on the other side that they have to get somewhere else—
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): No, my Lords.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: So, my Lords, I should now like to test the opinion of the House.
4.15 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 45) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 117; Not-Contents, 154.

DIVISION NO.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Amherst, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Attlee, E.

Leatherland, L.

Banks, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blyton, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Briginshaw, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brockway, L.

McNair, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Marsh, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Buckmaster, V.

Mayhew, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Milford, L.

Caradon, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Munster, E.

Chandos, V.

Nicol, B.

Chitnis, L.

O'Neil of the Maine, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Oram, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Parry, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Denington, B.

[Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Porritt, L.

Dowding, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Ennals, L.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Reilly, L.

Ezra, L.

Roberthall, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Fitt, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Seebohm, L.

Glenamara, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Gregson, L.

Somers, L.

Grey, E.

Stallard, L.

Grimond, L.

Stedman, B.

Halsbury, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayter, L.

Strauss, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Heycock, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hunt, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Underhill, L.

Hylton, L.

Vemon, L.

Ingleby, V.

Vickers, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kearton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kennet, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Ashbourne, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Atholl, D.

Aldington, L.

Barber, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bauer, L.

Allerton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Beloff, L.

Argyll, D.

Belstead, L.

Arran, E.

Bessborough, E.

817

Blyth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lurgan, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Broxbourne, L.

McFadzean, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caccia, L.

Mancroft, L.

Caithness, E.

Margadale, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Avon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Cathcart, E.

Middleton, L.

Cayzer, L.

Milverton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Crathorne, L.

Morris, L.

Cross, V.

Mottistone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V.

Moyola, L.

De Freyne, L.

Newall, L.

De La Warr, E.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Northesk, E.

Denning, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dilhorne, V.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Donegall, M.

O'Hagan, L.

Dormer, L.

Onslow, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dulverton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Portland, D.

Dundee, E.

Portsmouth, E.

Eccles, V.

Radnor, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Ridley, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rochdale, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Rodney, L.

Elton, L.

Rugby, L.

Erne, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ferrers, E.

Saint Brides, L.

Forester, L.

St. Davids, V.

Fortescue, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sayile, L.

Gisborough, L.

Selkirk, E.

Glanusk, L.

Sharples, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gridley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Soames, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Strathspey, L.

Marylebone, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hampden, V.

Terrington, L.

Hemphill, L.

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Teynham, L.

Hives, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hood, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hooper, B.

Thurlow, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Torphichen, L.

Ingrow, L.

Torrington, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Tranmire, L.

Kemsley, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Killearn, L.

Trenchard, V.

Kimball, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kimberley, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Vesty, L.

Knollys, V.

Vivian, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Wolfson, L.

Layton, L.

Yarborough, E.

Lindsay, E.

Young, B.

Long, V.

Young of Graffham, L.

Lothian, M.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 3 [Housing benefit finance]:
4.24 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 41, line 8, leave out ("less such deductions as are specified in the order") and insert ("with any additions specified in the order but subject to any deductions so specified").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Trumpington, I beg to move Amendment No. 46. I propose to refer also to Amendments Nos. 47 and 48.
I am sure that noble Lords are well aware of the Government's view that the arrangements for subsidising local authorities' costs under the reformed housing benefit scheme must provide authorities with more incentives to monitor and control costs than the present arrangements. We have been discussing with the local authority associations our proposals to channel more support for authorities' costs through the rate support grant system, and they have made a number of alternative suggestions to us about the future arrangements. We have made clear to the associations that we are determined to get more control into the subsidy system, and if they are prepared to accept this then the Government are prepared to consider alternative approaches. We are therefore seeking to amend the Bill to give us the necessary powers to implement alternative arrangements in the event that it is established that these would fulfil our objectives.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained a little further that for administration costs we are proposing to take a permissive power—this is Amendment No. 47—to pay a direct grant which would be related to efficiency considerations rather than reimbursement of actual costs, as under the present arrangements. This power will not be used unless we are satisfied that such a direct grant would better meet our objectives than our original proposal to include housing benefit administration costs in the rate support grant arrangements. The amendment to subsection (4) of this clause—which is Amendment No. 48—is consequential on the main amendment and makes purely technical provision, as in existing legislation, for local authority accounting procedures.
For benefit costs we have accepted that our original proposal to support 20 per cent. of these costs through the rate support grant would not achieve the desired results. An alternative approach of paying a direct grant partly on actual costs and partly related to some measure of need is being explored. The amendment we propose to subsection 2(a)—which is Amendment No. 46—will permit calculation of benefit subsidy on this basis.
From this it will be recognised that detailed work now needs to be done in consultation with the local authority interests to devise arrangements which meet our objectives of more cost control in the subsidy system and an adequate level of support for authorities' expenditure on the housing benefit scheme. These amendments are intended to enable us to get on with the consultations which will be needed in the knowledge that the legislation will enable us to implement the new arrangements. The details will be set out in the annual subsidy order as they are at present. I beg to move.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell me whether I am on the wrong amendment? Did I understand correctly that the Government intend to reduce the subsidy payable on housing benefit to 80 per cent, of the benefit paid over to claimants? Am I right in saying that the remaining

819
20 per cent, is then having to be funded by the general rate fund and the rate support grant? Before I continue any further, am I right or wrong in what I am saying with regard to the amendment which the noble Baroness is moving?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if the noble Baroness is referring to reimbursement of benefit costs there should be only an 80 per cent. reimbursement of payment. The remaining 20 per cent. could be supported through direct grant—again related to some measure of need rather than actual payments—or a mixture of direct grant and RSG as an alternative to the original proposal to include 20 per cent. in the RSG. The intention is that the Bill will be amended to permit this, but, as I have said, it is a question of further consultation.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. It is as I have it before me, which is what Birmingham City Council have worked out. They say that the Government intend to reduce the subsidy payable on housing benefit to 80 per cent. of the benefit paid over to claimants. The remaining 20 per cent.—and I think this is what the noble Baroness was saying—will be funded by the general rate fund and the rate support grant. Therefore, in Birmingham's housing revenue account this change will amount to a loss of £ 11.8 million per annum to the council. That is the way it was reported to the full council meeting a fortnight ago.
If the Government intend also to abolish the 60 per cent. subsidy on the administration of the housing benefit costs, that too will result in a loss to the city of £1.5 million. If the Government are also saying in the amendment—and it is difficult for me to understand it from what the noble Baroness said—that the administration costs have to be borne entirely by the rate fund, that again is a net loss to the City of Birmingham of £1.5 million.
Obviously that will mean eventually that these costs will result in an 8.5p rate rise for the city when these two amendments—if they are the correct ones, and I now understand that they are—come into effect. That is the effect that they will have on the city of Birmingham.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, again with the leave of the House may I say that I think that the noble Baroness has not taken into account the effect of the rate support system. But I should reiterate that the Government have never been seeking to make savings from the proposed changes to the subsidy arrangements but to provide support for authorities' costs in a way which gives more incentive to cost control and efficiency. I believe that the noble Baroness is arguing along the wrong lines.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, with the leave of the House I read out what they say about the general rate fund and the rate support grant.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 47 and 48:
Page 41, line 13, at end insert—
("(2A) For each year the Secretary of State may pay to an authority as part of the subsidy under subsection (1) above an additional sum calculated, in the manner specified by an order made by the Secretary of State, in respect of the costs of administering housing benefit");
Page 41, line 23, after ("rebates") insert ("and any costs of administering such rebates").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 49;
After Clause 32 insert the following new clause:
("Appeals on housing benefit

.— (1) A person who has claimed housing benefit may appeal against any determination of that claim.

(2) Any appeal under subsection (1) above shall be to a social security appeal tribunal under the procedure laid down in sections 100, 101 and 104 of the Social Security Act 1975 and section 15 of the Social Security Act 1980, and any reference to "adjudication officer" in those sections shall be construed as including reference to the appropriate authority responsible for administering housing benefit under section 29 of this Act.

(3) Section 30(3) of this Act shall only be operative insofar as any regulations made under that section comply with the procedure established in subsection (2) above.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment dealing with housing benefit appeals was moved late at night on Monday, 23rd June, by my noble friend Lord Banks. We bring it back because we feel it deserves a further airing at a time when more of your Lordships are present. The proposal is fundamentally a simple one. Since the rationalisation of all housing benefit payments in the hands of local authorities, appeals on housing benefit decisions have been confined to a local authority review procedure which has given rise to some criticism. This centres mainly on the membership of the review boards. The councillors on these boards often come from the housing committee and frequently feel their responsibility for, and an identity with, the decisions brought before them for review. The composition of these boards is therefore open to serious question on grounds of fairness and natural justice.
The proposal in the amendment is simply that in future claimants may appeal to a social security appeals tribunal under the procedure laid down in Sections 100, 101, and 104 of the Social Security Act 1975, and Section 15 of the Social Security Act 1980. These tribunals are working successfully in all other branches of the social security sytem, and there seems no good reason, now that the old supplementary benefit and local authority housing benefits have been unified, why a current unified housing benefit should not be subject to the same appeals procedure. Not only would justice be better served but there would be certain administrative savings—this was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in Committee—in not having to service review boards and train councillors when there is a perfectly adequate, and generally respected, adjudication machinery servicing the rest of the social security system.
In another place the Government conceded in Committee that there was a strong case for the rationalistion of all adjudications. Mr. Newton, the social security Minister, spoke of a "benefit-wide formula" in the quest of basic harmonisation. In

821
answer to my noble friend Lord Banks, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, acknowledged also that there were strong arguments for bringing housing benefit within the purview of the social security appeal tribunals, and reaffirmed at col. 142 that the Government are "actively pursuing the issue".
What further action is required other than the acceptance of this amendment? What better vehicle than this Bill to take a step for which the Government appear to accept the arguments? If there are other preliminary steps that require to be taken, can the Government say what they are?
I gather that in Committee in another place the Minister promised consultations, but that was months ago. Have consultations started? The Housing Benefits Standing Committee has met since then but has not, I understand, discussed this matter. Why not? Will the Government accept that it is not good enough to consult only with the local authorities, who, after all, administer the system, but that other outside bodies such as Citizens' Advice Bureaux should also be involved? In short, where have we got to, and when can we expect a conclusion? I beg to move.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, this amendment was moved at the Committee stage. As I recall it, in reply the noble Baroness gave the impression that she had not ruled it out completely but was going to consider the matter further between then and now. I hope she has had a chance to consider it further, because most of us certainly have, and the more I consider it, the more important I think it is that the noble Baroness accepts this amendment.
If we look at the clauses—and there are about five or six which affect housing benefit—we see that there are something like almost 20 different regulations which will affect this housing benefit. We know the muddle that the housing benefit scheme has been in ever since it was conceived and implemented in about 1983. There are some authorities which have not yet sorted out the interim arrangements, and certainly some other authorities are just beginning to get into contact with the original scheme.
There have been hundreds of mistakes. I nearly said thousands, and I would probably be more right if I said there have been thousands of mistakes. We know that there have been many mistakes on the DHSS side of other benefits. Here is a benefit which is muddled between the two of them. It is in the Social Security Bill, and some people have to inform the DHSS and apply to the DHSS if they intend to claim housing benefit.
The local authority then have to discuss the housing benefit. They have to take into account all the regulations—and I have not seen the regulations—that will be laid: regulations, for instance, like those contained in Clause 20, making provision, for the purposes of this Part of the Act, the housing benefit,
"as to circumstances in which a person is to be treated as being or not being in Great Britain".
I do not know. It is like the Zola Budd regulations. Then it goes on:
"continuing a person's entitlement to benefit during periods of temporary absence from Great Britain".
And then:
822
"as to what is or is not to be treated as remunerative work or as employment: as to circumstances in which a person is or is not to be treated as engaged or normally engaged in remunerative work or available for employment".
There are 20 such regulations. Does anybody believe that if the DHSS and the local authority between them are given a group of regulations like that, they will be able to manage them capably? I do not. I do not have that kind of faith in either of those two bodies, especially when I consider that currently on the DHSS side, with supplementary benefit, 35 per cent. of all cases that are to go to appeal are withdrawn before they get that far because of initial mistakes in the first decision.
We know, too, that there were 12,000 supplementary benefit decisions last year (and every year) upheld by the appeals tribunal. There are vast numbers of mistakes made in these cases. How are ordinary people to obtain redress for the mistakes? They are told that it will be reviewed by the town hall; if they speak to the town hall about it, it will be reviewed. As I believe I said at Committee stage, there is some misunderstanding; benefit for the main part is administered by local authorities. Since housing benefit was introduced there has never been an adequate system of appeal or redress against any of the decisions of housing benefit officers. It is true that a review of a decision may be made by a board consisting of local authority councillors, and some of those councillors may also be members of the housing committee, which is the committee responsible for administering the scheme in the first place. That does not even smack of natural justice. I am not saying that those people who give of their time and expertise would deliberately make mistakes, but it is possible, is it not, that they will uphold the decision of the original housing committee? In my view that kind of review and that kind of board can in no way be seen to be independent; nor is the board expert in housing benefit law or in conducting appeals. These are both specialist areas in their own right, and yet this important benefit, because it involves a series of regulations and clauses, will lead to a worsening of the existing conditions of many thousands of people.
We know that if the 20 per cent. rates burden goes ahead, there will be further difficulties. I shall not weary the House with statistics, but we know that many thousands of people will have to find sums ranging from £75 to £200 or £300 per year more than they are having to find now to pay the extra rates. We also know that the rate arrears are worrying every local authority.
Very often the main safeguard against distraint and imprisonment at the moment is housing benefit. If it were not for the fact that housing benefit exists and can be claimed in its entirety, people would fall further into rate arrears than they are at the moment, with all the penalties that that would incur.
If we increase the burden by imposing this rate contribution on housing benefit, we shall increase the dangers. Surely it is only natural justice that those people involved and implicated in such an important decision affecting everything that they have ought to be able to appeal to an independent tribunal of some kind. I can see no answer to the proposition set out in the amendment. I am happy to support it.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am slightly confused by this amendment. I feel I do not fully understand what it would do, and having listened to the debate on it there are a few questions I should like to ask of those who support it. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, mentioned that so many mistakes had been discovered. To me that indicates that there is already some good way of finding out when things have gone wrong. If that is so, why do we need another procedure of this type? There are a few points in his speech that I should like to query. I take issue with one in which he said that a panel of three local councillors would not necessarily be impartial or fair. I think that is not correct. A panel of three locally elected councillors will always represent at least two parties, and possibly more. They can be completely relied on to judge a case fairly and on its merits. I really must stand up for local authority and locally elected members to that extent.
Housing benefit is a complicated issue. Part of it is for local authority housing and is called one name, whereas in regard to a privately rented dwelling it has another name. All of this makes it complicated. One is a rent rebate or a rate rebate, when the landlord is the local authority. As I understand it, the rent allowance is the benefit paid when a landlord is a private landlord or a landlord other than the local authority. The whole idea of that system has always been that the private landlord should not have any idea that the tenant is being assisted. As I understand it, the payment is made to the tenant so that he pays his private landlord without the landlord being aware of the circumstances of the tenant. If this system has changed, I should be very happy to be corrected on the point, but that is how I understand it has always worked.
With the present review system, the review is carried out by people who are very involved directly in the housing sphere; by that I mean local councillors. Local councils are still one of the predominant providers of accommodation for tenants. The private rented sector has shrunk very much over recent years. No one knows more about the management of council housing than local councillors. The noble Lord suggested it might be harmful if they sat on a housing committee. I would suggest the opposite—that it might be helpful if they sat on a housing committee. I am not satisfied about the appeal tribunals, though I see merit in having social appeal tribunals for other matters.
The noble Lord discussed the various categories of circumstances under Clause 20 which might need to be considered, such as whether someone was resident in this country, or whether they may qualify in different ways. I can see that a different case may be made out there. It is possible that certain types of decision—such as whether someone is eligible for housing benefit at all—might be considered appropriate to go to some other form of tribunal. But whether the housing benefit being received is right down to the pence and pounds is a different issue. I think that is better dealt with on a smaller, more local level rather than by a larger, more expensive, independent procedure of the type being discussed.
824
My own experience of housing allowances of all types, including housing benefit for private or council accommodation, is that very good charts are available from the local authorities consisting of a sort of ready reckoner system so that the tenant can assess his own situation, his own rent, in relation to his income. The high level of rent assistance still available is quite remarkable. It is usually very helpful for people to be able to assess their own cases.
There is much to be said for extending that system so that people could much more easily look up a chart showing their entitlement and see for themselves whether what they are getting is right, and then have a simple type of review. But any long-term or major review of the type set out in the amendment might create a whole new structure and greatly extend not the scope of the tribunals but the time that it would take for cases to be heard, and therefore the time that other cases that might be of a different nature would be held up.
I am not really happy with this amendment, and I do not feel that it has been explained as clearly as I should have liked. This is a complicated subject and is therefore difficult to follow. My opposition may stem partly from a lack of understanding, but I would not support the amendment.
Lord Banks: My Lords, the proposition is an extremely simple one. What the amendment is proposing is that, instead of having these appeals heard by a body which includes people some of whom sit on the housing committee and some of whom feel a responsibility for the decisions of that committee, they should be heard by an entirely independent, genuinely independent, appeal process. Since such a process exists for the rest of social security, it seems reasonable that it should be the one used.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in replying to this amendment when it was moved at an earlier stage, said he agreed that there were strong arguments for bringing housing benefit within the purview of social security appeal tribunals. He said that the Minister of State had undertaken to consider that further. What we are hoping to elicit this afternoon is how much further that has been taken.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have had a good discussion on this today although the issue has already been debated, albeit late at night, and I can really only help the House by restating the Government's position. My right honourable friend the Minister of State has said that we have a lot of sympathy with the argument that adjudication arrangements for housing benefit should be brought into line with those for other social security benefits. But this is not only a very important issue; it is also a very complicated one, involving difficult questions concerning the relationship between local authorities, their staff acting as adjudication officers, appeal tribunals, and so on. Major administrative changes may also be involved. And all this, it has to be said again, against the background that we have no clear evidence that the present review arrangements are not generally working in practice. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has said this afternoon about thousands of mistakes, little or no criticism has been received from individuals.

825
It would be ill-judged in these circumstances to make a commitment now to change housing benefit adjudication arrangements from April 1988 in the way suggested by the new clause. We would need detailed discussions with all the interested parties and we cannot foresee at this stage what changes would be involved, or even feasible, and over what sort of timescale they could be introduced. Commitment to a specific timetable without that basic information would be reckless indeed—I think the queries raised by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes this afternoon illustrate this—especially as authorities are already likely to be fully stretched implementing the structural reforms.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said that if the Government are actively considering the situation, why not take advantage of this Bill and accept this amendment now? The amendment commits the Government to a particular timetable. Under this amendment new arrangements would have to be in place by April 1988.
I can inform the noble Lord that discussions have already taken place with the office of the Chief Adjudication Officer and local authority associations. But this change, simple perhaps in principle, involves major considerations of organisation and administration. Existing arrangements for other benefits cannot simply be translated into housing benefit because housing benefit is administered by some 489 independent local authorities. In the circumstances, it would be irresponsible of the Government, in recognising the arguments of principle, simply to brush aside the very real practical issues which have to be thought through in order that they may succeed.
I hope that I have said enough. As we have said all along during the passage of this Bill in this House and in another place, the Government have an intention to review housing benefit adjudication. Perhaps in addition, and to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and other noble Lords, I can quote from the discussion in another place when my right honourable friend the Minister said this:
"We have a time problem. Ministers have a great deal of sympathy for some of the points made about the problems. I hope that honourable Members will accept that there is a great deal to be thought through, including the relationship between the Chief Adjudication Officer in the department and the officials in local authorities who must decide who is a non-dependant and so on.
"Equally, if we were to accept the amendment, the take-on problems for local authorities would have to be considered carefully in conjunction with the work involved in implementing the new scheme".
It should be evident that we have accepted that the possibility of introducing appeal rights to social security appeal tribunals should be examined alongside this. That is a clear commitment and, bearing in mind the long and detailed discussions which we will now have to undertake, I ask the noble Lords who are the promoters of this amendment to withdraw it.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken in this short debate. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, was confused. The rationale behind this amendment is that if the appeal on housing benefit is kept as in the Bill, it will be the only social security benefit which does not
826
have a right of appeal to a social security tribunal. It will be simply the only one. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, was right—I wish to cast no aspersion upon councillors—to point out that many councillors will, and do, endeavour to be impartial. But they are, in effect, sitting in judgment on their own council's decision and it is important not only that justice should be done but that it should also be seen to be done.
With respect to the noble Baroness none of her arguments about the probity or the expertise of councillors really affects the normal right of the citizen at the end of the day to a proper appeal procedure. As my noble friend Lord Banks and the noble Lord. Lord Stallard, pointed out, this happily exists in the shape of the existing social security appeal tribunals; so it is not a question of setting up any new structure or any new machinery.
The noble Baroness went on to say, I think, that she had had no evidence of malfunctioning in the existing system. That was not the view of the legal action group which investigated this problem. They say:
"We know through our members that a number of judicial review proceedings have been taken in relation to inadequately made decisions by these review boards. We note that in many of the cases which have been taken, the housing benefit review board has accepted, after taking counsel's advice, that it should review its original decision".
I do not know what volume of injustice there has been, but obviously the system is not working as smoothly as the noble Baroness seemed to suggest.
If I may say so, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who, as always, answered in a helpful way, has rather blown up the potential difficulties in the way of making this relatively simple change. My noble friend Lord Banks said it was a relatively simple matter. I agree with him there, given the fact that we have a perfectly good appeal tribunal which we could use. Had housing benefit still been within the purview of supplementary benefit, surely there would have been absolutely no doubt over what would be the proper forum of appeal; it would be the social security appeal tribunal.
The time problem to which the noble Baroness referred seems, frankly, to be simply one of getting started. As I said in my opening remarks, some months ago the Minister of State made a commitment on consultations, and we have heard no evidence from the Government this evening that any of those consultations have taken place. So I hope very much that as a result of this short debate the Government will be prodded into getting on with something with which fundamentally they seem to agree.
In fact I might have prodded them a little further by pushing this to a Division but the Government got in a lot of people to vote down free school meals who are now, I am reliably informed, still in the Library and the Tea Room and who have not had the advantage of listening to this short debate. So in fact I think that to press this to a Division might be a counter-productive exercise. I will therefore end on a note of exhortation by asking the Government to take note of what has been said in the Chamber and, please, to get on with the job. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Clause 33 [The social fund and social fund officers]:
Lord Pitt of Hampstead Lord Pitt of Hampstead moved Amendment No. 49A:
Page 43, line 29, at end insert—
("in respect of maternity needs which will be sufficient to meet the normal requirements of a newly born baby and that payment shall be payable to the mother not less than six weeks before the expected date of confinement.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment, which I hope the Minister will accept. It is intended merely to safeguard the maternity grant. It seems to me it would be a pity if the maternity grant was for less than was necessary and that if in fact the mother was still in financial difficulties at the time. That is one of the purposes of this amendment.
The second purpose is to make sure that the mother gets it early enough to be able to use it sensibly for the purpose for which it is given. That is all: I hope the Minister will accept that. We have moved from a specific grant to a discretionary grant and what I am asking for is a commitment that the grant will be adequate. I hope the Government will agree to that, and I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, this is a very interesting amendment, in that it more or less takes us to the situation where we would hope a great deal of money would be given to those mothers in real need, as opposed to a general handout to everyone. But, although I am in sympathy with the merits of the amendment, I cannot see that it should be necessary because I understood that the whole principle of this Bill was that by not giving out blanket handouts to everyone there would be more for cases of real need. If that is so, then I believe that that will happen and we do not need to add this little bit of text to the Bill. I hope that the Minister, when she replies, will be able to assure us that cases will be dealt with on their merits.
Another point about his amendment is that it is in itself slightly "blanket" and it does not take into consideration the differing needs of one mother as against another. It deals with the needs of the baby but it does not take into consideration what other means might also be available. I think it is rather wide and, as I say, I hope that the spirit of this amendment will be taken into account in the original Bill.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, our proposals for maternity expenses have been spelt out clearly in both the Green and the White Papers. I listened carefully to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, about adequacy. I am not persuaded that we should alter these proposals now; but I understand and appreciate very well his remarks about adequacy.
The social security system has long recognised that having a baby leads to a number of extra expenses. Not only does the social security system realise it, but so does the mother: there are baby clothes, a cot and so on—and I speak from experience. But the current system is an unsatisfactory mixture. On the one hand, there is the universal maternity grant of £25. It is expensive in global terms because it is available to everyone, but it is criticised for not giving enough help
828
to people on low incomes. On the other hand, there are supplementary benefit single payments based on totting up the need for each item, down to nappies and a plastic bottle, which are restricted to people on supplementary benefit. What we are proposing is a more rational use of resources which will provide a reasonable contribution to the cost of providing for a baby for people on low incomes, in or out or work. The payment will be a flat rate amount, likely to be around £75, or three times as much as the current maternity grant.
I should just like to remind your Lordships that the proposals enable us to give more help to people on low incomes, not on supplementary benefit. There will be greater fairness between those in work and those out of work. We believe that a reasonable sum is better than an attempt at precise provision in the present supplementary benefit scheme. We are replacing a system which bases payment on the separate need for each of a list of items with one that provides a standard sum in all cases.
Briefly, we have aimed for relatively simple arrangements in setting out our proposals, picking out where appropriate the best of supplementary benefit or maternity grant rules. I should perhaps point out here that people will be able to get maternity payments from 11 weeks before the expected birth to three months afterwards. That is like maternity grant but more generous than the supplementary benefit rules, and it is more generous also than the six weeks contained in the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead. So I hope the noble Lord will have found a certain degree of reassurance in my remarks.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: Yes, my Lords, I found a certain amount but I wish the noble Baroness had said what I hoped she would say: that in fact the Government will try to see that it is adequate, and that although £75 is the present proposal this sum is going to be reviewed and that we will make sure it is always adequate. That was all I was really trying to get from the Minister. All I really wanted was an assurance, which would be down in Hansard, that in effect the Government will always see to it that this grant is adequate for the needs of the mother. I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 43, line 32, at end insert—
(" ( ) Social fund payments may be repayable in prescribed circumstances but not otherwise.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee there were four amendments which dealt in one way or another with the question of whether social fund payments should be made as grants or by way of loan. Various objections were taken by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to points in those amendments, including the one which I moved. I think it is only right to come back on Report with an amendment which I consider goes a very long way towards meeting the points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as well as by the Minister.
I was most encouraged by what I called the emollient reply of the noble Baroness to my amendment on the last occasion. In many of the things she said she went quite a long way to meet us. For instance, in col. 629 on 30th June, she said:
"We have always made it clear that payments from the social fund, including those to support community care needs, will be in the form of grants and not loans."
That was a very welcome statement, and she went on to say in the same column:
"With regard to young people leaving care, I am glad to say that that is one of the vulnerable groups for whom we shall be considering grants to set up home in the community".
So I am encouraged by that reply and, I may say, by talks in between, without any promises, to believe that the Government view and the kind of view which I am putting forward, together with my noble friends, are not too far apart.
First, I would say that this amendment is still about the same subject—that is, the undesirability of loans to those who are on income support—but it is very different from the previous amendments, in view of the remarks of the noble Baroness. The amendment reads:
"Social fund payments may be repayable in prescribed circumstances but not otherwise".
This, in effect, means that in the normal course of events social fund payments will be by grant. But it does not rule out loans by any means, because it gives the Government power to prescribe circumstances by, I think, regulations under which there shall be repayable payments from the social fund. It does not go against the principle, which has been one of the bases of this package for social reforms by the Government, that "some social payments should be recoverable". Again, I take those words from the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in Committee at col. 616 of the Official Report of 30th June.
Again I emphasise the fact that this amendment is recognising the Government's principle that some social payments should be recoverable. We do not deny that. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that of course there are some cases where it would be desirable for loans to be repaid; and I do not think there is any argument across the Floor of the House, or between any quarter of the House, about that. That position of the Government is respected. But in respect of those recipients of social fund payments who are on the poverty line, it does not seem to be acceptable that there should be repayments. This amendment also deals with the question of fairness, which the noble Baroness raised, and I shall deal with that later.
I think it was in connection with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that the noble Baroness said that it was technically a horror. I hope that she does not find this amendment technically a horror. If she does find that it is in any way deficient, then of course it could be amended on Third Reading. What I find is that, not technically but in reality, it would be a horror if repayment applied to those on income support. That is really the basis of our amendment.
Another point which the noble Baroness made was that the,
"maximum rate of recovery has not yet been decided, but … we intend to have one".
Those are words from her speech at col. 618. Very well, my Lords. Of course there must be a rate which will be determined in due course, but that will be the exceptional case where it is decided that the recipients will be capable, in all the circumstances, of repaying a loan and this we accept. But the moment you start talking about a maximum rate of recovery, it brings one onto the reality of the actual repayment.
After all, those who are on income support may already be in debt. They may have rent and fuel direct deductions. Then, on top of that, there comes whatever is decided by the DHSS they should pay in respect of a loan from the social fund. I do not think it is acceptable that the rent and fuel direct deductions should have added to them further deductions in respect of benefits which are received from the social fund. The family would already be below the poverty line, and it would become that much more below the poverty line if any thought of repayment was considered for those in that condition.
This matter of debt is something which we all ought to take extremely seriously. I believe that families as a whole are far too indebted. Even for the rich it is a burden and those who profit from it are the moneylenders. I believe that those who are so unfortunate as to be in need of receiving social fund payments, and who may already be in debt for essential services of one sort or another, should not have any further burden put on them by this Bill.
Therefore, I particularly commend this amendment to the House. I would ask the noble Baroness to accept from me that I say this not just because I have put my heart before my head—I have not. I am considering the conditions of those who would have to repay a loan, which involves the consideration of what the noble Baroness might be pleased to call my heart: but I am also considering, quite hard-headedly, that this amendment would not only be socially beneficial but would cost the country less.
So many of the people who are in this unfortunate position are not just the poor but the inadequates of life—the more feeble people. They are not the clever ones who have, I grant and fully acknowledge, been able to work the system in the past. They are likely to be the inadequates who, through extreme financial deprivation, probably as much by muddle as by poverty, are least able to cope. This sort of situation, when you have inadequacy and poverty together, leads, as I think is freely acknowledged, to the break-up of homes, to trouble with the children and even to criminal offences. All these things, apart from being anti-social, are extremely expensive on the social services, extremely expensive on the courts, and extremely expensive on the prison system.
So I ask the noble Baroness to consider this as a hard-headed proposition, and to accept that this amendment, or something like it, will not cost the country more. It will probably save the country money as well as save a number of very unfortunate people from the disintegration of their personalities and of their families. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I want warmly to support this very important amendment. I certainly do not want to repeat the issues that we covered when we debated this at Committee stage. We had a jolly little exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southward about what "normally" means. In a sense, the purpose of this amendment is to see that we do not have any argument about what is normal, because there would be listed items. But I must say that I have absolute horror about forcing people into debt. I argued the point on the last occasion—and I shall not develop it again this time—that there are many people for whom debt is misery; and debt sometimes leads to suicide. I very much agreed with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that we are often dealing with those who are inadequates.
I want to look at two groups of people who would be affected by this amendment. Before doing so I have to say that the feasibility of a payment scheme based primarily on loans depends to a large extent on the basic level of benefits under the new income support scheme. That is obvious. We do not know what that level will be so we are to an extent debating in the dark. But the great majority of claimants of single payments are lone parents struggling to bring up their children on what we can only call a subsistence income; and they are people who have been unemployed for long periods; many of them have had psychiatric problems or are suffering from other medical problems. It is at those two groupings that I should like to look just for a few minutes.
When I was a Member of the Select Committeé on Children in Care in another place, we observed in our report—and the report was published after I had left another place—that by and large children in care are the children of the poor. It is sad but it is a fact. The committee also pointed this out:
"The high proportion of children in care come from families on supplementary benefit. Factors such as low income, poor homes, single parent families and large families may well increase the likelihood of children coming into care."
The links between basic financial stress, mental difficulties and child abuse have been well established—all too well established. There are then good reasons for any government to protect the children of families depending upon benefits.
But even the Government's own technical annex to the White Paper makes it clear that 260,000 lone parents will be worse off as a result of the switch to the income support scheme. In my view, this underestimates the problem for a number of reasons. Perhaps I can give three of them. The figures in the annex do not appear to take account of the loss of weekly additions. If a lone parent is receiving a heating addition of, say, £4·45, the loss will be greater than indicated in the annex. Secondly, subsidiary housing costs such as home insurance and water rates will no longer be separately assessed. These could add a further £1·40 a week to the losses incurred. The third example is that no account is taken of the repayment of loans; and yet the Government have indicated that 10 per cent. of benefit would be withdrawn automatically throughout the repayment period. If more than one loan is given deductions could rise to 15 per cent. Fifteen per cent. of what? If it is 15 per cent.
832
of very little, one is left with less than very little. If all the factors to which I have referred are taken into account, lone parents could be worse off to the extent of some £13 per week.
All the professional and local authority associations whose members will have to deal with the human consequences of the Bill have concluded that they could not work with a social fund based largely upon loans. I put in the word "largely". Many of them have said that there should be no loans at all. But it has been agreed across the House that there are certain cases for loans. I am not disputing that at the moment, and the amendment accepts that there are certain circumstances for loans.
One of the main reasons for the decision that was taken by local authorities and professional bodies—and it certainly was not taken lightly—was the predictable impact of loans on child care. Social workers envisaged that in a large number of cases their work to maintain children in their own homes would be rendered almost impossible. Families who struggle from one crisis to the next on benefits, which the SSAC recognised to be "at a very basic level", will simply not survive intact if the loan scheme is implemented. I remember Sir Keith Joseph, when he was Secretary of State, referring to the circle of deprivation. The problems mount and mount, become bigger and bigger, and more and more intractable. So the lone parents are one group.
The other group of claimants whom I want to mention are also people close to my experience—people who are unemployed over long periods or intermittently, a sizeable number of whom are people who have lived for long periods in institutions—some for more than 20 years. Some 30,000 psychiatric hospital beds have been closed over a period of 13 years. Tens of thousands of people who 13 years ago would have been hospitalised now depend on supplementary benefit, and more and more mentally handicapped people are attempting an independent life in the community. We would all welcome that. We would all say that it is right that people who are, or have been, in long-stay institutions but who could be sustained in the community should be brought into the community. But we must bring them into the community under circumstances in which the community can care for them. How much more difficult it must be for people with very pressing psychiatric problems or limited capabilities to cope with a loan as opposed to a grant, quite apart from the fact that a reduction to 80 per cent. of benefit and the repayment of loans simply is not realistic for the great majority of claimants. If they are receiving only 80 per cent. of what they would have received they are already in difficulties.
One knows from what was said in another place by Mr. Tony Newton that this issue is causing the Government some concern. Mr. Newton said at the Committee stage in another place:
"Work on this part of the Bill"—
grants or loans for one-off expenses or community care needs—
"is at an earlier stage of development than the arrangements for maternity or funeral arrangements".

833
So the Government were looking at the problem of grants or loans. He went on to say:
"This Government will be giving further consideration to details in the considerable period—two years—before the planned introduction of this part of the fund".
So quite clearly he was recognising that it could not be done just by loans and that therefore there needed to be some kind of structure.
This amendment which was moved very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, seeks to provide the right framework within which that consideration can be given. The Government have proposed that social fund payments will be repayable except in limited prescribed circumstances. In the light of the concerns expressed about such an approach by the Social Services Advisory Council, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the British Association of Social Workers and the local authority associations, we hope that the Government will agree that grants should generally be payable but that loans may be given in prescribed circumstances.
We have not sought in this amendment to prescribe the circumstances, but the Bill is proceeding and before long will be on the statute book. So we need such an amendment which gives freedom to the Government, which of course we can discuss when they come forward with the regulations, to prescribe what are the circumstances in which there should be grants and in which there should be loans. In this way the flexibility which the noble Baroness has often, quite rightly and understandably, asked for is given to the Government. I hope that she will see that this amendment gives great freedom to the Government and, in a sense, provides a framework in which the further consultation referred to by Mr. Tony Newton can be carried forward. I hope this amendment will be accepted.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like to take up two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, on this amendment. First, as a director of social services it was part of my role to collect debts. It is very expensive collecting debts, and I wonder whether the Government have recognised exactly what procedure will be involved in the collection of debts from people who have no money. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, remarked on this.
I once decided to collect a debt—and much good it did me! The mother disappeared and the three children involved came into care. It was far more expensive. Therefore, one has to consider how to collect debts from people who do not have any money. Secondly, the magistrates are in a difficulty because there are certain cases where they can only impose a fine. How can you fine someone for a debt they have not paid with money they do not have? Therefore, one must think very hard and long about the sanctions. Collecting money from such folk is extraordinarily difficult.
My second point arising from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is on the whole question of debt. In this country we must face the fact that there are very many people in debt. The rate debt is appalling. The housing debt is appalling. If my noble
834
friend the Minister is wondering what are the alternatives, I suggest that we should think of developing the finance advisory centres which are being set up. I am thinking in particular of the Birmingham Settlement. People who are in debt and want help with the management of their money are able to go to a club and receive counselling help from people—mostly businessmen who have retired and who give their time for nothing. I am not supporting debt because I think debt is wrong, but the Government's proposals for dealing with it are counter-productive.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I do not think that a great deal needs to be added after the eloquent and, to use his own term, hard-headed speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has just given some underpinning to his claim that what he proposes might, in the long run, save money rather than cost money.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, made the point of the really drastic effect there would be of a 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. reduction in the weekly income of such families throughout the period of repayment of a loan, with the possible result in the break-up of the family and the additional expenses thereby incurred. There is a further point that has not been mentioned. Social workers have pointed out that if loans are to be introduced instead of single payments a considerable amount of their time will be spent writing letters to charities and, when all else fails, negotiating with the DHSS managers for a review of the position.
In an unusual public expression of concern recently, 28 grant-giving charities issued a strong warning to the Government against the introduction of a social fund based upon loans. They said:
"We are particularly troubled by the possibility that money will be given by way of loan rather than as an outright grant. It is clear that under the Direct Deductions Scheme for fuel and rent debts, many families have discovered that the money left available for their every day basic needs, and even for food, is insufficient. Compulsory deductions for the repayment of loans from the Social Fund will reduce still further the money available for other purposes. We are concerned that in such cases, malnutrition may be a very imminent risk. Some of the undersigned organisations are already having to make grants to help children who are unable to attend school due to the lack of clothing and footwear".
I have one other quote, and it is from Mr. Robert Morley, the Director of the Family Welfare Association. Recently he said:
"FWA's experience shows that already there is a return to 1930s style poverty with children being unble to attend school through lack of adequate clothing and shoes. Each year it has to turn away many hundreds of applicants, and last year its service was closed for nearly half the year through lack of funds".
In view of the obvious social consequences of loans for the great majority of claimants, whether families with elderly or disabled people, and in view of the very widespread concern reflected in your Lordships' Chamber this evening at the Government's proposal that the bulk of the social fund payment should be in the form of loans, we on this these Benches very much hope that this amendment will have the Government's support. As the noble Lord pointed out, there is a considerable degree of flexibility for the Government to decide whether to use loans to a greater or a lesser extent.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will no doubt be disappointed that I cannot agree to this amendment, but I hope he will allow me to commend the manner in which he moved it, which was gracious and compassionate.
This amendment raises two issues; namely, the role of regulations in a discretionary system and the dividing line between grants and loans. Let me immediately take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Faithfull—I am sorry; I mean the noble Lord, Lord Henderson—who quoted my remarks in Committee concerning maternity and funeral payments. I reaffirm that maternity grants are just that, and that funeral payments will not be recovered from the applicant's own resources, although they may be recouped from the deceased's estate if it can meet the cost.
The issue of regulations has been extensively debated in Committee, and I will not rehearse all the arguments again. Suffice it to say that our proposals are based on the belief that to detail in regulations every circumstance in which a payment should be made—whether it be a loan or a grant—would be over-restrictive. It would retain some of the problems of the present system of single payments. What we have been aiming for with the social fund is a scheme which can respond flexibly and quickly to the needs of people on low income. Having said that, we are of course considering carefully the position of regulations in the social fund following the amendments which were passed in Committee.
Turning to the question of loans, we have made it quite clear that we believe that loans should form an essential element of the social fund since the present open-ended commitment to assist one group of low income families when others do not have the choice appears to us to be inequitable. For example, we must look at the position of pensioners with incomes just above the supplementary benefit level, or low paid workers whose earnings may actually be less than supplementary benefit. Faced with expenses for which they have not been able to budget, they have to rely on credit or hire-purchase, or perhaps an approach to a moneylender, and so face even higher interest rates. If they cannot use those sources of finance they have to go without. By contrast, someone with a similar income but on supplementary benefit could claim a single payment and receive a grant running into several hundreds of pounds. This must raise questions of fairness.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Barness will give way on that point. The noble Baroness raised that issue in Committee. This was a case to bleed the heart; and I gave her another case to bleed the heart, of those below the poverty line and on the poverty line who had these direct deductions for fuel or rent as well as having to repay a loan. The Social Security Advisory Committee which advises the Secretary of State took the view, which I can quote from its report, that very few working people have incomes as low as those of people dependent upon income support. So although the noble Baroness is talking about hard cases and about the jealousy principle, there are only a very few of these people. Most people who are in work have very
836
considerably higher incomes than those who are on income support. Although of course I respect that argument, as I said in Committee, it does not carry all that weight because there are so very few of these people.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not think that alters what I was just saying, which is that the very poor people can obtain credit only at a very high cost. If they need something and their need is very great, they have the fallback of the social fund. To be in debt is perfectly frightful and can lead to the break-up of families. I agree with the sentiments that have already been expressed on that subject this afternoon. I am sensitive to the particular point that the social fund will increase the indebtedness of the poor, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has just spoken about that subject, but the use of credit is, and always has been, widespread among all sectors of our society. However, poor people are disadvantaged—I regret that I have to repeat it—by having access to only high-cost credit. The social fund will help people who are on very low incomes to budget by offering them interest-free advances of benefit.
Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said that people on very low incomes cannot afford to get into debt. I could not agree more; but again at risk of repeating myself, people not on supplementary benefit receive no help at all and have to cope on their own, and so the present arrangements are hardly fair. For people who obtain loans we are proposing a limit on the amount which can be deducted from benefit, and generally there will be a maximum period allowed for loans. This will ensure that the level of recovery is not too high and will not go on for too long.
Another point I would mention is that this is a voluntary process. Nobody is actually telling people to take loans. They will or they will not take them by their own free will. Equally they may be eligible for grants in certain cases. As regards the problem of repaying loans from benefits, the rates of recovery and the maximum period, which were spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals—
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if I may—
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I get on please? We have not finally decided on all matters of detail relating to the operation of the fund. The full scheme will not come into effect until 1988, which is nearly two years away. The maximum rate of recovery has not yet been decided. The purpose will be to ensure that people who are having social fund payments recovered do not have an amount deducted which is too large and that deductions do not go on for too long a period.
Of course there are rules at the moment which govern the amounts which can be deducted from benefit for various purposes. For example, if a person has a housing debt, the maximum deduction is 5 per cent. of the single householder rate. For a single fuel debt, the maximum deduction is 10 per cent. of the single householder rate. There are also rules governing other deductions and governing the priority of debts when there is more than one deduction to be made. So

837
it is yet another area where we can examine the way in which so far similar rules have operated in the scheme and so build on that experience.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, implied that the automatic response will be loans and not grants, even where people seeking help have severe psychiatric problems or where there is a serious risk of a child going into care. As I explained before, there will also be grants in certain circumstances to promote community care, and the types of situation mentioned by the noble Lord are indeed among those wherein we would expect social fund officers to consider the possibility of community care grants.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull spoke of the difficulty in recovering the loans from poor people, but our main proposal aims to recover loans from weekly benefit, normally from income support, in reasonable weekly amounts. Recoveries will therefore generally be deducted at source and will thus avoid many of the problems suggested by the noble Baroness. This issue has been debated at some length also, and as your Lordships will recall, an amendment which called into question the principle of loans was defeated in Committee.
While there will be circumstances in which we would want to make a non-recoverable grant, we are convinced of the fairness of making an interest-free loan that will be recoverable on the basis of an individual's need and his ability to repay; but to prescribe the exact circumstances in which a payment would or would not be recoverable could lead to just the sort of rigid system from which we are trying to get away in single payments. I fear that I cannot recommend this amendment to your Lordships.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I cannot think what is rigid about this amendment. I myself do not believe that the noble Baroness has addressed her mind to the text of this amendment, which says that:
"Social fund payments may be repayable in prescribed circumstances".
What can be more flexible than that? It is not rigid; by regulations one may prescribe the circumstances. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can tell me in what respect that is rigid.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble Lord sits down, it is the word "prescribed" which sends us straight back into the single payments situation.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, there I think I must disagree with the noble Baroness and ask the House to recollect that this provision does the same as any other which is to give a Minister regulatory power to lay before both Houses, or even not to lay before both Houses, regulations to prescribe certain circumstances which can then be brought into operation; and if those ensuing "certain circumstances" prove that the regulations are to his satisfaction, or ought to be modified or altered in any way, then further regulations may be prescribed for that purpose.
This amendment has built into it just the kind of flexibility for which the noble Baroness has been asking and just the kind of flexibility for which the
838
Minister has been asking. So I cannot understand that aspect of her reply. In fact, as the noble Baroness said at the outset that she cannot agree to this amendment, I have very little for which to thank her, alas. Perhaps I should thank her for her intentional compliment to me at the beginning of her speech, but even more perhaps I should thank her for her unintentional compliment when she referred to me as the noble Lord, Lord Faithfull. That is the only thing for which I can truly thank her, and I do indeed thank her without any qualification whatsoever.
I particularly regret that the noble Baroness should take this line because it is a more rigid line than she took in Committee. I have already quoted three or four passages from her speeches on that occasion which led me then to call her reply "emollient". I cannot, alas, do that now. Let me quote one more excerpt from her speech in Committee:
"We are, on the whole, talking about exceptions when we talk about people who will not get a grant immediately".—[Official Report, 30/6/86; col. 686.]
That was very promising. I thought that we were on Common ground there, in view of that and other indications that the Government were in the process of modifying or qualifying the wording of the Green Paper and the White Paper, and that the Government now recognise the need for grants in most situations. That was the impression which the noble Baroness gave, and that was the kind of impression that I thought Mr. Tony Newton was giving when he said that time was needed, that the Government's mind had not been made up, and that they would consult and consider over the next two years. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, so rightly said, all that the amendment is doing is providing the machinery for that consultation process eventually to be crystallised in the form of regulations.
The Government's attitude has hardened. As I said, the noble Baroness spoke like a sucking dove in Committee and I thought that she would say today, "Yes, we accept the amendment but perhaps not in the precise form in which you have moved it, but in some other form which I can suggest on Third Reading which could produce the same result or something like it". However, instead of going along the path which she was treading in Committee, she has suddenly taken a U-turn and gone back on the line which she was taking in Committee. I ask the noble Baroness to think about what a very bad impression it gives—people who are on the poverty line will have social service grants made repayable so that they will be living below the poverty line. Can that be the intention?
If the noble Baroness resists the amendment, the Government's intention will be plain: they want people to exist (because of the deduction of loan payments) at a level of income which is below the generally accepted poverty line. I cannot believe that the Government want to find themselves in that position. I am reminded of the story about Harold Nicolson when he was a Labour candidate for Croydon. Someone asked him whether he did not agree that the poor were down-trodden by the Conservative Party. He said that he would not put it like that, but that sometimes the Conservatives were not very careful where they put their feet. This is one

839
such occasion. The Conservatives are not being very careful where they put their feet, and unfortunately I must therefore press the amendment.
5.53 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 50) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 124.

DIVISION NO.2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Airedale, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Alport, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Amherst, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Ampthill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Banks, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Barnett, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blease, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blyton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bottomley, L.

McNair, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Mayhew, L.

Brockway, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mulley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Munster, E.

Buckmaster, V.

Nicol, B.

Carlisle, Bp.

Northfield, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Chitnis, L.

Oram, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Parry L.

Craigavon, V.

Phillips, B.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Denington, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Diamond, L.

Roberthall, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rochester, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Ennals, L.

Seear, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seebohm, L.

Ezra, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Faithfull, B.

Serota, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shannon, E.

Fitt, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Foot, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Gallacher, L.

Somers, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

Greenway, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grimond, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Tordoff, L.

[Teller.]

Turner of Camden, B.

Heycock, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunt, L.

Vernon, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Vickers, B.[Teller.]

Hylton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Williams of Elvel, L. Jeger, B.

Jeger B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Bathurst, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bauer, L.

Allerton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Atholl, D.

Bellwin, L.

840

Beloff, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Bessborough, E.

Lothian, M.

Birdwood, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blyth, L.

Lurgan, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McFadzean, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Margadale, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Marsh, L.

Caithness, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Avon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Cathcart, E.

Middleton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cowley, E.

Newall, L.

Crathorne, L.

Onslow, E.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Plummer of St Marylebone,

Donegall, M.

L.

Dormer, L.

Portland, D.

Drumalbyn, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Dundee, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Eccles, V.

Renton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Rodney, L.

Elphinstone, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Savile, L.

Forester, L.

Selkirk, E.

Fortescue, E.

Sharpies, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Soames, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glanusk, L.

StrathcIyde, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gray, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Grimthorpe, L.

Teynham, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Marylebone, L.

Thomeycroft, L.

Hanson, L.

Torphichen, L.

Hemphill, L.

Torrington, V.

Henley, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hives, L.

Trenchard, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hood, V.

Tryon, L.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Ingrow, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Vestey, L.

Kimball, L.

Vivian, L.

Kimberley, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Wise, L.

Knollys, V.

Wolfson, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Yarborough, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Young, B.

Layton, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Lindsay, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6 p.m.
Clause 34 [Awards etc.]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 44, line 18, leave out ("direct") and insert ("determine").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 51 and to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. These amendments are purely technical and drafting. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 44, line 20, leave out ("direct") and insert ("determine").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 44, line 24, leave out ("directs") and insert ("determines").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 45, line 8, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
(" (c) whether it is reasonable to expect that some other person or body may wholly or partly meet it; ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would leave out paragraph (c) on page 45, which states that an officer must consider:
"the possibility that some other person or body may wholly or partly meet it"—
that is to say, meet the loan. The amendment would delete that and insert that an officer must take account of:
"whether it is reasonable to expect that some other person or body may wholly or partly meet it"
Having read the answer given by the noble Baroness when the amendment was moved in Committee, I cannot see that the amendment does not cover the points which she made. I draw her attention to the concern expressed by the Law Society of Scotland in its comments on this Part of the Bill. It indicated that the use of the word "possibility" diminished to an unacceptable extent the rights that the clause gives to claimants.
The Law Society of Scotland proposed that a reasonableness test should be incorporated, and this amendment is entirely in line with its suggestion. In view of those legal objections, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the amendment or show why it would not meet all the Government's requirements. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I shall be brief. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, made the point that we had a fairly full debate on this matter in Committee. The amendment is designed to meet the problems that were raised in Committee. I am unhappy with the principle of an officer saying, "Well, it may be that someone else could pay this; maybe an aunty could pay it; maybe we could find a relative to pay it, or maybe someone will be leaving a legacy or something." The officer could say, "Maybe some charity will pay. Has he gone to the British Legion or to SSAFA?" All sorts of different things may be suggested.
We recognised that the Government were not going to accept the amendment that was tabled in Committee. The amendment has been changed to:
"whether it is reasonable to expect".
It is not merely whether "it is possible". Of course it is possible that some other organisation may pay. If one writes to 100 organisations, one of them may say, "Yes, we will raise that money." But is it reasonable to expect that it would?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I find it difficult to think that the Minister may say that there is something wrong about the words:
"whether it is reasonable to expect".
"Possibility" is too vague. The reasonable nature of the proposal is about as far as I think one could reasonably go.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Banks, a question before I begin. In the groupings that I have, I thought that he would be speaking to Amendment No. 56 at the same time.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I, too, saw that grouping. It was no doing of mine. I think that they are two separate points.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am happy to proceed in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, wishes. We have already discussed this amendment at some length. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, gave fair warning that he would return to it. I explained last time that all we are aiming to do is to ensure that the social fund has the same ability to take account of available sources of help as the current scheme has. For example, as I mentioned, we do not currently pay for repairs to council houses, since that is the council's responsibility. We think it only reasonable to be able to apply the same kind of provision to the social fund. We are not introducing some new principle.
I think it is fair to say that, when we debated this last time, there was a fair degree of acceptance that in principle it made sense to have this sort of flexibility in the social fund, too. But some noble Lords were, I think concerned at the wording of the Bill. The Bill refers to,
"the possibility that some other person or body may wholly or partly meet [the need]".
It was implied that this would somehow give social fund officers carte blanche to assume help was available from all sorts of unlikely sources, or would require the officers to investigate such possibilities each time someone sought assistance. I was delighted with the new examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, because last time he even suggested—tongue in cheek, no doubt—the local rugby club as a source of help.
If we intended to run the social fund like that, there would indeed be cause for concern. But we do not; and nor does the Bill as drafted suggest that we do. The Bill does not include an overriding principle which says, "Social fund payments shall never be made if it is within the bounds of possibility that someone else could help out". All it says is that social fund officers must look at all the circumstances of the case; must take account of various factors, including the nature of the need and the availability of other help; and must follow the directions and guidance: and the guidance and directions will themselves indicate when it is appropriate to consider the availability of outside help.
I should also like to stress—since the amendment seeks to insert the word "reasonable" into this particular subsection of the Bill—that social fund officers will be expected as a basic principle of administrative law to exercise all their functions "reasonably". They must not take decisions which are arbitrary, or which are based on prejudice or unwarranted assumptions. That applies just as much to a social fund officer's judgment about, say, the extent of an applicant's need as to the view that he forms about the availability of other help. If the question of help from elsewhere is relevant to a particular case, the officer will be expected to assess that possibility reasonably on the grounds of the available evidence.

843
I would therefore suggest that this amendment is not necessary. I understand the concern expressed that social fund officers should act reasonably. I trust that I have allayed that concern. Social fund officers must act reasonably in all their dealings. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will not press the amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I counted in the noble Baroness's reply how many times she used the word "reasonably" in relation to how judgment would be made. She used the word 10 times. That seems absolutely to support the case for the amendment. The possibility is not enough. It is a matter of being reasonable about it, surely?
Lord Banks: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Baroness attempted at all to deal with the complaint put forward by the Law Society of Scotland. If she wishes to do so, I shall be happy to give way. It seems that the noble Baroness does not wish to deal with that point. I shall remind the House what it was. The Law Society of Scotland indicated that the word "possibility" diminished to an unacceptable extent the rights that the clause gives to claimants. It suggested that there should be a reasonableness test incorporated by way of amendment. That is what we have done. I do not believe that the noble Baroness has shown why the alternative suggested in the amendment is unsatisfactory to the Government; nor do I think that she has dealt with the legal point that I raised with regard to the view of the Law Society of Scotland. In those circumstances I should like to take the opinion of the House.
6.12 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 55) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 130.

DIVISION NO.3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Airedale, L.

Foot, L.

Amherst, E.

Gallacher, L.

Ardwick, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Banks, L.

Grey, E.

Barnett, L.

Grimond, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hampton, L.

Birk, B.

Hanworth, V.

Blyton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bottomley, L.

Heycock, L.

Brockway, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Hunt, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Chitnis, L.

Jeger, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

John-Mackie, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Kennet, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Denington, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Diamond, L.

Listowel, E.

Donoughue, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ennals, L.

Longford, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ezra, L.

McNair, L.

844

Mais, L.

Stallard, L.

Mayhew, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Morton of Shuna, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Nicol, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Northfield, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Oram, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Phillips, B.

Tordoff, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Underhill, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Vernon, L.

Rochester, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Whaddon, L.

Seear, B.

White, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Wigoder, L.

Serota, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ingrow, L.

Allerton, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Alport, L.

Kimball, L.

Auckland, L.

Kimberley, E.

Bathurst, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bauer, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Knollys, V.

Beloff, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Belstead, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Birdwood, L.

Lawrence, L.

Blyth, L.

Layton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsay, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Long, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Lothian, M.

Butterworth, L.

Lyell, L.

Caithness, E.

McFadzean, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Margadale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Carnock, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Cathcart, E.

Avon, L.

Coleraine, L.

Merrivale, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mersey, V.

Cowley, E.

Middleton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mottistone, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Munster, E.

Crathorne, L.

Nathan, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Davidson, V.

Onslow, E.

De La Warr, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Plummer of St Marylebone,

Donegall, M.

L.

Dormer, L.

Portland, D.

Drumalbyn, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Dundee, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rochdale, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Romney, E.

Elton, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Faithfull, B.

St. Davids, V.

Fanshaw of Richmond, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Savile, L.

Forester, L.

Seebohm, L.

Fortescue, E.

Shannon, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sharpies, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gisborough, L.

Soames, L.

Glanusk, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gray, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Greenway, L.

L.

Hailsham of Saint

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Marylebone, L.

Teviot, L.

Halsbury, E.

Teynham, L.

Hemphill, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Henley, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hives, L.

Torphichen, L.

Hood, V.

Torrington, V.

Hooper, B.

Tranmire, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Trefgarne, L.

845

Trenchard, V.

Vestey, L.

Trumpington, B.

Vickers, B.

Tryon, L.

Vivian, L.

Ullswater, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 45, line 10, leave out paragraph (d)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would leave out paragraph (d) on page 45, line 10. That paragraph says that in determining an award a social fund officer must take into account:
"where the payment is payable"—
that is, where it is a loan—
"the likelihood of repayment and the time within which repayment is likely".
The amendment would strike that out.
When moving this amendment in Committee I pointed out that before the social fund officer reaches the stage of deciding the likelihood of repayment he will presumably have satisfied himself that the applicant has a need and has no resources from which to meet the need, and that no other person or body can meet the need. I asked if the applicant, having shown that he had no resources, was to be refused the loan on the ground that he had no resources to repay it. The noble Baroness did not answer that question, and I give her the opportunity to do so today. Is the ability to repay to affect the amount of the loan? If the likelihood were being assessed—because if there were no likelihood of repayment a grant rather than a loan would be made—then I should understand it. But if there is no prospect of a grant—and the text would seem to imply that—and if there is a recognised need, I cannot see why the likelihood of repayment should be taken into account. I wonder whether the noble Baroness could explain why it is necessary to take that into account in those circumstances. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have already considered this amendment, at Committee stage. It basically stems from our proposal that some social fund payments should be made as advances of benefit to help people with unexpected expenses or budgeting problems rather than necessarily as outright grants. We discussed that issue at some length during Committee, including the arguments of equity in favour of our proposal. Your Lordships rejected another amendment which would have called that principle into question. I do not think, therefore, that I need rehearse yet again the arguments in favour of loans from the social fund.
As far as this amendment is concerned, however, I fear I must repeat myself a little. Subsection 34(10) sets out a number of the factors which a social fund officer should take into account when making a decision. This consideration with which the amendment is concerned is one which we believe quite reasonably refers to a feature which must be taken into account when considering a loan. As payments will be recoverable, it makes sense that when a social fund officer reaches decisions about whether to award a payment, or what its value could be, he should pay
846
regard to the effect of recovery on the person receiving help. Primarily the payment will be aimed at meeting the need of the individual. But there is a balance to be struck between this, on the one hand; and ensuring, on the other hand, that too great a strain is not put on the person concerned, and that the repayments do not extend indefinitely. Similarly, in deciding payments, some regard must be paid to whether recovery is likely at all.
On the last occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said that I had not answered his question on this amendment, and he said so again this evening. 1 have looked at Hansard and he was, if I understand him rightly, suggesting that we were trying to put applicants into a Catch 22 situation. His argument seemed to be that before making a social fund payment we shall look to see if the person concerned has resources to meet the need. If he has resources, he does not need a loan. If he does not have resources, he will not get a loan because he will not be able to pay it back.
That is very ingenious, but it is not what will happen. There is a big difference between having the resources to meet a pressing need for a large item of expenditure—a new cooker, say—and having resources, including entitlement to weekly benefit, from which a reasonable sum can be repaid each week. Indeed, that is precisely why we are proposing help with budgeting problems. All we are saying is that, before making a loan, the social fund officer should take into account, among other factors, matters such as other possible debts which might affect the size of any loan.
We shall aim to ensure that nobody is burdened with a commitment which they are unable to meet. This is the reason why we shall be having rules on the maximum deductions that can be made. Clearly, however, there will be a need for a degree of flexibility in exceptional cases. In cases of genuine crises our officers will be able to consider a number of options. These could include extending the period of recovery; or, exceptionally, an officer could decide to defer the recovery of the latest payment. I cannot accept this amendment.
Lord Banks: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that there might be other debts and that this was one of the factors that the officer would be seeking to evaluate in trying to judge the likelihood of repayment. She said that if there were other debts that might affect the size of the loan. But if we are talking here of needs—not of whether the person should have a loan to purchase a new car or a matter of that kind, but whether an established need is to be met—then it is difficult to see how the other debts can be relevant to whether or not payment is made.
I am not at all clear what the officer is supposed to do if, as the Bill says, the payment is repayable and he comes to the conclusion that there is no likelihood of recovery. What does he do then? I am afraid I do not know. I do not think that the position is very clear or satisfactory. However, I do not think I shall pursue it further this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 45, line 12, leave out paragraph (e)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 57 would leave out paragraph (e). An officer, in determining an award, must consider any relevant allocation made under Section 33(4). If we look at Section 33(4), we see that it says:
"The Secretary of State may allocate an amount, or allocate different amounts for different purposes, for awards by a particular social fund officer or group of officers in a financial year".
I want to ask the question: is the social fund officer required to do this to see if there is an allocation to cover a particular type of need, or is he required to do so merely to see how much money is in the fund?
In the course of her reply to this amendment when it was moved in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said that the social fund will not run out of money. She said it is merely a case of budgeting. If the officer is looking to see how much is in the fund, and not to see if a particular purpose is covered, it is difficult to see why he should be required to do so. If every established need will be met, who does he need to do so? The retention of this paragraph—unless the officer is looking to see whether the purpose is provided for—would appear to be unnecessary, and in that case it ought to come out. If it remains it will give rise to the fear that needs will be met only if there is cash in the kitty at the right time. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this amendment would delete the provision requiring social fund officers to pay regard to the budget allocation available to them. If passed, it would make the social fund uncontrollable financially. We are aiming, in the social fund, to give one-off payments for exceptional need related to an individual's overall circumstances, rather than by set rules which can prove, and have proved, too rigid and too complex. But a system operated by discretion must be subject to financial control, since otherwise it is open-ended; and in practice, setting a budget is the only way of exercising such financial control.
The dangers of losing financial control are already clearly before our eyes with the example of single payments. In 1979, the year this Government took office, 1.1 million payments were made to claimants, at a cost of £38 million. But since 1982 there has been extremely rapid growth. In that year 1.6 million payments were made, at a cost of £88 million. In 1983 the figure rose to £ 142 million. In the last two years the cost has doubled again to £308 million. Overall, the number of payments is now four times higher and their real cost nearly five times higher than in 1979. Those are frightening figures. Moreover, the growth far exceeds changes in the claimant population. In 1979 366 payments were made for each 1,000 claimants on benefit. The rate in 1985 for each 1,000 claimants on benefit was 866. In the last two years alone the rate of payments for each 1,000 claimants has doubled.
No responsible government could allow expenditure to grow at £100 million a year, and we have proposals for change that have been referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee. The alternative to a social fund operated with discretion and within a
848
budget, and one much less desirable, I suggest, would have to be a tightly-drawn, regulated system with inflexible rules of entitlement in order to define the limits of help matched to available resources.
But I am aware from our previous exchanges on this subject that at the heart of your Lordships' worries lies the question as to whether the budget will be sufficient to meet all the calls on it and whether it will run out during the year. We have already given an assurance in the White Paper that maternity and funeral payments will not be constrained by the budget. So let me now explain the financial nature of the fund and how we shall make sure that it remains solvent.
First, let us take the national budget. The social fund proper begins in April 1988. In order to establish the initial size of the budget we aim to undertake a thorough survey as to how the current scheme is operating, how needs can be defined and met, and how those in need can best be protected. That survey, together with an analysis of the geographical spread of single payments, will enable Ministers to make realistic decisions in due course, with up-to-date data about the initial financing of the new system.
We have decided, however, that the fund will not at first be subject to a formal cash limit on its introduction. A decision—and I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this is wise—on a move to what will be the normal cash limiting arrangement will be taken when we have sufficient experience of the operation of the fund.
Our intention is realistic: to establish the fund with sufficient money to agree reasonable requests for loans for essential items; to make a start on help with community care to meet urgent needs, as well as making funeral and maternity payments. And we want to do that on the basis of the best possible available data. As the White Paper says, the purpose of a budget for the fund is to establish a system where there is effective monitoring and control on expenditure.
I suggest that worries about individual offices running out of money can be set aside. Social security offices are accustomed to managing budgets. It must be remembered that that will be done by keeping a running total of actual spending and comparing it with profiles of expected expenditure. There will thus be an early warning of any developing problems. There will be a reserve pool of money at regional level for deploying to any district that might need it—for instance, following a flood in a particular area—and contingency arrangements will be made to transfer funds between individual offices should the need arise.
Returning to my original point, a discretionary fund needs to be controlled by a budget, and I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that we are working towards setting a realistic budget with good local controls. There will be an overall budget for the social fund, and that will be allocated to local offices. There is also likely to be a broad division between money available for grants and for loans respectively. But there will not be a set sum for every particular circumstance, such as replacing broken cookers. That could militate against the flexibility that we want for the social fund. Social fund officers will therefore check what is available in the local office budget for loans or grants. I hope, in the light of the assurance I

849
have given, that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the statement that she has just made. She has made a statement of profound importance that I personally enormously welcome. Although there has been no opportunity for discussion, I suggest that most noble Lords on this side of the House will also welcome it. The noble Baroness said that there will be no formal cash limit in the early stage. I do not know at what stage the noble Baroness might change her mind, or at what stage her mind might be changed for her, but that is an extremely important statement.
We had argued from this side of the House, on Second Reading and in Committee, that since it was a demand-led service and one could not assess what the demand would be, then, as in the case of a doctor who is demand-led, to put a cash limit on that demand would be virtually impossible. Since this House in its wisdom, and by a very substantial majority, decided to have an appeal system, one cannot possibly have a cash limit when there is an appeal system that can make adjustments to decisions taken by the officials.
On behalf of these Benches I congratulate the noble Baroness on her most important statement. One of the provisions of this Bill that we have criticised most has been the cash-limited budget. Of course there is a difference between a budget—one has to budget for everything—and a cash limit, which is a firm, fixed figure. We have always argued that such a limit would not make sense. From the bottom of my heart I thank the noble Baroness for what we have. No doubt if she seeks the leave of the House to speak again, to say that I have welcomed her statement too much and that at some stage or another there might be a cash limit, I shall recognise that point.
My second point is this. The noble Baroness explained that it was necessary to take the measures that she is taking because there had been four times the number of applicants for special needs and that that demand had been met, in money terms, at five times the cost. The noble Baroness will know why that is so. It is so because there are four times as many people who desperately need special payments. That is because there is increasing poverty in certain sections, and particularly because of the dramatic rise in unemployment. If there are that many more people needing help, there will be that much more money paid to give that help. It is in a sense the Government's own economic and social policies that have created the situation in which the Government have decided that they must take some action, at the expense of those who are the poorest in our society. Having made that point, I do not want to withdraw at all from my congratulations to the noble Baroness on her statement on her own behalf and that of her right honourable friends that this scheme will start without a cash limit to it.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness for her statement. It has made much clearer how it is intended that the fund shall work, and it is encouraging to know that there will be no cash limit. Particularly in view of that, I still do not see why it is necessary in those circumstances for the officer to
850
have consideration in regard to what is in the kitty. Are needs to be determined by the amount in the kitty, or are they to bé determined objectively according to the degree of need itself? I would hope that it would be the latter. There seems to me to be a degree of inconsistency there, but I hope that in due course that inconsistency can be sorted out. In the meantime I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and with the leave of the House, I must first thank noble Lords opposite for the warm welcome they have given to my words. However, for the record I must repeat that what I said was that we have decided that the fund will not at first be subject to a formal cash limit on its introduction, and I said that a decision on what will be the normal cash limiting arrangement will be taken when we have sufficient experience of the operation of the fund. I think I must underline that.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I think we shall want carefully to study what the noble Baroness has said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 [Widowhood]:
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved amendment No. 58:
Page 47, line 16, at end insert ("in the case of a widow whose husband died after the commencement of this subsection").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will be glad to know that in moving Amendment No. 58 I am not proposing to plough backwards over the debate we had in Committee about some general questions concerning help for widows. But I raise the question again because I have had so many anxious queries, and often queries that I find myself unable to answer. This may be entirely my fault and so I hope that the noble Baroness will make some of the points on these problems clear even to me, and then I can pass on what she has said.
Part of the confusion arises because the Green Paper, in volume II, page 56, paragraph 5.54, states:
"The changes proposed will not affect the benefit currently being received by any existing widow".
Then the White Paper states on page 47:
"The personal extension of widowed mother's allowance payable to women with children of 16 to 19 who have left school but are still at home would be discontinued".
It goes on:
"We will ensure that no existing widow will lose the benefit she is receiving currently".
Many widows feel that the money that they were expecting to receive after their children leave school is already in train; that it is a current benefit; although they have not yet begun to receive it. It is money on the table for them under the regulations in force when they became widowed. This sudden detriment for someone who is already widowed will mean a serious loss, and there is a great sense of unfairness about it.
I have carefully read the relevant papers, and I am aware that the noble Baroness, at col. 690 on 30th June, said that when a widow moves from one category of widow's benefit to a succeeding benefit after the change she will have to put up with the new

851
rules. That brings in an element of hardship and certainly of confusion. The situation will be confused further by the change in age—the increase from 40 to 45, and from 45 to 50, according to which category of widowhood one is unkindly thrust into.
As I read the Bill, it seems that a widow under 50 will find when her child leaves school that her widowed mother's allowance ceases altogether. This seems detrimental, and I can only pass on to your Lordships the point that there are many widows in this coutry who feel a sense of injustice and unfairness. They have looked on this as a contractual benefit that they receive mainly as a result of the contributions of their late husbands, and to take away something for which their husbands have contributed makes many women feel that there is an element of unfairness.
Although it may be an allowance not yet in payment, it is an anticipated allowance for which the widow has budgeted and which she has regarded as built in to the existing provision for widows, and therefore there is a feeling of serious loss. Many of them thought that they would go on to standard pension when their widowed mother's allowance ends, but they now find that they will go on to a reduced pension if they are under 55, and lose everything if they are under 45.
I hope I have the facts right. I can assure the noble Baroness that I raise these problems not lightly but most sincerely. I am sure that she will deal with them sincerely, and perhaps help some of us to understand the implications for these older widows. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have previously given an assurance that no one will lose the category of widow's benefit in payment at the time of the change. Where, however, a widow moves from one category of widow's benefit to another after the change, then the new rules will apply. Thus, a widow who ceases to be entitled to widow's allowance or widowed mother's allowance after the new age limits come into force would be considered on the basis of the new rules.
Women receiving WMA with children of 16 to 19 will continue to receive the allowance. However, where a woman with WMA after the start of the new arrangements has a child who leaves school, she will have the new rules applied to her and she will go on the appropriate rate of widow's pension according to her age, rather than the personal rate of WMA. The noble Baroness has correctly understood the position.
Any other course of action would perpetuate complex transitional arrangements for very many years. It is perfectly reasonable to apply new rules to all claims decided after they come into effect and, indeed, to do otherwise would lead to mistakes and, arguably, to injustices. On the basis of the assurance that there will be no loss of the existing category of benefit I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that our proposals will operate fairly and will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, in a way that is a disappointing reply. The noble Minister says that there will be no loss of cash benefit, and then she confirms
852
my reading that there certainly will be—and it will be a big cash loss as soon as the child leaves school. I have not received an answer that many widowed mothers in this country will appreciate. I can only say that I shall do my best to make the Government's views known, and with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 59:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Invalid care allowance for women.
.—(1) Section 37(3) of the Social Security Act 1975 shall have effect, and shall be treated as having had effect from 22nd December 1984, as if the words from "and a women" to the end were omitted.
(2) The Social Security Benefit (Dependency) Regulations 1977 shall have effect, and shall be treated as having had effect from 22nd December 1984, as if the following sub-paragraphs were substituted for sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 (increases of invalid care allowance)—

"(a) a spouse who is not engaged in any one or more employments from which the spouse's weekly earnings exceed that amount; or

(b) some person (not being a child) who—

(i) has the care of a child or children in respect of whom the beneficiary is entitled to child benefit, being a child or children in respect of whom the beneficiary is entitled to an increase of an invalid care allowance or would be so entitled but for the provisions of any regulations for the time being in force under the Act relating to overlapping benefits;

(ii) is not undergoing imprisonment or detention in legal custody;

(iii) is not engaged in any one or more employments (other than employment by the beneficiary in caring for a child or children in respect of whom the beneficiary is entitled to child benefit) from which the persons' weekly earnings exceed that amount;

(iv) is not absent from Great Britain, except for any period during which the person is residing with the beneficiary outside Great Britain and for which the beneficiary is entitled to an invalid care allowance." ").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 59, and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 80, 82 and 84. This amendment fulfils the promise made in another place on 23rd June by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and which I repeated in your Lordships' House. That promise was to bring forward in the Social Security Bill legislation which would extend invalid care allowance to married women, and those living with a man as his wife, on equal terms with men and single women. The amendment and the consequential amendments which are now before your Lordships will remove the discrimination against married women which the previous Labour Government wrote into the Social Security Act 1975. It does so with retrospective effect form the date on which the directive came into force.
As your Lordships will be aware, when we announced our decision on 23rd June we did not know what the European Court would decide the following day and, in particular, what the court judgment might say about arrears. In the event, it was silent on the point. We concluded, however, that whatever the legal position about our obligation to pay arrears back to 22nd December 1984, we would nonetheless do so provided the conditions were satisfied at that date. Payments which go back beyond 12 months will be made on an extra-statutory basis.
We have already received some 20,000 claims from married women, and the number is growing daily. We expect to have received an estimated 70,000 by the end of the year. We have decided that in the interests of fairness any married woman whose claim is received by the 31st December 1986 will be able to have arrears back to 22nd December 1984, if she satisfied all the conditions at that date.
This will give married women carers ample time to get a claim into us and we shall be writing individually to as many attendance allowance beneficiaries as we can to bring this to the attention of their carers as well as issuing other publicity material. Any claims received after 31st December 1986 will, of course, be subject to the normal time limits which apply statutorily to all claims for invalid care allowance.
I know that the Government's decision has already been warmly received and I feel sure that this measure will be welcomed widely as a recognition of the role which substantial numbers of married women carry out as carers. I think I need only add that we have taken the opportunity in the amendment to provide for adult dependency addition to the allowance to be payable to married women with the same retrospective effect as the benefit itself. I am happy to commend this amendment to your Lordships.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, as there is a later amendment in my name and in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Gardner, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, I should like to speak in this debate to this amendment because I believe this amendment will be welcomed on all sides of the House. In the House a number of us particularly welcome this amendment because we have been involved in the problems arising from the discriminatory nature of ICA since its introduction in 1976.
The amendment is indicative of the progress that has been made since that date in our attitude to married women. The fact that when the benefit was introduced it was available to men, married and single, and to single women but not to married women was a residue of the Beveridge concept that married women with few exceptions would be financially dependent on their husbands. It is now clearly recognised—the amendment today endorses it—that married women are more likely than not to be in paid employment and that their contribution to the family income is substantial and is growing. Indeed the number of women who are now earning more than their husbands is rising and it has been a very real sacrifice for those married women who have had to remain outside the employment market or who have had to give up a job to care. It has been a sacrifice not only of the immediate income, but of future pension prospects. Therefore the extension of ICA is some financial recompense for that sacrifice. It does not affect their pension, but it is an immediate financial recompense.
As the noble Baroness has said, this is a recognition of the contribution married women make not only to the welfare of the family but to the community as a whole because of the very real social contribution that they make. In welcoming the amendment we have to acknowledge the work that has been done by the Equal Opportunities Commission, by the consortium of
854
voluntary organisations who have worked together so hard particularly in this last 12 months to produce an amendment and also by Mrs. Jackie Drake and her family. Mrs. Drake took the case of discrimination to the courts here and then to the European Court of Justice. I think we have to recognise her courage in doing that, because it is an ordeal to take a case to court, but to take a case to the European court is an even greater ordeal. While Mrs. Drake was doing this she had her small son to look after and she was still caring for her mother. I should like to place on record our thanks and appreciation for her contribution towards this amendment.
The Minister will forgive me if I raise one or two points for clarification. The first relates to carers who might, between the end of December 1984 and the coming into operation of this Bill, have ceased to be carers. There are all sorts of reasons why a women may no longer be a carer: the invalid may be in hospital or may even have died. Will the back pay, which we very much welcome, be available to such women for the period when they were carers between December 1984 and today?
Secondly, again I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness says that a letter will be going to all those who are in receipt of an invalidity benefit so that they can alert their carer to the extension of this benefit. That is an essential first step, but I think we might need further publicity because that is not always a certain way of getting the message through. If we look at the timing of the Bill it probably will not be on the statute book until October and claims have to be in by the end of the year so there is a very short period in which to publicise it. May we ask for an intensive publicity campaign immediately on this benefit, or if not could we consider extending the date of closure for claims beyond the end of this year?
Having said that may I underline once again how very pleased and gratified are all of us who have worked in this area with the amendment that the noble Baroness has moved? On a personal note I wonder whether she will forgive me if I am not in my place to hear her reply to my questions. I had anticipated that the amendment would be coming earlier and I have to be on a train travelling north very shortly for a long-standing engagement. But I felt I must be associated with the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I welcome this amendment. I welcome it not only from these Benches but in my capacity as chairman of the National Council for Carers and their Elderly Dependants, which fought for the initial invalid care allowance in the 1975 legislation. At that time such allowances were not contemplated. It was breaking new ground. We were grateful to the new Labour Government. The Minister at that time recognised the problems of married women but, with new allowances of this kind, felt that it was not possible to go the whole way and make a grant to married women as well as to single carers and to men, married or single. The amount of money involved in making the payments to men, married or single, was very much smaller than the amount of money involved in making payments to women.

855
This is a very great advance and it will be a very great comfort to many people who, as the noble Baroness knows, are doing an extraordinarily tough, often lonely and extremely dispiriting job—a job in which there is a great shortage of money, often a very big reduction from the money that they were able to earn, or an absence of any money except that which their husbands are prepared to give them while they are doing the caring job. To know now that they will have money which is really their own while they are doing a caring job is something they can really appreciate.
7 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, may I add my grateful thanks for the amendment to the Bill and for the ICA. An epic new benefit of this proportion really deserves special welcome and I hope that the media and the voluntary organisations will pay it the due regard that it really deserves. The invalid care allowance will make a substantial improvement both to the finances of the carers and, still more perhaps, to the morale of the victims to whom the care is given. The allowance has been sought for years and this Government and the noble Baroness the Minister deserve real credit for realising its importance. Anyone who has been cared for by long-suffering married mothers, sisters, let alone wives and other married women, will know what a good move the Government have now made.
It is excellent that the allowance is to be retrospective to last December. Some of us have a retrospective guilt for the unpaid burden of care for our invalidity that goes back 50 years. I realise that that is a digression, but, like all other noble Lords, I know numbers of cases now who will benefit from this allowance and, knowing the hard-fought priorities in this field, I congratulate all the more the Minister and the Government.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as my name is on the later amendment, No. 62, which we shall not now be moving, I feel that I too would like to thank the Minister for this amendment. When in the past, I think in my first year in this House, I raised this issue in an Unstarred Question the Government then indicated that they would very much like to do it but that it was a very heavy financial commitment. I am only too delighted that now we have reached the point were it is actually coming about. All the good things have been said. I will not delay the House more. I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward this amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in the same way that from these Benches we never hesitate to criticise the Government for all their failures, I think it is right, proper and courteous that we should pay due respect to the Government for the decision that was announced by the noble Baroness and for the amendment which she has placed in the Bill. From this Front Bench I want to thank her and the Government for the steps they have taken and to add to the point made by my noble friend Lady Lockwood about publicity. I think it important that maximum
856
publicity—maybe through television—should be undertaken in order that this benefit be known; because the words that are said here are not automatically fed into every household. I think it is important that everyone should know of this advance, particularly those in need of claiming it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I say how grateful I am for the words of welcome from all parts of the House. I should like to single out particularly my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox and to say how glad I was to hear her words. May I thank all noble Lords?
I must reply to the two questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who gave notice of her intention to leave. The first question she asked was about people who qualified after 22nd December 1984 and who have ceased to be carers. The answer to that is that married women who satisfy the conditions for ICA on or after 22nd December 1984 but who have ceased to be carers in the meantime may claim for any period during which they satisfied the conditions.
On the point of publicity, a new leaflet and claim form is in preparation and should be available during August. A letter will be sent to as many attendance allowance beneficiaries, and constant attendance allowance beneficiaries, as possible. It will set out the changes and will ask the disabled person to pass it to his or her carer. The new leaflet and the letter will coincide with advertisements in the press announcing the extension. I think that about sums it up.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Industrial injuries and diseases]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 104, line 4, leave out ("14") and insert ("4").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Scanlon. This is about the Industrial Injuries Scheme. At the Committee stage I moved an amendment, which I did not press to a vote, the object of which was to maintain the present situation in which individuals who have had accidents at work may claim, and be accorded, disablement benefit according to the seriousness of their condition even in cases where that disability is assessed at being below 14 per cent. The Government's position, apparently, is that they believe that small amounts of money should not be spent on relatively trivial injuries. Of course, it depends what is meant by "trivial". Most manual workers suffer from what may appear to be minor injuries, particularly to hands or fingers, at some time in their lives. To them those injuries are painful and disabling.
What the amendment seeks to do is to meet the Government position partially by deleting "14 per cent." as the threshold figure and substituting "4 per cent.". If the Bill passes unamended some injuries which can be serious and disabling would attract no disablement payment at all. Some examples of these are as follows. The loss of the whole middle finger of either hand currently attracts a 12 per cent. entitlement and a gratuity of £2,697; the loss of

857
phalanges of the index finger of either hand, a quite serious loss if you are in a situation where the use of your hands is important, which goes for most of us, attracts currently 11 per cent. Loss of toes attracts less, It attracts about 9 per cent. and a gratuity of £2,095.
When I spoke in Committee on the earlier amendment I gave examples of conditions and injuries suffered by workers for which they now obtain a small sum of money. It is small but it is important to them. A 14 per cent. gratuity is of the order of just over £3,000 and there is a descending scale of payments thereafter. There has long been an acceptance in this country that work is often a rather hazardous place. Some working environments are inherently more hazardous than others. It was because of this that we had the Health and Safety at Work Act, since everyone agrees that it is necessary to reduce the risks as far as possible.
However, it is not going to be possible to do this completely and for this reason. For a very long time we have had legislation to give special protection to those at work. There was the Workmen's Compensation Act 1925, later amended in 1940. This legislation was widely perceived as unsatisfactory, and led after the war to the introduction of the Industrial Injuries Scheme which successive governments until this one, had been prepared to honour. I said at Committee stage that the Industrial Injuries Scheme is the nearest thing we have had in this country to a no-fault system of compensation for accidents at work. In some countries, notably New Zealand which is sometimes quoted as an example, there is a low-fault system under which workers can collect their compensation payments without having to prove negligence.
However, I believe that a basic state system of the kind that we have, plus the ability for workers to take action at common law if they can establish that their injuries arise as a result of negligence, is the best possible arrangement. This does mean, however, preserving the system that we have. One of the features of the industrial injuries scheme was that it was based on the concept that when assessing damage to individuals comparison should be made with other individuals of the same age and sex who had not been injured. That enabled account to be taken of the general disability that had been suffered, and not just a reduction in earning ability, which was dealt with separately.
We have an obligation, as a society, to compensate those who are injured, often through no fault of their own but because of the environments in which they have to work, if they are injured providing goods and services to the community. If the amendment is passed—the 4 per cent. amendment which I put before your Lordships—there will be some minor injuries which will not be covered. We accept that. We on these Benches would have preferred to have stayed with the original concept that any degree of disability could be regarded as ranking for an assessment; but we have accepted the argument that the Government do not want to spend money on what they regard as relatively trivial injuries.
I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the House. I began my working life a long time ago working in the accident claims department of a very large insurance company specialising in employers'
858
liability claims. Then I became a trade union official and I looked at the issue from the other side, so to speak, and I have to tell your Lordships that only about 10 per cent. of all workers injured actually succeed in getting any damages at all for their injury a. common law. It was for these reasons that we had the Industrial Injuries Act. I hope we can preserve at least some protection for people who have injuries of the kind to which I have referred, and that they will continue, if the amendment is passed, to receive some benefit which otherwise they would not have if the Bill stands unamended. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, we are discussing here more than a mere change in the quantum of industrial injuries benefit. The change proposed in the Bill touches on the central principle of industrial benefit—on whether compensation should be paid at all for certain categories of physical or mental injury, for pain, suffering and disfigurement. The fact is that the great majority of current industrial awards of this sort are for less than 14 per cent. The sufferers from the most common complaints, such as occupational asthma and vibration white finger, and most of the benefit payments, are indeed less than 14 per cent. The change proposed in the Bill would have the effect of largely descheduling injuries of this sort. There has been a steady decline in injury claims on industrial disablement benefit from about 200,000 in the mid-1960s to about 120,000 now. I think that is partly because of the work of the Health and Safety Commission, to which my noble friend referred. The proposed change has attracted widespread independent criticism, notably from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, and I think it indicates a somewhat offhand attitude towards industrial injuries which should not be encouraged. I therefore warmly support the amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I, too, should like to support this amendment, as I did when it was first moved during the Committee stage. Like my noble friend Lady Turner, I started my working life on the shop floor and, as a trade union representative, I can remember the difficult situations and the hardships caused by injuries on the shop floor both before and after 1948. I can also recall, since going to the other place, the number of attempts which have been made to try to change this legislation, and the kind of resistance that that has created among people who are still working on the shop floor.
We have never taken the view that the Government seem to be taking, that anything under 14 per cent. is a minor injury. I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, excellently outlined this point, because to a precision engineer, for instance, the loss of a finger is not a minor injury. It can affect his whole earning potential for the rest of his life, and there is nothing minor about that. To someone in the construction industry the loss of toes or a badly injured foot can prevent him using scaffolding, ladders or other equipment that is normally used in the construction industry. These are not minor injuries to the people concerned: they are very serious injuries. The scheme as it existed did at least compensate to some small extent for some of those injuries.

859
I said that the 1948 scheme existed almost unchanged until 1980, when the Government introduced a discussion document on how the scheme might be changed. As far back as 1980 they had it in mind that this would have to be changed. They pursued it in 1981 by means of a White Paper, which contained proposals something like these for reducing the dual provision for disability benefits provided through the industrial injuries scheme and the national insurance scheme.
In 1983 the industrial injury benefit was abolished and disablement benefit became payable from a common starting date; that is to say, 15 weeks after the onset of the disablement. But, not satisfied with that change, in 1985 the Government issued another consultation paper, still determined to get changes into the scheme. In that consultation document in 1985 they proposed further changes. It is those changes, with very slight modifications, which are included in the Bill before us now—changes that have been outlined both by the noble Baroness and by my noble friend Lord Murray.
As with other changes, the Government present the changes in this Bill as a tidying-up measure to simplify the system. It is designed to concentrate resources on the most severely disabled and to compensate for the loss of earnings, rather than for relatively minor degrees of disablement. I hope we have dealt with that, because there is no such thing as a minor degree of disablement in the industries in which certainly I was involved—engineering, woodwork and construction. However, the real reason was given in the Official Report of the other place on 29th April 1986 at col. 1825, in Committee, when it was divulged that:
"the changes will result in savings of between £40 million and £50 million in a full year".
That is the real reason for these changes, as for most of the changes that appear in this Bill: there is to be a saving of between £40 million and £50 million per year. But a saving at the expense of whom? It is at the expense of people who are employed in dangerous industries, working dangerous and hazardous machinery, and who suffer sometimes horrific injuries which certainly affect the rest of their lives.
I do not think the Government have made out a case simply on the basis of saving what is really a paltry sum of money at the expense of injured workers. The amendment does not seek to go back to 1 per cent. I do not myself believe we ought to have changed from 1 per cent., but the amendment would accept that we go back to 4 per cent., and that instead of 14 per cent. we should stay at 4 per cent. I think that is a reasonable concession, and it goes certainly much further than most people would like to go. I hope the Government will see that this is a constructive attempt to be fair to the people who suffer these injuries in industry, and I would support the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like very much to support this amendment. It is many long years since I was dealing with cases of this kind, but I very much want to endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said. Common law is a quite inappropriate method for getting redress for people who suffer injuries at work, simply because in the great majority
860
of cases there is no negligence. It is difficult enough to prove when there is, but in a great many cases there is no negligence; so common law can really benefit only a very small proportion of the people who are injured at work.
But seemingly small injuries can mean a lifetime of disadvantage. To cut a tendon in your finger and to reduce its flexibility is very serious for someone whose hands are instruments that he uses in his work. A seemingly mild case of dermatitis can be a very serious handicap indeed to someone who is earning his living by manual work. To cut out all the people below 14 per cent. would undoubtedly create unfairness and hardship to people who suffer from what to white collar workers, mental workers, may seem trivial but to manual workers is very serious indeed.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sorry to say that the Government cannot accept this amendment. Our aim is to redress the imbalance between support for those disabled at work and those disabled by other causes. We are particularly concerned to do more for sick and disabled people on low incomes. That is why we are proposing to devote substantial additional resources to the disability premium to be paid with income support. We are also proposing more help for those who have suffered the worst industrial injuries. The most severely disabled will qualify for up to £24 a week extra through the full payment of reduced earnings allowance. At present, they cannot receive the allowance.
The other side of the equation is less help for those who suffer minor injuries at work. I stress the word "minor" because many of those with disablement below 14 per cent. suffer only temporary disablement and the average lump sum paid is less than £400. Indeed, the great majority do not suffer a drop in earnings capacity. For those whose earnings potential does suffer, we are providing the safeguard of continued eligibility for special hardship allowance, which will be renamed "reduced earnings allowance".
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, talked about sufferers from diseases like occupational asthma who would effectively be denied benefit, but many of those who suffer from occupational asthma will qualify for loss of earnings compensation. This they will get through the reduced earnings allowance, which in most cases will be as much as £25 a week. The allowance will also be paid to skilled workers, such as those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, who lose earnings as a result of minor injury. I believe that the Government's proposals strike the right balance. The amendment of the noble Baroness is essentially a wrecking amendment. It would set the threshold for payment so low as to make the change pointless, and I urge your Lordships to reject it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am very disappointed to hear what the noble Baroness had to say. I thought I made it clear when I moved my amendment that we were not just concerned with loss of earnings, because that is not what the industrial injuries scheme was originally concerned about, although it was part of it. It was an attempt to ensure that people were compensated for loss of faculty, loss

861
of the ability to lead a life in the same way as someone who had not had a similar injury. It was not just a matter of losing earning ability, which comes under a separate part of the industrial injuries scheme.
I do not accept what the noble Baroness said about the wrecking nature of the amendment. I have made an attempt to meet the Government's points made in Committee, when they were concerned not to have to make payments in respect of trivial injuries. The point of my amendment was to try to cover those injuries which, to the manual workers who suffers from them, are certainly not trivial. Because of that, I intend to press my amendment.
7.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 60) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 112.

DIVISION NO.4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McNair, L.

Amherst, E.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Ardwick, L.

Mountevans, L.

Banks, L.

Mulley, L.

Birk, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Brockway, L.

Nicol, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Oram, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Parry, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Phillips, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

[Teller.]

Donoughue, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rea, L.

Ennals, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seear, B.

Hampton, L.

Serota, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stallard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Heycock, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Tordoff, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kagan, L.

Underhill, L.

Kennet, L.

Vernon, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

White, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Wigoder, L.

Longford, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Allerton, L.

Carnock, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Cathcart, E.

Auckland, L.

Coleraine, L.

Bauer, L.

Colwyn, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Belstead, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Davidson, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

De La Warr, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Butterworth, L.

Donegall, M.

Caithness, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

862

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mersey, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Middleton, L.

Elton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Forester, L.

Munster, E.

Fortescue, E.

Onslow, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Orkney, E.

Gisborough, L.

Pender, L.

Glanusk, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone,

Glenarthur, L.

L.

Gray, L.

Portland, D.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Hailsham of Saint

Rankeillour, L.

Marylebone, L.

Renton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Renwick, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rochdale, V.

Hemphill, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Henley, L.

Savile, L.

Hives, L.

Seebohm, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Shannon, E.

Hooper, B.

Sharpies, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ingrow, L.

Soames, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L,.

Kimball, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Swinfen, L.

Knollys, V.

Swinton, E. [Teller]

Lane-Fox, B.

Teviot, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lindsay, E.

Torphichen, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Torrington, V.

Long, V.

Tranmire, L.

Lothian, M.

Trefgarne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trenchard, V.

McAlpine of West Green, L

Trumpington, B.

McFadzean, L.

Tryon, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Ullswater, V.

Margadale, L.

Vestey, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Vivian, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Waldegrave, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Wise, L.

Avon, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.32 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in moving that further consideration on Report be now adjourned, I suggest that we do not resume proceedings on the Social Security Bill before half-past eight. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 1986
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th June be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the order we have before us, which amends the provisions of the 1975 exceptions order, arises from the need to ensure the fullest measure of protection for children. A number of serious incidents of assault on children by those in a position of trust (in particular the murder of Marie Payne) has led to a widespread concern that criminal records, which are normally treated as confidential, should be made more widely available to prevent unsuitable people obtaining such positions.
A review team has examined the system of disclosure of criminal records through local police

863
forces, and a copy of its published report is in the Library. One important recommendation of the report was that the existing exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act should be extended to cover beyond doubt all those groups of people considered by the review team to have substantial access to children. In particular, the review identified the need to cover child minders, and adults living in the same households as foster parents and child minders. We have felt impelled to amend the 1975 order to close these loopholes, but without upsetting the important balance which Parliament created between the interests of former offenders and the need to protect the public.
To ensure that no further loopholes might appear in future we have therefore formulated a new generalised exception at paragraph 14 covering activities concerned with the provision to children of any one of a wide range of different services, provided that the person carrying out such work will have access to persons under the age of 18 in the course of his normal duties. Thus, teachers will be excepted because they provide "schooling"; child minders, who were not previously covered, because they provide "care" and "supervision"; and so on.
It is worth noting that we have included in paragraph 14 other people who normally work on the same premises where work with children goes on. This additional provision already exists for school premises because of the special position of the school caretaker; and I need hardly remind your Lordships of one appalling recent instance in which a caretaker abused his position of trust. We think it right to adopt this safeguard generally.
The order also amends the 1975 order by extending the disapplication of Section 4(2) of the Act in relation to work with children. The new order permits questions about spent convictions in order to assess the suitability of a person to be concerned with such provision to children as is mentioned in the order, whether or not that provision is in the course of the person's office or employment. One situation about which we are particularly concerned where no question of employment arises is where a local authority having formal custody of a child is considering whether to return the child to the home of its natural mother on a trial basis. We think that when making its decision the local authority ought to be fully aware of the background both of the mother and of any person who may be living with her. The new provision will allow for questions about spent convictions to be asked in these and similar cirumstances.
The order also enables questions to be asked about the spent convictions of persons who live in the same household where provisions to children normally takes place. This will allow local authorities, for example, to obtain information about any spent convictions which a person living in the same household as a child minder may have which would justify refusing or curtailing the employment of the child minder.
I hope that this explanation has helped the House understand the intentions as well as the working of the new order. The order is important as a basis for the
864
procedures for disclosures of convictions. It continues the existing policy of safeguarding the most vulnerable groups in society and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th June be approved.—(Viscount Davidson.)
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount very much for explaining this order in such a clear way. It certainly helped me to see what is its objective. We very much welcome the measures that have been taken to protect children in every conceivable way. As the noble Viscount said, the right balance seems to have been achieved by the new proposals in this order.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount one question which arose during the Standing Committee in another place and which did not seem to be answered fully by the Minister. The question was whether the Minister was satisfied that the new exceptions cover volunteers helping in homes run by charities, homes where children are very much involved. It was pointed out that cases had come before the courts in which people had volunteered for quite the wrong reason. They had volunteered because they wished to be with children. I felt that the Minister's answer did not make it quite clear. I listened to what the noble Viscount said but I do not think he said anything about volunteers. I wonder whether he will kindly clear up this small point for me. Otherwise, we very much welcome this order.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I rise with a sense of nostalgia to speak on this matter because this was the principal Act on which I made my maiden speech many years ago.
I felt then that it was an Act as valuable as it was incomprehensible. That means that it was a very valuable Act indeed. I have felt ever since then with increasing force that that was so. This matter affects in many ways the ordinary citizen as he goes about his ordinary daily life. Can he ask a particular question of a particular person he wants to employ? Is the person he is interviewing obliged to answer it? Simple questions of that sort can be answered only with the aid of counsel's opinion, but it is perhaps rather too late now to do very much about that.
We welcome this order. We believe it is an important step towards increasing the protection of young children; and that of course is a very desirable aim. I was going to ask the same question as the noble Baroness asked. Repetition would be otiose and therefore I shall simply sit down and await the noble Viscount's answer.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for their welcome to this order. As regards voluntary workers, the question has never been addressed by the courts but it is our view that unpaid voluntary employment does constitute employment for the purposes of the Act. In any case, the current order extends the circumstances in which questions about spent convictions can be asked to all those, employed or not, who are concerned with provision for children. I hope that answers the question of the noble Baroness.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Functions of Traffic Wardens (Amendment) Order 1986
7.40 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Amendment) Order 1986 be approved.
This is the fourth draft Functions of Traffic Wardens Order to be laid before the House since traffic wardens' duties were put on a statutory footing in 1960. It amends the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1970, and is subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses.
The order is different from the previous three orders in that it does not extend the functions of traffic wardens nor provide for new powers or functions. The order arises from the need to enable traffic wardens to issue fixed penalty notices under Part III of the Transport Act 1982 when it is implemented on 1st October of this year. When Part III is brought into force the legislation mentioned in the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1970, as amended, which enables traffic wardens to issue fixed penalty notices at the moment, will be repealed. The order we have before us amends the 1970 order only in so far as it removes the reference to the repeal legislation and replaces it with a reference to the Transport Act 1982. The order therefore does no more than allow traffic wardens to go on doing what they do now, but under different legislation.
As the need for this order has arisen because of the implementation of Part III of the Transport Act 1982 it may be helpful to your Lordships' House if I say something very brief about that. As your Lordships know, there have for some years been problems in administering the present parking ticket system, particularly in London, where about half of all parking tickets issued are never paid. Part III is intended to remedy this unacceptable situation by providing that tickets unpaid within a specified period will, unless a court hearing has been requested, automatically be increased by 50 per cent. and registered for enforcement as a fine imposed by the courts. Thus, a £12 unpaid parking ticket will become an £ 18 fine, backed up with all the usual fine enforcement powers and machinery available to the courts.
In addition to these enforcement powers Part III also provides for an extended fixed penalty system. From October fixed penalty notices may be issued for a wide range of traffic offences including, for the first time, moving traffic offences including those for which a driver's licence may be endorsed. The provisions under Part III should relieve the courts of several hundred thousand minor traffic cases each year, although there is likely to be some mitigated effect in extra fine enforcement work. Also, there should be time savings for police officers because they will no longer have to prepare cases and attend court for prosecutions which are, in the context of the whole range of police officers' duties, for fairly minor offences.
As I said a moment ago, the parking ticket under the new system will be £12 as it is now. This will also be the penalty for other traffic offences, including moving ones, which do not require the endorsement of the driving licence. The fixed penalty for offences for
866
which a driver's licence will be endorsed will be £24. The same procedure for enforcing payment exists for these fixed penalties as for parking tickets; that is, an unpaid fixed penalty will, unless a court hearing has been requested, be increased by 50 per cent. and enforced as a fine.
This is, in brief, the new fixed penalty system but though it has important implications for the work of the police service and the courts, its implications for traffic wardens are small. They will not be empowered to deal with the majority of offences under the new system; in particular, they will not be empowered to deal with moving traffic offences for which a driver's licence will be endorsed. Their functions and powers will remain the same as at present.
I hope that this explanation has set the draft order in context. Your Lordships' will appreciate from what I have said that the order is simply a consequence of bringing Part III of the Transport Act 1982 into effect. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th June be approved. [29th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Viscount Davidson.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for explaining this order because tracing through the previous 1970 order and the two Acts—the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Transport Act 1982—is complicated. I was becoming worried at one stage, when the noble Viscount was detailing the powers under the new fixed penalty schemes and referring to speeding offences. I was glad that he made it clear at the end of his explanation that these do not apply to the duties of wardens and that, in fact, wardens have no extra duties except that they will now be able to issue fixed penalty notices. That will be of great help in law enforcement relating to parking and other offences and will be complementary to the powers of the police. Therefore, I am happy to welcome the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1986
7.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1986 be approved.
This order, the fourth of its kind, is intended to replace the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1984. It carries forward the provisions of the previous order and widens the scope of aircraft noise certification to include helicopters for the first time. It also applies the most stringent International Civil Aviation Organisation—known as ICAO—standards for subsonic jets to new types and derived versions of heavy propeller driven aeroplanes. As with the 1984 order, we thought it preferable to revoke the existing order rather than introduce an amending order. It is, after all, a complex enough document as it stands.
The present order, like that which it will replace, is to be made under the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and will give effect in the United Kingdom

867
to the noise standards agreed within ICAO at the seventh meeting of its committee on aircraft noise. These standards were promulgated last November. They are not operative within ICAO member states, however, until they are given effect in national legislation. The draft order before your Lordships is therefore designed to do just that.
Perhaps I should make the point that the standards which ICAO has developed are set at levels which have been shown to be technologically feasible and economically reasonable for the category of aircraft to which they apply. They ensure that all types of aircraft have equally stringent standards applied to them and that development of quieter aircraft keeps pace with the latest technological advances. The aviation industry in the UK has known for some time of these latest ICAO standards and is content that they should be introduced.
While aircraft noise is still a formidable problem around our major airports, a comparison of the 35 noise and number index contours—the generally recognised indicator for the on-set of annoyance—shows that between 1974 and 1984 the area within the contour around Heathrow nearly halved. This significant reduction is primarily the result of our noise certification policies.
The purpose of the order is to make another positive, if small, step towards reducing environmental disturbance. While the problem of aircraft noise will never go away entirely, it can be contained and I believe that while recognising the legitimate rights of those who use, operate and make the aircraft, these new standards represent a fair and reasonable balance between the interests of the environment and the technical feasibility and economic costs of meeting them. I commend the draft order to your Lordships, and beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July be approved.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, once again I am grateful, this time to the noble Earl, for explaining what he rightly says would otherwise be a complicated order. Anything that extends noise certification to extra craft is to be welcomed.
I believe the order is not to be considered by the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments in the other place until tomorrow and therefore I do not have the advantage of its comments, which is always useful. Perhaps the noble Earl will confirm that, as I believe, the order has been before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which is required before an affirmative order can be dealt with by this House.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am happy to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the order has been before the Joint Committee, which approved it without comment. I should like to add that it is nice for the other place to have our comments before we have theirs. I thank the noble Lord for his welcome to this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hovercraft (Civil Liability) Order 1986
7.50 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th July be approved. [29th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Hovercraft (Civil Liability) Order 1986 be approved.
As from 1st December 1986 the 1976 convention on limitation of liability for maritime claims will apply to shipowners' overall liability. From that date all the present legislation on limitation of liability of shipowners will be revoked, removing the legal basis for the 1979 order. Thus this order revokes and re-enacts with amendments the Hovercraft (Civil Liability) Order 1979.
As well as amending the overall liability, the order also updates all other limitation amounts for hovercraft on a uniform basis, using up-to-date exchange rates. Other amendments stem from the recent amendments of the Carriage by Air Act 1961.
Consultations have taken place with the industry and other interested parties, and as a result a new order has been laid rather than a complex amending order. I commend this order to your Lordships, and beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th July be approved. [29th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, without the explanation that the House has just had from the noble Earl this, again, would have been a very complicated order. I am certain that I would not have understood it without that explanation. As the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments in the other place met at 10.30, approved the order and rose at 10.31, I shall act in the same way on this occasion. I welcome the order.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his welcome of this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: 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 7.51 until 8.30 p.m.]

Social Security Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 61:
Leave out Clause 40 and insert the following new clause:
("Death grant
. (1) A death grant shall be payable in respect of each death which occurs after the commencement of this section on receipt of an application in the prescribed form by the personal representative of the deceased.
(2) A death grant shall be of a prescribed amount intended to cover the basic costs of a funeral and the Secretary of State may prescribe different amounts for different geographical areas.
(3) An amount under subsection (1) may be recovered in its entirety out of the estate of the deceased if that exceeds £10,000.
If the aforesaid estate is less than £10,000 but greater than £5,000, a fraction of the amount may be recovered out of the estate of the deceased which is equal to the fraction by which the estate exceeds £5,000 compared with £5,000 as quotient.
(4) Cirumstances may be prescribed in which the value of a house owned by the deceased or part thereof may be disregarded in determining the value of the estate for the purposes of this section.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed this amendment in Committee in conjunction with an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, which was designed to retain and increase the death grant as a contributory benefit. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord has now put his name to this amendment, as has the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
It will be recalled that the Government's proposal is to abolish the death grant altogether and to replace it in certain needy cases with a grant for funeral expenses under the proposed new social fund. I objected in Committee—and I still object—to what in effect is means-testing at the time of bereavement. There also seemed to me—and there still seems to me—to be powerful objections to making a grant dependent on a discretionary fund whose offices may well not be open at the time of the death and whose decision about whether or not to make an award could hardly be made at once across the counter. In the meantime, the deceased person's nearest relative or executor could be placed, at a time already of great natural stress, in the awkward and distressing situation of not being able to make suitable arrangements with an undertaker.
The amendment seeks to avoid all those complications and anxieties by specifying that a death grant shall be payable on application in respect of each death. It does not specify the amount, which will be left to the Secretary of State. However, the intention is that it should be a realistic amount for a very simple funeral. There is then a clawback provision whereby on estates of between £5,000 and £10,000 an increasing fraction is recovered and on estates of over £10,000 the full amount is repayable. In such cases a loan has, in effect, been made at a time of stress and personal difficulty which is later repaid in calmer circumstances. As the Government want to give people loans rather than grants as regards other personal difficulties, I should have thought that that principle would have appealed to them.
In Committee the noble Baroness said that both amendments—mine and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, as it then was—aimed to preserve universal assistance with funeral costs and that that could not be justified in the 1980s. On the first point, the present amendment cannot be described as "universal" as it is means-tested subsequently. On the second point, one very much wonders what is different about death in the 1980s from what it was at any previous period or from what it will be in the future. Whatever else changes, death at least is always the same, posing the same stresses and strains and demanding a decent and speedy burial.
On Monday, 30th June at col. 700 of the Official Report, the noble Baroness then went on to make some very high estimates of the cost of what she called making:
"interest-free loans to people who do not need help at the moment",
based on the assumption, I think, that it will be claimed for all deaths. She then made a very surprising statement. At col. 701, she said:
"Economics would tell us that if someone is offered a free loan of that size for the length of time it takes to settle the value of an estate, he is likely to take it. I would myself".
Whatever may be the inclinations of the noble Baroness, I think that that is a misreading of the likely behaviour of the generality of people. I really do not see the middle classes of England queuing up at benefit offices for a £300 loan whenever there is a death in the family. It is in any case likely that only some 60,000 out of the approximate 600,000 annual deaths would qualify for full relief. If, for example, the sum was £300 it would amount to £18 million, which is little more than the current cost, which the noble Baroness gave as £17 million. In net terms it will probably be little more than what the Government are proposing to do under the social fund, but it would be doing it the right way round and removing the means test at the time of bereavement. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, introduced an exactly similar clause at Committee stage. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that the Government still cannot accept such an amendment because of the financial and administrative consequences, and because we simply do not believe that it is needed.
This clause would provide for the full cost of a funeral to be met for anyone with an estate worth less than £5,000 excluding the value of his house, and for part of it to be met for anyone with an estate of up to £10,000. Moreover, it would mean that anyone, however well-off and able to meet the costs of a funeral, would be able to receive an interest-free loan equivalent to the funeral cost for as long as it took to settle the value of an estate. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, was surprised at my suggestion at Committee stage that this was what would happen. I have to tell him that the Government have to plan public expenditure on the basis that the worst could happen.
In our view, the amendment could lead to a gross cost to public expenditure of some £400 million, reducing to perhaps £185 million net after recovery. These figures are necessarily rather rough, but they illustrate the parameters of the increase we are talking about. The administrative cost would of course be considerable, in pursuing relatives and solicitors to check whether estates had been settled in up to—as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said—660,000 cases a year.
Under our social fund proposals, an initial sift is built in because help is directed towards people who are already assessed to have relatively low income and capital. There is no such sift in the noble Lords' amendment, and the costs I have quoted are very much a minimum. Automatic payment for funeral expenses will be payable to those in receipt of supplementary benefit, income support, housing benefit, FIS and family credit. So these people will know that, when a death occurs, help is available.
I submit that the proposed amendment is a costly and overgenerous attempt to provide help which most people do not need. It will succeed in assisting those who cannot meet funeral expenses only at the cost of

871
channelling a great deal of money to and from people who are perfectly well able to pay the bills themselves. I sympathise very much with the noble Lords' intention in trying to target better help on poorer people—something the present universal death grant conspicuously does not do. But I do not believe their proposal does it in an effective or efficient way. Our social fund proposals will, we believe, achieve the same objective more simply, and will give help in those cases where it is needed at a much lower overall cost.
We have already debated funeral expenses in the context of the social fund, and those proposals stand part of the Bill. One further reason for my resistance to this proposed clause is that it could now duplicate provisions to which your Lordships have already expressed your agreement by passing Clause 33. For that reason, as well as the financial and administrative arguments I have set out, I urge you to reject this proposed new clause.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the Minister. The social fund will help those in the greatest need. Those who are well-off with good accountants will make certain that their estates, for taxation purposes, are at the lowest possible level. As I see it, those who are well-off will be able to claim the grant much more readily than those who just slip out of the social fund net. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will really be trying to help the wrong people.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for striving to allay my anxieties. She merely repeated the same extravagant figures—as I think I may call them—that she used in Committee. She referred to the initial sift of the social fund, but rejected the idea of a natural sift through the good sense of people who would not claim when they would not need to.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, but it is rather unlikely that even with the cleverest accountant a large number of well-off people will reduce their estates to between £5,000 and £10,000. The most important point made by the noble Baroness is that she instanced—I may be wrong, but I do not think that this emerged in our previous debates—the benefits which would act as a passport to the payment of funeral expenses. As far as I can see, that is not in the Bill. I do not think that it has been previously mentioned in our debates.
If I heard the noble Baroness aright, what she said is helpful. Before I decide what to do regarding the amendment perhaps she will confirm that supplementary benefit, family income supplementary, income support and possibly one or two other benefits that I did not catch, would act as an automatic passport to the payment of funeral expenses under the social fund. I wonder whether, with the leave of the House, she would confirm that.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, is correct.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, in that case we have progressed a little. That was not clear previously. From our previous debates it appeared that a person would have to go along and make a case for the payment. There now seems to be some grounds for the case to be made automatically. I regard that as an improvement on my understanding of the situation as it was before, and on those grounds I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport): My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?
Baroness Trumpington: No—
8.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 61) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 79.

DIVISION NO.5

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Banks, L. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Barnett, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Nicol, B.

Buckmaster, V.

Parry, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Phillips, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Donoughue, L.

Seear, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stallard, L.

Ennals, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jeger, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kagan, L.

Underbill, L.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

White, B.

Lawrence, L.

Wigoder, L.

McNair, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Alport, L.

Gisborough, L.

Argyll, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Bathurst, E.

Gray, L.

Bauer, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hacking, L.

Belstead, L.

Harvington, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Henley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hives, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hooper, B.

Caithness, E.

Ingrow, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kimball, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Coleraine, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Colwyn, L.

Lothian, M.

Craigavon, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Davidson, V.

Lyell, L.

Donegall, M.

McFadzean, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Margadale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Merrivale, L.

Elton, L.

Mersey, V.

Faithfull, B.

Middleton, L.

Ferrier, L.

O'Hagan, L.

873

Orr-Ewing, L.

Teviot, L.

Polwarth, L.

Torphichen, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Torrington, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Renton, L.

Trenchard, V.

Ridley, V.

Trumpington, B.

Rochdale, V.

Ullswater, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Vivian, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Soames, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wise, L.

Swinfen, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.50 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I have to advise your Lordships that there is a misprint on the Marshalled List in the first line of Amendment No. 61A. It should read:
Page 48, line 18, leave out ("have effect") and insert, etc.
Clause 41 [Abolition of reduced rate of short-term benefits.]
Lord Pitt of Lord Pitt of Hampstead moved Amendment No. 61A:
Page 48, line 18, leave out ("have effect") and insert ("apply to a person who—
(a) has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to make good any deficiency in the contributions paid by or credited to him in respect of any relevant past year within the meaning of that Act so as to enable him to fulfil the contribution conditions specified in Schedule 3, Part 1 of that Act in relation to any benefit which he (upon such fulfilment) is entitled, or
(b) has had repaid to him such contributions as were paid by or credited to him during any such year being a year in respect of which he shall have failed to fulfil the said condition.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should be moving that Clause 41 shall not stand part of the Bill. But, of course, the House has already accepted Clause 41 as part of the Bill. The amendment is what I would call a damage limitation amendment. Clause 41 abolishes the reduced rates of unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and maternity benefit. At present, benefit can be paid at 50 per cent., 75 per cent. or 100 per cent. depending on the contributions paid. Clause 41 abolishes all the rates below 100 per cent. As a consequence, many people will suffer. They will mainly be women—those who work part-time, the low paid, casual workers and people who break unemployment with low paid work for short periods. They will suffer. The lower the earnings, the less national insurance is paid and the more significant the breaks in employment unless they are covered by national insurance credits.
This is especially important for sickness benefit claimants as they can go, at present, from a reduced rate of sickness benefit after 28 weeks on to long-term invalidity benefit at the higher rate. If these changes go through, anyone with less than 100 per cent. national insurance contributions would receive no national insurance sickness benefit for 28 weeks. After that, they would be able to apply only for the lower rating, and it is very hard to qualify for the severe disablement allowance because the disability has to be 80 per cent. I remember a year or so ago speaking on this point of
874
the disablement allowance. In addition, they will lose national insurance credits.
It is rather sad. The abolition of reduced rates of short-term benefit did not appear in the Green or White Papers, which meant that people were not prepared for it. We did not have the arguments that would normally take place concerning proposals in a Green Paper. Many people will be affected. It is estimated that 66,000 people on reduced rate unemployment benefit will be affected. The Minister, in another place, indicated that 6,500 people will be affected in terms of invalidity benefit. So we are not talking about something that will not affect many people. It will affect quite a few.
I come now to my damage limitation attempt. There is existing provision to make good a shortfall in contributions two years from the tax year in which short-term benefits were due. Of course, benefit cannot be paid for the first six weeks after payment of contributions. There are longer periods for people such as students and prisoners in whose case it is six years. I am suggesting that people in this difficult situation should be allowed to make good the contribution that they failed to make during the course of a year. This requires, of course, that the DHSS informs them there and then that they are short. They should be allowed to make good the amount and therefore qualify. That is one approach.
The other, if the first suggestion cannot be allowed, is that they should be given back the contributions that they have made. It seems to me wrong to take their contributions and then to say that, merely because they did not reach full contributions, they are to get nothing. It seems to me that the former of my two suggestions is the better. One wants to be able to say to people at the end of a year that they have fallen short by a certain amount but that if they make it good they will be entitled to sickness benefit. If, however, the Government do not wish to do that, they should give back the contributions. I hope that the Government will react to the first of my suggestions rather than the second. If they cannot act on the first, I hope that at least they will act on the second. 1 beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Pitt has rendered the House a significant service by bringing this matter to our attention. I feel very guilty in that, when originally reading through the Bill, I did not realise the implications of Clause 41. Until my noble friend put down the amendment—here I make my own confession—I did not realise what a miserable and wretched piece of work the Government are doing. I wonder whether those on the other side have recognised before now just what the Bill does to a significant group of people.
The issue concerns people who have all paid national insurance. They know that, as a result of paying national insurance, they are entitled, quite apart from the pension, to get unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and maternity benefit. That is why they pay. As regards those who are not fully paid up for various reasons—women working part-time and casual workers, for instance—they do not expect, if they have not paid full contributions, to get their full benefit. However, unless I read it wrongly, the Bill in

875
the space of four lines, abolishes any entitlement at all. Unless the Minister can point out that this clause does not mean what I think it means and what my noble friend Lord Pitt thinks it means, it appears that however long you have contributed to national insurance, the fact that you are not fully up to date means that it is just too bad for you and that you will not get any benefit.
We recognise, as my noble friend said, that at present benefits can be paid at 50 per cent., 75 per cent. or 100 per cent. depending on contributions paid. Does the national insurance principle mean anything at all to the Government? This seems to be the issue at stake. The Government appear prepared to take a further step to erode the insurance principle of our national insurance scheme by taking enforceable national insurance contributions that will bring no benefit in return to the contributors at their time of insured need. Surely, this is immoral. Surely, it is wrong either to take contributions and not pay benefit or, having taken contributions, not to pay benefit.
How many will this affect? If the Government are going to do this extraordinarily miserable act and bring hardship on the people concerned, and force them to go on to the supplementary benefit level—as must be the consequence in many cases—how many will it affect? How much money will the Government save? Is there any other motive than sheer saving of money that has caused the Government to put in this miserable Clause 41?
Of course if the noble Lord had noticed it earlier, or if my noble friend and I had done so, we should have said, "Delete Clause 41" and I think we might have carried the House with us. I cannot think that your Lordships would want to "do the dirty"—which is what this clause is doing—to people who, for perfectly honest and reasonable reasons, have not been able to be fully up-to-date in their national insurance contributions and will therefore lose their benefit.
Can the Minister in her reply say what is the motive for doing this? How many people will suffer from it? Does she still believe in the national insurance principle and, if so, why are the Government taking this action?
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to say briefly that I have a great deal of sympathy with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. It seems to me that the operation of this clause needs considerable explanation to find out who will be affected, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, the extent to which they will be affected, and when this would take effect.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that this amendment is based on some misunderstanding of the rules governing entitlement to those short-term benefits and I suggest that the contingencies which the amendment seeks to guard against are already covered in the Social Security Act 1975 and regulations.
For example, it is only Class I contributions paid by a person's employer that count for unemployment benefit. If those contributions are not paid because of the employer's default, the contributions can be deemed to be paid. If a person becomes unemployed,
876
he is credited with a contribution for each week he is unemployed until he finds work again. There is therefore no need for a person to make additional contributions in this situation. I could perhaps mention that a person with Class I earnings of £150 a week will have paid sufficient contributions to qualify for full unemployment benefit in three months.
If a person is self-employed, there is a legal liability to pay a Class II contribution for each week that the person is so engaged. Payment of those contributions is enforced. Class II contributions count for sickness benefit and maternity allowance and again credits are awarded for weeks when a person is drawing those benefits. Again the payment of additional contributions on a voluntary basis does not arise and is not necessary. Those who are not working either for an employer or on their own account, may pay Class III contributions. Those count for pensions and other long-term benefits but not for the short-term benefits with which Clause 41 is concerned.
Contributions paid may only be refunded where they were clearly paid in error and there is no provision for repayment of contributions credited. Perhaps I may try to reply to the questions by the noble Lords, Lord Pitt and Lord Ennals, with regard to giving back contributions if not entitled to 100 per cent. benefit. The national insurance scheme is a social insurance scheme whereby liability for national insurance contributions is based on a person's ability to pay, and not on his personal expectation of entitlement to benefit. Although a person builds up a contribution record for benefit purposes his contributions are paid into the national insurance fund to help pay for current beneficiaries. There is a general pooling of risks, and national insurance contributions can be likened to car insurance, whereby one does not get one's premium back at the end of the year if one does not have an accident, or, in this case, a need to call on the national insurance fund to provide a contingency benefit.
The invalidity benefit situation is that invalidity benefit is essentially an income replacement benefit which is payable to persons who are incapable of work for more than 28 weeks and who have had title, or underlying title, to sickness benefit, for which the contribution conditions must be satisfied. Payment of full rate sickness benefit depends on the claimant having been paid or credited with contributions on earnings of 50 times the lower earnings limit in the relevant tax year. This condition is not difficult to satisfy. For 1986–87 a person need earn only £1,900 to qualify for benefit at the full rate. It is not therefore considered to be proper to pay invalidity benefit in circumstances where entitlement to sickness benefit does not exist.
The number of people who would have qualified for invalidity benefit through entitlement to a reduced rate benefit is small—estimated at 6,500 in the first full year, 1987–88. Supplementary benefit will be available for any claimant for whom loss of benefit would cause hardship. Transitional protection will of course be given to people already receiving reduced rate benefit at the time of the change.
The Governemnt have given careful consideration to the arrangements for paying half and three-quarter rates of unemployment, sickness and maternity

877
benefits and have concluded that they are an unjustified use of resources. Their abolition will be a useful simplification of the benefit system, which everyone agrees is too complicated, and will produce a benefit saving of about £25 million in a full year.
The numbers affected will be small. About 19,000 people at any one time are receiving reduced unemployment benefit without supplementary benefit out of some 2.6 million unemployed benefit recipients. In a full year perhaps 50,000 unemployed people will be affected. The number receiving reduced sickness or maternity benefit will be negligible, now that the statutory sick pay has been extended to 28 weeks. More than half of those who receive reduced rates—22,000 for unemployment benefit—receive supplementary benefit on top. They will not be affected. Supplementary benefit will be available for any of the losers whose resources are insufficient.
Transitional protection will be available for those drawing reduced rate benefit at the time that the change is introduced. Contributions paid may be refunded only where they were clearly paid in error, and there is no provision for repayment of contributions credited. I ask your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that 19,000 people will be affected and that there will be a saving of £25 million. Is it really worth it, to inflict that hardship on 19,000 people?
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, the noble Baroness began by suggesting that I was wrong and so I had to rush out to obtain a copy of the Act. It specifically states that, after the 1975 Act, there is an allowance for payment, as I said, where people have not made their full contributions. They receive a partial payment. That is what Section 33(1) of the 1975 Act states. It refers to unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, maternity benefit, maternity allowance, mother's allowance, widow's pension, Category A retirement pension, and Category B retirement pension.
Clause 41 of the Bill would abolish all that. The suggestion that I am on the wrong track is quite incorrect. Clause 41 would deprive people of their entitlement. I am sorry that I must repeat that, but I was flabbergasted when the Minister suggested that I was wrong; I had to obtain a copy of the Act to satisfy myself, because I could not believe that a Minister would stand at the Dispatch Box and suggest that I was wrong about an Act that was on the statute book for all to see.
The situation is that I was perfectly right. The Minister went on to admit that in her speech. Certain people will be deprived of their benefit. The Minister says that there will not be many of them. She began by mentioning a figure of 19,000, and she ended by saying that the figure would be 50,000. She confirmed my figure of 6,500 people in respect of sickness and invalidity benefit. Of course many people will be affected. The saving, in the context of social security expenditure, will be negligible. The Minister will save £25 million, but she will put a lot of people into real difficulty.
878
I suggest that my amendment would be quite helpful. If a person did not make their contribution in, for example, 1986–87, one would draw their attention to the fact that they had not paid their full contribution but that if they paid it within a certain time, they would be back in business. That seems to be sensible. If one does not do that, one ought to give them back pay.
The Minister spoke about car insurance, but when one does not claim on car insurance, although one does not receive a refund on the premium, there is a reduction on the next premium; there is such a thing as a no-claims bonus. One cannot compare a person's unemployment and sickness with car insurance. To what level are we descending? We are talking about people who have been unemployed or who have been ill, and who as a consequence need the help that is provided by the legislation in the social security system.
I do not know what to do about this amendment. One could call for a vote and then lose it, and nothing would be gained by that. However, I hope that the Government will think again. They can still introduce regulations to correct the situation. I hope that the Minister will refer this matter back to her department and ask them to examine it again and to introduce the kind of regulations that would prevent there being any deprivation. It is too petty to cause so much hardship for a saving of £25 million. I shall withdraw the amendment, but I hope that the Government will recognise that their way is not the right way to approach the problem. I hope that the Minister will return to her department and ask them to reconsider this matter. I know that they can deal with it by regulations, and so there is no real need for us to include such a provision in the Bill. I do hope that the Government will act.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness, for those of us who are now thoroughly confused by the whole thing, whether she could tell us accurately and authoritatively what Section 33( 1) of the 1975 Act says and means? I am completely lost now as to what it is all about.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I wonder whether I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, that we shall certainly look again at this from the point of view of regulations. Regulations, as the noble Lord will appreciate, are always changing, and are always liable to change. I hope that the noble Lord will rest on what I have said.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Clause 45 [Statutory maternity pay—entitlement and liability to pay]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 51, line 14, at end insert ("but section 23A of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982 shall have effect in relation to paragraph (a) above as it has effect in relation to section l(2)(a) of that Act but as if the reference to statutory sick pay were a reference to statutory maternity pay").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment which brings statutory maternity pay into line with existing provisions on statutory sick pay and maternity pay. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 51, line 25, at end insert—
("(aa) specify circumstances in which, notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the liability to make payments of statutory maternity pay is to be a liability of his;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 64, and at the same time discuss Amendment No. 75. During the Report stage in another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Social Security announced a change in the arrangements for statutory maternity pay where an employer fails to pay statutory maternity pay even though a DHSS adjudication officer has ruled that he is liable to pay.
As your Lordships may know—indeed, I recall the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, raising this on other occasions in this House—in the present statutory sick pay scheme where the employer fails to pay statutory sick pay the last resort is for the employee to take action in the civil courts to obtain payment. This happens very rarely indeed. We know of only four such cases in relation to statutory sick pay. Invariably the employer makes the payment once a formal decision has been received, but as the Minister made clear in the other place we accept that this is not a wholly satisfactory position.
I am sure your Lordships will be pleased, therefore, that under the powers conveyed by this amendment we intend to provide in regulation that the Secretary of State will, in certain circumstances, take over the payment of statutory maternity pay. The employee herself will thus no longer be faced with the prospect of having to take the employer to court if he fails to comply with the decision of an adjudication officer or, as the case may be, a social security appeal tribunal. Where this occurs the employer will be liable to prosecution by the department for failure to pay.
Perhaps in addition I should say that Amendment No. 75, which we are also discussing, provides for the money for payments made by the Secretary of State in these circumstances to come from the national insurance fund. I should also tell your Lordships that a later amendment will provide similarly for statutory sick pay. I hope your Lordships will welcome these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Regulations about claims for and payments of benefit]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 56, line 10, at end insert ("by such person as may be prescribed").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments No. 65 and 66 have already been spoken to. I beg to move Amendment No. 65.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Adjudication]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 124, line 41, leave out paragraph (c).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [False representations for obtaining benefit etc.]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 62, line 20, leave out from ("false") to end of line 22 and insert ("or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 67, with which I propose to speak to Amendment No. 69. These two amendments remove the "recklessness" offences from the Bill in fulfilment of an undertaking given by the Government at Committee stage. I shall not take up your Lordships' time unduly by repeating what was said in Committee. Suffice it to say that the concern expressed about the proposed criminal recklessness offences was sufficiently compelling to warrant the removal of these provisions from the Bill. I commend these amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 68, as an amendment to Amendment No. 67, not moved.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 62, line 26, leave out from ("particular") to end of line 28.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Annual up-rating of benefits):
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 69A:
Page 71, line 13, at end insert ("specified in regulations").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 70:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause:
("Liability of Secretary of State to pay statutory sick pay in prescribed circumstances.
. The following subsections shall be added at the end of section 1 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982—
"(5) Circumstances may be prescribed in which, notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the liability to make payments of statutory sick pay is to be a liability of the Secretary of State.
(6) Any sums paid under regulations made by virtue of subsection (5) above shall be paid out of the National Insurance fund.".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this new clause matches the amendments we discussed earlier on statutory maternity pay. Where an employer fails to comply with the adjudicating authorities' decision that he is liable to pay SSP regulations made under this provision will enable the Secretary of State to take over payments. In view of our earlier discussion, I do not think there is any need for me to say anything to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 71:
After Clause 68, insert the following new clause:
("Carers' benefit.
.—(1) The Secretary of State may, subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament, make regulations providing for the payment of a carers' benefit.
(2) A person shall be eligible for the payment of carers' benefit if he is engaged in the full-time care of a relative who is either—

(a) male and over sixty-five;

(b) female and over sixty;

(c) chronically sick and disabled; or

(d) otherwise in need of continual care.

(3) Regulations may provide for the value of the benefit to be so payable.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it has always been part of our policy to extend invalid care allowance to married and cohabitating women. During the passage of this Bill the Government have been obliged to concede that extension as a result of the Drake case in the European court. That concession took the form of Amendment No. 59 today which the noble Baroness moved and which the House welcomed, particularly my noble friend Lady Seear from these Benches. I welcome that, but I see it as a first necessary step towards a more embracing carers' benefit rather than as the end of the road.
Invalid care allowance will now be extended to some 70,000 married women at a cost which I believe the Government have assessed at £55 million. But deserving though they undoubtedly are they are by no means the only carers who require help. It has been estimated that 90 per cent. of the mentally ill and 80 per cent. of the mentally handicapped are cared for full time by their families: the latter alone amounting to perhaps some 200,000 people. Without these carers the burden on the public services would be overwhelming.
If we turn back to the mentally ill, about 180,000 people a year are admitted to and discharged from mental hospitals. In many areas there are virtually no community support services for them. The number of beds for geriatric patients in hospitals has been cut by 10,000 since 1979. Many hundreds of small hospitals which could have become community resources for respite leave and short stay hospitalisation have been closed. Again without informal carers the social and health services would simply have broken down.
We believe that this basic contribution to community care must be recognised. Of course, it will not come cheap—though it will come cheaper than institutional care—and I shall not try to conceal this. The calculations made by my party on the basis of the maximum of potential claimants at 460,000, assuming 360,000 actual claimants, show that the cost would be in the region of £300 million. But before I get a "shock horror" response to this, I want to draw the attention of the House to some recent calculations.
The most recent review of research on informal care by Parker in 1985 estimated that there are at least 1·3 million people acting as principal carers to dependent elderly persons, other disabled adults and children receiving daily support. If we take the average gross hourly cost of home help services in 1984–85, which was £3·10 per hour, and then we make two different assumptions about the hours of care per week required by elderly or handicapped persons, we get the following figures. Assuming 3½ hours a day or 24½
882
hours a week, we get a total of 1.3 million people and a cost of £5·134 million. If we assume 5 hours a day or 35 hours a week, the figure is £7·335 million.
Turning to public expenditure, if 10 per cent. of these informal caring jobs were not done because the carer could no longer cope, and 10 per cent, of those 1·3 million dependants required residential accommodation at an average cost of £170 a week, the public cost of providing for these 130,000 dependent persons would be nearly £1,150,000.
can see that these are illustrative figures, but I think it it permissible to use them because the Government have claimed the same privilege throughout the Bill and the noble Baroness herself in an earlier amendment used what she described as rough figures. The point is that if a successful policy of community care is to be pursued and as many people as possible are to be kept out of institutions, informal carers will simply have to have more assistance. It is something which has to be faced up to. The invalid care allowance passed by your Lordships earlier this afternoon is a step, I repeat, in the right direction which we welcome. But the Government cannot simply rest on their laurels—laurels placed, it has to be said, on a reluctant brow. Sensible and humane planning for future widespread community care will require further steps. I hope the Government recognise this, and I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I added my name to this amendment largely because I wanted to know what the noble Baroness would say. It was not my intention that this should be an amendment on which there should be a vote. However, I think we have to recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. has said, that in our society a vast proportion of our elderly population, an increasing proportion of the mentally ill, the handicapped and the mentally handicapped are now living at home. They are cared for at home by a variety of different people who do not necessarily come under the invalid care allowance, and some of the people who are being cared for are not necessarily invalids.
It is my view that at some stage in the development of our welfare state we will need a form of benefit for those who are at present being cared for by this very large number of carers—running into millions, I should have thought—or we will need to find a way of assisting the carers. It perhaps does not make a great deal of difference which way it is done, but it is almost the basis of community care in our society. As I said at the beginning, I put my name to this amendment because I thought it was an interesting one. It is not an amendment on which I would seek a vote, but it is one on which I would be interested to know the thinking of Her Majesty's Government.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, what is proposed in this amendment is clearly vastly different in scope from the invalid allowance which is the benefit for carers of severely disabled people. The proposal seems to have some kinship with what the SDP had in mind when they launched their "Carer's Charter" in April 1984. We have now brought forward the promised legislation for the extension of invalid care allowance to married women. I hope that noble Lords opposite

883
will give us credit for this—indeed they have. It was difficult to see exactly which groups would be eligible for the carer's benefit proposed as part of the charter and I am grateful therefore to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for giving your Lordships' House the opportunity to consider in greater detail what might be involved.
Let us examine the elements of the proposal. To be eligible, the carer has to be engaged in full-time care of a relative. "Full-time care" is not defined. Let us say, as with the qualifying condition for ICA, that the carer needs to spend at least 35 hours per week in caring, or five hours each day. Looking then at the groups listed, we can surmise that since a wife can easily spend at least five hours a day caring for her husband in tasks such as cooking, washing, ironing, bed-making and so on, retired couples looking after each other would probably qualify, since no age limit is given for carers. We have no indication as to whether the proposed carers' benefit would overlap with retirement pension or whether it could be paid in addition.
The next category consists of people who are either chronically sick and disabled or people otherwise in need of continual care. Since these two groups are given as alternatives, I can only assume that there is a distinction between the two which is not immediately apparent without some definition. It is equally uncertain whether the issue of overlapping benefit has been addressed. Would entitlement to ICA cease or would it continue along with the proposed carers' benefit?
Just to add to our already considerable diffculties with the scope of the new clause, it is not clear whether the categories are mutually exclusive or only partially so. For example, do the people of retirement age have to be chronically sick and disabled or otherwise in need of continual care for the carer to qualify? If so, the new clause curiously omits disabled people of working age for whom there appears to be no provision if the new carers' benefit would be intended to replace invalid care allowance. Similarly, ICA is payable to those caring for non-relatives, whereas the carer's benefit would be confined to relatives only.
I turn now to the question of cost. It will have become apparent that we have had some difficulty. Numbers of potential beneficiaries are thus hard to guess at. I do not argue at all with the figures of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. The figures he quoted are from the recent Family Policy Studies Centre briefing on caring costs, which put a notional hourly value on care of £3.10. So, on this basis £108.50 would be indicated for 35 hours of care a week. Applying this to the figure of 1.3 million carers of those with disabilities quoted in the briefing would give an annual cost of £1.5 billion: exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said. As I have indicated, however, it is by no means certain that only 1.3 million people would qualify. It appears to cover anyone over pension age being cared for by a relative, including a spouse, on a full-time basis and not only those who are severely disabled, although I accept that this may not have been the intended effect.
Our commitment to carers has been demonstrated by the amendments we have made to the Bill extending invalid care allowance to some 70,000
884
married women at a full-year cost of £55 million. The amendment put down by the noble Lords would have massive additional resource implications. I really cannot recommend to your Lordships' House an amendment which would make such an open-ended commitment on top of the substantial increases which the Government have themselves agreed to. I would therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having given us the Government's views on a proposal of this nature. I was glad that the noble Baroness referred to the carers' charter published by the SDP, because this had very wide acclaim among a great number of groups up and down the country. It was very widely welcomed indeed.
As regards the references (a) and (b) in the amendment to retired people, obviously the qualification would not be if each member of a couple is making the other's bed. That is clearly not the case. The amendment refers to "full-time care of a relative", and that has to be read sensibly. Equally, in paragraphs (c) and (d) of the amendment, if a wider benefit were introduced it is likely that existing benefits would be subsumed into it. So I do not think that the points which the noble Baroness made against it are necessarily condemning it out of hand.
The calculation that I quoted was, I think, made for a potential take-up of 460,000 people and an actual take-up of 360,000. I gave the figure, which has been calculated by some of our experts, in the region of £300 million. I accept that it is a large sum of money. I do not know whether "massive" is the right adjective in relation to the figures that I quoted for the cost of institutional care, but I wanted to see whether the Government really grasped the enormous contribution made by carers in our society to the avoidance of these huge costs of institutional care. I am not sure whether that came through from the noble Baroness's reply.
Anyway, we are most grateful to her for having tried to grapple with this. The amendment is purely permissive. I am certainly not intending to press it to a Division, and I do not think there is any reason why the noble Baroness should force us into another Division. We have had an interesting discussion on the matter and we have heard the Government's views. On those grounds, I am quite happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I correct myself in case I made a mistake? I just want to make sure that I said that at £108.50 for 1.3 million people the cost is £7.3 billion, not £1.5 billion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 [National insurance contributions]:
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness White): My Lords, I should perhaps indicate that Amendment No. 71A to Clause 72, and the following Amendment No. 71B, should have appeared in the name of the noble

885
Baroness, Lady Trumpington. I believe also that there is a printing error in Amendment No. 71A, which should read:
"Page 78, line 26, leave out from ('following')…".
I think that is the correct version.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 71A:
Page 78, line 26, leave out from ("following") to end of line 34 and insert ("subsections shall be inserted after subsection (5)—
"(5A) Without prejudice to section 122(3) and (4) above, the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, by order amend this section, in relation to any tax year beginning after the tax year 1986–87—

(a) by substituting a different percentage for the percentage for the time being specified in paragraph (i) or (ii) of subsection (4) above or for each of the percentages specified in those paragraphs;

(b) by directing that there shall be no appropriate employment protection allocation; or

(c) by directing that there shall be an appropriate employment protection allocation only in the case of primary Class 1 contributions or only in the case of secondary Class 1 contributions.

(5B) At any time when an order under subsection (5A) above containing a direction under paragraph (b) of that subsection is in force, the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, by order direct that there shall be an appropriate employment protection allocation of such percentage in the case of primary Class 1 contributions or secondary Class 1 contributions, or both, as may be specified in the order.
(5C) At any time when an order under subsection (5A) above containing a direction under paragraph (c) of that subsection is in force, the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, by order direct that there shall be an appropriate employment protection allocation of such percentage as may be specified in the order in the case of the description of contributions in whose case there is, by virtue of the direction, no such allocation.
(5D) Any percentage specified as an allocation by an order under subsection (5B) or (5D) above shall be deemed to be inserted at the appropriate place in subsection (4) above and an order under subsection (5A)(a) above may accordingly be made in respect of it.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 72(3) allows the Secretary of State to change by order the employment protection allocation, without necessarily changing the overall national insurance contribution rate, by inserting a new subsection into Section 134 of the Social Security Act 1975. The clause is, however, deficient in that it does not allow a zero rate to be set. The proposed amendments will enable a zero rate for the employment protection allocation to be set in respect of either employers' or employees' national insurance contributions, or both. These amendments will also allow the Secretary of State to return from a zero rate for the employment protection allocation to a positive rate. I am sure that noble Lords will support these amendments. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 71B.
Page 78, line 36, leave out (""or (4C)"") and insert (""(5A), (5B)or(5C)"").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 73 [Earnings factors]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 79, line 4, leave out from first ("Security") to end of line 6 and insert ("Acts 1975 and the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1977 shall be amended in accordance with Schedule 8 to this Act in relation to earnings factors for the tax year in which this section comes into force and subsequent tax years.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 72, and will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 73. This amendment, and the associated technical amendment to Schedule 8, are wholly consequential upon the new provisions for earnings factors to be derived from actual earnings rather than contributions. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Earnings factors]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No 73:
Page 132, line 39, at end insert—
("4A. In subsection (4) of section 3 (married women and widows) for the words from "contributions" to "rate" there shall be substituted the words "earnings upon which primary Class 1 contributions are paid at a reduced rate by virtue of regulations under subsection (2) above or from Class 2 contributions paid at a reduced rate by virtue of such regulations".
4B. In subsection (1) of section 5 of that Act (voluntary contributions) after the word "from" there shall be inserted the words "earnings upon which Class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as paid or from Class 2".).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 81 [Orders and regulations (general provisions)]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 73A:
Page 83, line 5, at end insert—
("(bb) orders under section 31(2) or (2A) above which are made before the coming into operation of those subsections;")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I may remind your Lordships of three amendments, Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48, which were moved earlier this evening by my noble friend Lady Hooper on behalf of my noble friend Lady Trumpington. The first of those amendments, No. 46, will allow benefit subsidy to be based on a notional as well as an actual benefit cost. This will facilitate the Government's objective of ensuring that local authorities have some stake in the amount of benefit paid, and at the same time it is of course an alternative to subsidising housing benefit through rate support grant. The second amendment would permit administration costs to be directly subsidised. The third amendment, No. 48, is consequential upon Amendments Nos. 46 and 47. Broadly speaking, those amendments are enabling amendments only; they do not write provisions into primary legislation.
My amendment to Clause 81 would ensure that Parliament has a chance to consider, debate and approve the first subsidy orders that are made under Clause 31. They would be subject to the much stronger affirmative resolution procedure rather than the negative resolution procedure. The amendment will be an important safeguard in the continuing negotiations after the enactment of the Bill in securing that local authorities are adequately protected. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lady Faithfull will not faint with amazement—I am happy to accept her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am almost speechless. May I thank my noble friend the Minister for accepting an amendment? It gives me great pleasure not to be voting against the Government, or indeed, in this case for the Government because they have accepted the amendment. I am most grateful.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I just want to say that I was reading to the right amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 83. line 11, at end insert—
("( ) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions) regulations relating to income-related benefits, under section 20(1), 21(3), 21(5), 21(6), 22(1), 22(4), 22(6) or 22(7X6) of this Act, which are made before the coming into operation of those benefits, shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and both Houses by resolution approve the draft either without modification or addition or with the modifications or additions to which both Houses agree, but upon such approval being given the instrument may be made in the form in which it has been approved and on being so made shall be deemed to be valid and within the powers of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a similar amendment was moved in Committee in another place by Mrs. Beckett, but there was no time for any discussion on it; nor was there a vote on it. The amendment is prompted by the large number of important matters which are left in the Bill to regulation. When we look at Part II of the Bill dealing with income-related benefits we find that many quite fundamental aspects of the proposals are not in the Bill and will be determined by regulation. Part II of the Bill consists largely of regulation-making powers. For example, income support rates are defined in Clause 22(1) as,
"such amount or the aggregate of such amounts as may be prescribed".
The three schemes themselves are to be prescribed. The premiums for particular categories are not even mentioned in the Bill; nor are the qualifying conditions for receiving them given. The capital cut-off point is to be prescribed under Clause 22(5). The prescribed part of the person's capital that may be disregarded will be in regulations. The treatment of capital below the cut-off point is to be prescribed under Clause 22(6) and disregards of earnings of other income may be prescribed under Clause 22(7)(b).
In contrast to this, in the supplementary benefit Act of 1966, the provisions were set out in detail in Schedule 2 to the Act headed:
"Provisions for determining the right to and amount of benefit".
That schedule set out the basic benefit rules, long-term additions to benefit, the circumstances in which such additions were payable, the amounts to be allowed for rent, the deductions for non-dependants, the treatment of capital resources, the earnings disregard and the details of other income disregards. All those were in the Bill. While the Minister was empowered to increase the benefit rates by regulation, the basic
888
benefit rates were in the Bill and they were fully debated in Parliament.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has several times said in our discussions on this Bill that there will be a full debate on the regulations. We all know that regulations do not receive the same scrutiny as does a Bill. We know that there is a convention that the House does not oppose regulations to which the Commons have already agreed. We know that we cannot amend regulations. These are the factors which make discussion of regulations in this House so unsatisfactory. This amendment seeks to ensure that regulations relating to the income-related benefits established under this Bill are subject to amendment by Parliament.
This amendment covers the schemes themselves, the benefit rates, the family credit and housing benefit tapers, the calculation of income and capital, the capital cut-off point and assumed income from capital, and the income and capital disregards. It is important to stress that there is no reason at all why both Houses of Parliament should not be given the right to amend statutory instruments under a particular Act. Erskine May, on page 617 of the 20th edition, says:
"Power has occasioally been given to both Houses to approve a draft Order in Council or draft departmental order with modifications and in such cases the orders could only be made with such modifications as have been agreed by both Houses. If the two Houses differ in their amendments, machinery must be improvised for reconciling the differences".
Reference is then made to a particular occasion when the need for such machinery arose—under the Government of India Act 1935—and a suitable procedure was devised.
The present position that statutory instruments cannot be amended by Parliament rests not on a statutory prohibition but on the lack of statutory authority to do so. The then Reading Clerk of this House—now the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton—told the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation, in 1971–72:
"There is no intrinsic reason why Parliament (or a committee thereof) should not have power to amend instruments".
He listed 18 Acts where this power had been given, including five still in force at that time. The Act taken as a precedent for this amendment is the Local Government Act 1933, which was passed by a Conservative majority.
It is clear that Parliament can include in legislation the power to amend statutory instruments. In view of the fact that so many essential aspects of the income-related benefits in this Bill are to be left to regulations, it would seem highly desirable that Parliament should do so in this case as far as those benefits are concerned. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I rise only to support what the noble Lord said. In my many years in one place or another I have never known a Bill which has depended so much on regulations. The amendment brought forward by the noble Lord expresses the anxiety of many of us in all parts of the House about this increasing tendency by the Government to bring forward Bills in which the legislation depends on regulations. I shall not detain your Lordships. I shall say only that I strongly support what the noble Lord has said.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this amendment concerns regulations that will bring in the income-related benefits, income support, family credit and housing benefit; set the "tapers" and appropriate maximum amounts of family credit and housing benefit (Clause 21); and, set applicable amounts and capital rules for the income-related benefits (Clause 22).
The purpose of the amendment is to allow Parliament to amend the regulations by modifying or adding to the draft laid before both Houses of Parliament by the Secretary of State. This would be contrary to current practice with most statutory instruments which, whether laid in draft or not, are not amendable but may be rejected by either House. What noble Lords are seeking is the power to modify or vary the terms of statutory instruments as well as the power to approve or reject them.
There are very few precedents for parliamentary controls of such a kind. The last such was in Section 127(2) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 and there have been occasional rare examples in various fields of legislation. Amendable orders were made under the Government of India and the Government of Burma Acts 1935, and in this House such amendable orders were referred to a specially constituted committee. However, by the time of the Joint Committee's report on delegated legislation in 1971 the only examples of this kind of parliamentary control which had survived were Section 8(3) of the Ministry of Health Act 1919 and the equivalent provision in its Scottish counter-part. They have since been repealed and now there is none.
The main reason for the decline in this form of parliamentary control and the fundamental objection to its reinstatement is the impracticability of reconciling modifications which may be moved and accepted in one House with those which may be moved and accepted in the other. It would be like introducing the same Bill into both Houses at the same time. It could lead to the very same difficulties that arise in reconciling the divergent views of the two Houses on primary legislation. What is more, it would add enormously to the work of Parliament and to the period required for making regulations.
The fact that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, had to go back to an Act of 1935 for a precedent raises the question of why it has fallen into disuse. The reason is that it is an obsolete procedure. As regards the regulation-making powers in Part II of the Bill to which he also referred, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has suggested that the clauses in Part II of the Bill which deal with income-related benefits rely more on subsequent regulations than previous legislation. This is not so. In essence there is no more left to the powers under the proposals of the Bill than exist now, and in particular as regards housing benefit the powers are a great deal clearer and more detailed than the legislation which they replace. In other words, the discretion of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is much more circumscribed.
For reasons of impracticality in terms of parliamentary procedures I must urge the House to reject this rather backward-looking amendment, which is attempting to bring back to life a vehicle that has lain unused for a long time, for the very good
890
reason that it was found to be inconvenient to the Members of both Houses.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I think that it was Sir Edward Gray who said that the lights were going out all over Europe and as the noble Baroness spoke I could not help thinking that the dimming of the lights in the Chamber was perhaps a significant comment on what is happening to democracy in this country, because so much of what governs the everyday life of individuals is put into regulations and is not fully or properly debated by either House. That is a very serious situation.
I much appreciate the support which was given to the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said that what I proposed would be contrary to current practice. She was certainly right about that. The fact that she could find no examples of these powers in existence at present does not negate the fact, according to the former Clerk of the Parliaments in 1971–72 when he was the Reading Clerk in this House, that there is no intrinsic reason why Parliament should not have this power. That of course is fortified by the opinion which I quoted from Erskine May.
The practice may have declined but it seems to me that there is all the more need for a revival of it at present. No serious difficulty was encountered in 1935 when agreement between the two Houses had to be reached on the Government of India Bill. Although the noble Baroness says that the legislation which this particular Bill will replace relied as much on regulations as this Bill, I do not think it can be denied that the Bill which I described in 1966 certainly did not rely on regulations when dealing with supplementary benefit in the same way as this Bill does. That is a further indication of the direction in which we are going. It is an alarming direction and I am glad to have had the opportunity of making a protest about it. However, having done so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 82 [General interpretation]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 74A:
Page 84, line 20, at end insert—
(" "Housing Revenue Account dwelling", in relation to a local authority, means a dwelling which is within the authority's Housing Revenue Account (within the meaning of Part XIII of the Housing Act 1985) and is not—

(a) a dwelling for the time being let on a long tenancy at a low rent within the meaning of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967; or

(b) a dwelling no longer owned by the authority;").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 74A and at the same time I should like to speak to Amendment No. 74B. These amendments concern the definition of "Housing Revenue Account dwelling", which is a term relevant to housing benefit subsidy provisions in Clause 31. The amendments are a purely technical correction and I ask your Lordships to accept them on that basis. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 74B:
Page 84, line 24, leave out ("(within the meaning of the Housing Act 1985)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 83 [Financial provision]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 87, line 32, at end insert ("section 45(8)(aa) above or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 75A:
Page 146, line 44, at end insert
("(2) At the end of subsection (5) of that section there shall be added the words "except that, until the first such regulations come into force, a local authority shall give effect to Part III of Schedule 1 to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, as it had effect immediately before the amendments made by Schedule 2 to the Social Security Act 1980").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a technical, consequential amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 75B:
Page 149, leave out lines 4 to 11.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this also is a purely consequential amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 150, line 7, leave out paragraph 50.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I think that this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 150, line 11, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment also has been spoken to. 1 beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No.77A:
Page 151, line 35, at end insert—
("Housing Act 1985 (c.68)
58A. In subsection (2)(b) of section 425 of the Housing Act 1985 (the local contribution differential) for the words "section 32 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982" there shall be substituted the words "section 31 of the Social Security Act 1986".
58B. In Item 4 in Part I of Schedule 14 to that Act (items to be credited to the Housing Revenue Account) for the words "Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982" there shall be substituted the words "Social Security Act 1986".
58C. In paragraph 3 of Part IV of that Schedule (rate fund contributions to the Housing Revenue Account) for the words "section 34(1) of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982" there shall be substituted the words "section 31(5) of the Social Security Act 1986".
Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 (c.00)
58 D. In section 8(6) (availability of legal advice and assistance) and section 11(2) (clients' contributions) of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986, for the words from "supplementary" to "1970" there shall be substituted the words "income support or family credit".")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a purely consequential amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 154, line 13, at end insert—
("72 A. In subsection (4) of section 123 of that Act (payment of unpaid contributions to pension schemes) for the words "maternity pay" there shall be substituted the words "statutory sick pay, statutory maternity pay under Part V of the Social Security Act 1986, maternity pay under Part III of this Act".")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this also is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 154, line 40, at end insert—
("Wages Act 1986 (c.00)
76A. In subsection (1)(f) of section 7 of the Wages Act 1986 (meaning of "wages") for the words "maternity pay under Part HI of the 1978 Act" there shall be substituted the words "statutory maternity pay under the Social Security Act 1986".").
The noble Baroness said: This is purely a drafting amendment to take account of the replacement of the present maternity pay scheme by statutory maternity pay. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Repeals]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 161, line 22, column 3, at end insert
("In section 37(3), the words from "and a woman" to the end.")
The noble Baroness said: This is a drafting amendment which has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 161, line 27, column 3, leave out ("to 60") and insert—
("and 59.
Section 60.")
The noble Baroness said: This is a minor technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 165, line 33, leave out ("reference to section 24(2)") and insert ("references to sections 24(2) and 37(3)(b) of the Social Security Act 1975,")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 166, column 3, leave out line 40 and insert—
("In section 5, in subsection (1) the words from "and in subsection (2)", in paragraph (i), to the end of the subsection and subsections (2) to (4).")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 86 [Commencement]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 90, line 28, at end insert—
("section [Invalid care allowance for women];")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos.85 to 87:
Page 90, line 33, leave out (" (2) ")
Page 90, line 40, leave out from ("paragraphs") to ("94,") in line 41 and insert ("2, 22, 23(3), 26(1) and (2), 27, 300), (c) and (d)(ii), 77,81, 89(a), 93,")
Page 91, line 1, leave out from ("relating") to ("section") in line 2 and insert—

("(a) to section 37(3) of the Social Security Act 1975 and the reference to paragraph (b) of that subsection in section 22(2) of the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1977;

(b) to section 141(2) of the Social Security Act 1975;

(c) to section 52D(2) and (3) of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 and paragraph 12 of Schedule 1A to that Act;

(d)to section 10 of the Social Security Act 1980; and

(e) to")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 85, I should like also to move Amendments Nos. 86 and 87. I hate to tell your Lordships, but Amendment No. 84 was not spoken to previously. It gives effect on Royal Assent to the Government's proposal to extend invalid care allowance to married women. Amendments Nos. 85, 86 and 87 will bring into effect other minor provisions on Royal Assent including the provision to pay child benefit for some children over 16 who are being educated at home and the revised rules for consulting advisory bodies. I commend all the amendments to the House. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 85, 86 and 87 en bloc.
On Question amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes past ten o'clock.

  NORTHERN IRELAND POLICE: PUBLIC RELATIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND POLICE: PUBLIC RELATIONS
  NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY REVIEW CONFERENCE
  NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY REVIEW CONFERENCE
  STRATEGIC DEFENCE AND STABILITY
  STRATEGIC DEFENCE AND STABILITY
  SALT II: US COMPLIANCE
  SALT II: US COMPLIANCE
  ANGLO/SOVIET COMPENSATION AGREEMENT
  ANGLO/SOVIET COMPENSATION AGREEMENT
  WATER: LONG TERM REQUIREMENTS REPORT
  WATER: LONG TERM REQUIREMENTS REPORT
  RETAIL PRICES INDEX: ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
  RETAIL PRICES INDEX: ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
  HBMC FINANCIAL CONTROL PROCEDURES: REPORT
  HBMC FINANCIAL CONTROL PROCEDURES: REPORT