Sitting of 24 July 1986

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  PONTYPRIDD MARKETS FAIRS AND TOWN HALL BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY BILL
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order 205 (Notice of third reading) be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.

  FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered upon Tuesday 21 October.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Tuesday 21 October.

  BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 21 October.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Criminal Damage
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to seek to reduce the incidence of criminal damage.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The Home Office crime prevention unit has issued guidance to local authority chief executives and chief officers of police on local crime prevention practice, including environmental improvements and an ti-vandalism campaigns. The Department of the Environment is taking a number of initiatives to reduce the incidence of crime on estates; community programme resources are being used for cleaning up graffiti and criminal damage; and the Department of Education and Science has commissioned research on the nature and extent of wilful damage to educational buildings and property and on cost-effective and practical solutions.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Home Secretary confirm that since 1979 and 1983, when enormous promises were made, crime rates have soared and the incidence of criminal damage offences has risen dreadfully so that today, in Conservative Britain, one such offence is committed, on average, every minute? Will he at least ensure that local authorities are given adequate capacity to respond to arid clear up after such offences without delay?
    Mr. Hurd: In the hon. Gentleman's area of South Yorkshire there has been a reduction in such incidents over the past six months, so the pattern varies. The hon. Gentleman is too fair a debater to fall into the trap of trying to argue that these evils were invented in 1979. Of course they were not. I agree that we need the multi-agency approach which I outlined in my reply, and which certainly involves the local authorities in putting things right.
    Mr. Colvin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the damage, admittedly not all of it criminal, done by hippie convoys? What action will his Department take following the Prime Minister's initiative in the working group of Ministers to liaise with the Department of the Environment about providing additional powers for both police and planning authorities so that they can take immediate action on trespass, thereby preventing what could result in considerable damage to property?
    Mr. Hurd: We have been in close concert, not only with the Department of the Environment, but with hon. Members and their constituents. This morning my hon. Friend the Minister of State met a delegation which included my hon. Friend's constituents. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said in another place, we are close to being able to reveal the proposal which we intend to add to the Public Order Bill and which will come to the House for consideration.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the incidence of criminal damage is only part of a greater pattern of lawlessness? Does he also agree that protestations from Opposition Members about such

    577
    matters would carry a great deal more weight if prospective Labour parliamentary candidates and councillors did not use every opportunity to attack the police?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. In practice they ran down the police when they were in office, and many of the Labour party's candidates and local government leaders run down the police at every opportunity even now.
    Mr. Kaufman: How does the Home Secretary reconcile the statement in the 1983 Conservative election manifesto, that already street crime was being reduced and public confidence improved in some of the worst inner city areas, with the 73 per cent. increase in criminal damage since this Government came to office?
    Mr Hurd: There is no doubt about the continued increase in crime, including criminal damage, which has now been going on for 30 years. The distinction between the two main parties is that we have a coherent policy for dealing with all aspects of this problem, whereas some, though not all, members of the Labour party, which is far from having a coherent policy, do their best to undermine what is being achieved.

    "Black Widow" Catapults.
    Mr. Colin Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representation he has received concerning the unrestricted sale of "Black Widow" catapults.
    The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. Giles Shaw): A few hon. Members, the Association of County Councils and one police authority have recently expressed concern about "Black Widow" catapults.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend aware that other organisations, as well as the public, are deeply perturbed about this particular variant of the old-fashioned catapult, not least the RSPCA, which considers it to be potentially foully lethal to animals? Does he agree that any implement that advertises the capability of being able to heave a 5/16 in steel ball 225 yards with accuracy is not an inoffensive weapon? Will he take a very much more stringent attitude to this question than he has shown in recent answers to parliamentary questions, and advise carefully on how this instrument should be sold?
    Mr. Shaw: I am very concerned at the sale of a wide range of implements that can be misused in public. My hon. Friend will know that the law on using at item as an offensive weapon is sufficiently tight to catch this kind of offence, should it be committed in public. As my hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that these items are widespread and that there is public concern on the issue, I shall monitor the situation extremely carefully.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister make representations to W. H. Smith to try to stop it selling the magazine "Survival Weaponry Techniques", which glorifies weapons such as these "Black Widow" catapults and offers a huge range of wicked weapons for sale by post to teenagers and others without any real restraint whatsoever? Will he recognise that this is an urgent matter about which something should be done, instead of merely talking about it?
    Mr. Shaw: I fully recognise that point, and in relation to a range of issues I am considering whether we can
    578
    provide for the kind of voluntary guidance that was given in the case of martial arts equipment. A number of issues are involved that may require to be handled in that way, and I shall consider the hon. and learned Gentleman's point.
    Mr. Dickens: Is my hon. Friend aware that the "Black Widow" is only the junior model and that the "Diablo" model, which is advertised in this week's "Shooting Times and Country" magazine, which is in the Library, is a killer which has a sight, an arm rest and pistol grip? The unrestricted sale of these weapons must be stopped or we shall present the police and ourselves with an enormous problem if we do not tackle this matter completely.
    Mr. Shaw: I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety. He will know that a large range of similar devices are on sale which can be used safely under certain controlled conditions. What concerns my hon. Friend and the House is the wide availability of such items to those who will not use them under trained and careful conditions. It is that problem that I shall endeavour to deal with.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that the "Black Widow" and the other catapult are made by Barnett International, which also manufactures crossbows, about which this House has expressed concern? For some strange reason the firm received the 1985 Queen's award for export and technology. Is there any innocent use to which these lethal catapults can be put? If not, ought there not to be some quick action by the Home Office on their sale?
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The company did indeed win the Queen's award for export, because 85 per cent. of its entire production goes overseas. In relation to domestic sale, the hon. Gentleman is equally correct that widespread abuse could occur from the use of these weapons. Equally, there are a number of clubs which make legitimate use of these weapons on private premises. What we have to do is to strike a balance of where we can take discriminate action as opposed to merely taking the view that everything which can be abused must be the subject of legislation preventing its sale. Otherwise, knives and scissors would be in the latter category.

    Sunday Trading
    Mrs. Roeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for breaches of the Sunday trading laws have taken place since 1 April; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I regret that, as yet, the information is not centrally available. Responsibility for the enforcement of the law governing Sunday trading is a matter for the local authorities.
    Mrs. Roe: The figures which have been presented to me are considerable and they highlight the fact that there is a need for reform. Would my hon. and learned Friend welcome an initiative to introduce partial deregulation for leisure retailing, especially for garden centres?
    Mr. Tony Banks: He would rather be shot at with a "Black Widow".
    Mr. Waddington: The Auld Committee thought that there was no sensible alternative to complete deregulation

    579
    of shop hours. That remains the Government's view, but obviously we would have to form a view on any private Member's Bill which was introduced in the next Session.
    Mr. Ashton: Why is it that when trade unionists break the law the Government crack down on them with a very heavy hand, but when employers break it and compel their workers to work on Sundays, without any extra pay and even advertise that they are opening on Sundays —for example do-it-yourself shops — the Government and local authorities take no notice?
    Mr. Waddington: We are talking about the Shops Act 1950, and section 71 of that Act says that it is the duty of every local authority to enforce, within its district, the provisions of the Act. Enforcement is a matter for the local authorities; it is not a matter for the Government.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that if the Government are in difficulties over the Sunday trading laws they need only to adopt the Shops (No. 2) Bill, which is listed on today's Order Paper? The Bill would iron out all the anomalies as well as preserving Sunday as a special day. It would also command majority support in the House.
    Mr. Waddington: I read my hon. Friend's Bill. It covers small shops with fewer than four employees and also, for four hours only, do-it-yourself shops, if a local authority makes an appropriate order. I cannot see how it possibly can be right to buy goods from a small shop but offensive, wrong and immoral to buy from a large shop. After what happened in the House not long ago, I am far from sure that there is anything like a consensus for the introduction of the sort of measures which my hon. Friend has in mind.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that, although his and the Government's attempt to reform the law failed because there was not general agreement on total deregulation, the Government are, none the less, under some obligation to see whether we rally round an ad hoc, piecemeal policy of reform?
    Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend knows the history of this matter. On Second Reading of the Bill my right hon. Friend made it absolutely plain that the Government were prepared, during the Committee stage, to listen to any proposals for deregulation short of total deregulation. In spite of that, the majority of this House voted against the Bill on Second Reading. In those circumstances, it is unrealistic to expect the Government to introduce a Bill until there is clear evidence that a consensus for reform has emerged.

    News International Dispute
    Mr. Leightonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the maximum number of police officers deployed at any one time on duties in connection with the News International industrial dispute, and the relationship which this number bears to the local number of Metropolitan police officers available for duty at the time in question.
    Mr. Hurd: There were 1,870 officers deployed outside the News International plant at Wapping on 6 April. An additional 590 officers were involved in policing a march to Wapping. Information about the total number of officers available for duty that day could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Leighton: Is the Secretary of State aware that the effort of turning Wapping into a no-go area is denuding our hard-pressed constituencies of a police service? Will he explain why we cannot have an up-to-date estimate of the total cost of the Wapping operation? What is the result of the internal inquiry into police behaviour on 3 May, and what disciplinary action has been taken?
    Mr. Hurd: Any complaints about the actions of the police on 3 May or on any other occasion at Wapping or elsewhere should be examined through the procedures which the House has laid down. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is aiming at. If he is saying that the police should not police events at Wapping, he is saying, in effect, that the plant there should be left open to attack and that people who want to work there should be prevented from doing so. I cannot think that he is really arguing that. The number of police officers who should be deployed at Wapping must be a matter for the judgment of the commissioner. Any hon. Member who believes in the operational independence of chief officers must support that.
    Mr. Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the merits of the argument about the industrial dispute at Wapping, there would be no need for such a massive police presence if the Opposition would call off their supporters and associates? Peace would be restored, and that would be in the interests of Londoners and crime prevention as a whole.
    Mr. Hurd: I agree. The number of police officers now engaged at Wapping is lower than that which I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), because the hon. Gentleman asked for the maximum number deployed at any one time. The number is still high, and tactics have changed. Instead of having demonstrations on Wednesday and Saturday nights, several hundred people now arrive and start an operation at differing times of the day and week with no notice. This makes it difficult for the police to handle the situation and it weakens the policing effort in the rest of London. If those who are engaged in the dispute feel that they have to pursue it, I wish that they would discuss with the police ways of doing so, ways in which they could exercise their rights without weakening the police and, therefore, the effort that is being made to combat crime in the rest of London.
    Mr. Mikardo: Is the Secretary of State aware that a couple of weeks ago in the same borough a half-mile march by about 200 women and 100 children was invigilated by a force of more than 40 police, most of whom inviligated it by sitting motionless in a coach, which proceeded to follow the tail of the procession very slowly, to the jeers of many onlookers? Is that an economic use of police manpower?
    Mr. Hurd: I think that criticisms of the police are about evenly divided between those who say that they do too much and those who say they do too little. These are difficult operational decisions. In my view, and that of the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench, they can, because they are operational questions, be left only to the operational decision of the chief officer of police.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at 5.15 yesterday afternoon the East India Dock road was blocked by a mass of pickets using crowd barriers to form their obstruction? I was driving the first car to appear on

    581
    the scene and I was able to escape by going over the pavement and down a side road, but all the cars behind me had to turn round and go back. When the Queen's highway is blocked in this way, is it not essential that police remain in the area to ensure free passage?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The police are acting to prevent breaches of the peace and obstruction of the highway. It is in the interests of citizens as a whole that they should maintain that activity. At Wapping, 346 police officers have been injured so far and there have been 1,098 arrests. I cannot think that the way in which the dispute is being conducted on the union side helps the unions' case or the cause of printers in any way. It certainly makes it more difficult for the Metropolitan police to fight crime in the rest of London.
    Mr. Corbett: How can the Home Secretary acquiesce in the withdrawal of a substantial number of Metropolitan police officers from fighting and preventing crime on the streets of the capital without trying to exert pressure on Mr. Murdoch to open proper negotiations?
    Mr. Hurd: I wish that the dispute could be settled. I have said so many times. If the Labour Front Bench is saying that the commissioner should let the situation at Wapping go unpoliced so that the plant can be attacked and the electricians and others working there can be prevented from entering, it should say so openly instead of making such guarded remarks.

    Airborne Radiation
    Mr. Gerald Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation holds radiac equipment capable of measuring levels of radiation in the air; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: Yes, Sir. The United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation holds fixed and portable radiation survey meters capable of measuring radiation doses in air.
    Mr. Bowden: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer and the reassurance that he has given. Can he give us a further assurance that the equipment held by the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation is capable of properly measuring the levels of radiation after Chernobyl?
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a thorough examination of all aspects of that accident. As to the capacity of such meters to measure radiation dosage from Chernobyl, the answer is no, because the rated radiation was so low that it could not be measured by the meters that are used.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Are steps being taken to assist county civil defence officers in measuring emissions of radiation? Reports to my authority in the Isle of Wight depicted a scene whereby the local officer did not know how to answer questions by the general public.
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. A number of details, both of communication and the type of radiation measurement that would be suitable for such an incident, are to be worked out in the post-Chernobyl examination.
    Mr. Neil Thorne: In view of the natural public concern over unseen dangerous rays, will my hon. Frend consider
    582
    following the lead taken by the Japanese in showing graphically precisely what levels are likely to occur by way of X-rays, from sun, from travelling by air, and from the kind of accident that took place in Chernobyl?
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is quite right. There is a real difficulty in transmitting to the public the information in a form that would enable them to understand it. It is not easy, for example, that the scientific measurement of radiation rays has just changed from the basis of rems and rads to the basis of grays and centigrays. I shall consider the point that my hon. Friend has made as part of the review of all these issues in relation to the Chernobyl incident.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Banks.
    Mr. Tony Banks: No. 5, Sir.
    Hon. Members: No. 6.

    Long Lartin Prison
    Mr. Tony Banksasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army are currently held in Her Majesty's prison Long Lartin; and how many are allowed private visits.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): The hon. Gentleman is more right than usual, Mr. Speaker.
    There are 11 prisoners at Long Lartin who are regarded as members of the IRA. Private visits are not normally permitted for any prisoner.
    Mr. Banks: I should be grateful if the Minister could answer this queston seriously without cheap and snide comments.
    Will he confirm, or deny, that John Walker, who was one of those convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings, and who was described at his trial as a brigadier in the IRA, receives visits at Long Lartin alongside ordinary criminal prisoners? Is it not a fact that he does so, as do others convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings, because the Government and the prison authorities know that a great miscarriage of justice has taken place? When does the Minister intend to announce an inquiry into that trial and the convictions?
    Mr. Mellor: What the hon. Gentleman says about visiting arrangements is right. The assumption that he seeks to draw from it is wrong. My right hon. Friend is considering whether there should be any reference to the Court of Appeal of the convictions in those cases, having regard to further submissions which have been made and which are under active consideration.
    Mr. Benn: Is the Minister aware that in the book "Error of Judgment" recently written by Mr. Chris Mullin, there is incontrovertible evidence that undermines, quite clinically, the prosecution evidence against the six men, undoubted evidence of maltreatment of the prisoners before they went to court, and a clear indication as to who else committed that bombing? There is a widespread view among people who have no interest, other than that justice should be done, that the matter should be properly examined. There is a widespread belief that six innocent people have been imprisoned for 10 years for an offence they did not commit.
    Mr. Mellor: I note the right hon. Gentleman's confident assertion, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will give it such weight as he thinks appropriate in making his difficult decision.
    Mr. Duffy: It is nearly a year since the Home Secretary ordered a Home Office investigation, following the Granada programme on the Birmingham six, and since the Taoiseach, Dr. FitzGerald, said that the case was being dealt with "very urgently". What evidence do we have that the Home Secretary has demonstrated any urgency in recent months on this case?
    Mr. Mellor: The case is being thoroughly investigated. The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) should get together to be clear about what they are saying before they start putting different questions to us. The book upon which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield relies was published only three weeks ago, and that matter is being looked at. These are difficult decisions with which not only this Home Secretary but previous Home Secretaries have had to grapple. I see that the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) confirms that. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) would do the subject a little more credit if he recognised how difficult these matters are and how carefully they need to be explored.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Under-Secretary of State is correct to say that they are difficult decisions to take. Whatever else, doubts are cast on the decisions taken in that case. Given those doubts—I say no more than that—what procedures must now be followed? I think that if those procedures were understood some of the concern would be quietened.
    Mr. Mellor: As ever the right hon. Gentleman is most helpful and I will tell him. The matters under investigation relate to a wide range of pieces of evidence canvassed at the trial. Much of that work is at an advanced stage. The publication of the book by Chris Mullin raised fresh points, especially the contention that certain individuals — allegedly known to Mullin, although not named, thereby making our position rather difficult — have committed these offences. As a result, the West Midlands police were asked to carry out further investigations. When the results are to hand, they will be consolidated with the other material. When the examination is completed, an announcement will be made. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no interest in prolonging these matters, nor does he believe that pressure of the type which one or two hon. Members— not the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South—are seeking to exert is at all helpful in arriving at the objective quasi-judicial decision which my right hon. Friend much reach before deciding whether the matter should be referred to the Court of Appeal.
    Mr. Soley: Does the Minister accept that the House faces an extremely difficult decision? There is considerable anxiety on both sides of the House, in the House of Lords and in the country generally, that the convictions in the Birmingham pub bombing case, and in the Guildford and Maguire cases may be wrongful convictions. If so, not only are innocent people in prison, but guilty people are still free, with all that that implies for offences of this type. In view of that, and of the fact that no hon. Member or person outside the House can have any interest in seeing
    584
    innocent people in prison and guilty people going free, will the hon. Gentleman consider ordering a retrial in all three cases?
    Mr. Mellor: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is charged with the responsibility of deciding whether there are matters capable of being regarded as fresh evidence of a kind which, under examination by the Court of Appeal, might cast doubt on a jury's findings in this or any other case. That is always a difficult issue, especially in a case such as the Birmingham bombing case, which has been considered frequently by appellate courts in the context of civil and criminal proceedings. My right hon. Friend will discharge his duties in this respect with as much care as possible. That is the proper basis on which it will be done.
    I assure the House that no one has any interest in prolonging these matters. We recognise that there is a double public interest in this—in ensuring that people are not wrongly convicted and, equally, in ensuring that, if people are rightly convicted, orchestrated campaigns should not undermine the integrity of those convictions.

    Civil Protection (Local Authorities)
    Mr. Rathboneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take to ensure that local authorities implement their all hazards responsibilities in relation to civil protection.
    Mr. Leighasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to bring to the attention of local authorities the all hazards aspect of civil protection.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: As I announced on 22 July in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki), new guidance on the preparation of plans and on the all hazards approach has been sent to local authority associations with our proposals for a planned programme for implementation of the 1983 civil defence regulations.
    Mr. Rathbone: I welcomed my hon. Friend's answer on that day. It is indicative of the humanitarian desire and social obligations of national Government and most local governments to meet those ends. However, could he reassure the House that at borough council, district council and town council level those plans will be carried through?
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend will be aware that the prime responsibility rests with those authorities which carry civil defence responsibility, mainly the county councils, but also the joint boards for fire and civil defence. I can assure him that it will be a requirement upon the counties that the plans they produce to conform with the 1983 regulations must show that they have a countywide network of communications and monitoring. That will include districts as well.
    Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever one's views on the desirability or otherwise of the possession of nuclear weapons, any country must have plans for adequate protection for the civil population against disaster, whether natural or man-made, native or imported? In that respect, opposition to civil defence on narrow unilateralist grounds puts at risk the wider concept of civil protection against all hazards.
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is correct. Civil defence is a form of humanitarian protection for the civil population

    585
    and it is essential that local authorities should realise that that is what they are denying their electorate in many cases. The widespread response we had on the review undertaken last year shows that many local authorities have failed to provide adequate plans for protection. We are determined to correct that.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Minister confirm that he is aware that on Saturday 28 June an oleum tank at a chemical company in St. Helens split and released a cloud of sulphur trioxide over St. Helens and the police had to put into effect Operation Cloudburst? Is he aware that the local authority had no input into Operation Cloudburst? Does that not make nonsense of the statement he made the other day?
    Mr. Shaw: If the local authority had an effective civil protection system under its emergency planning officers, there would be consultation between the police and the civil protection authority on that matter. As for Operation Cloudburst, it was quick action by the police that prevented any real disturbance as a result of that incident.
    Mr. Skinner: How on earth can the Minister argue that local authorities can provide civil protection in case of a nuclear attack when, only a few months ago, as a result of one nuclear reactor going up in Chernobyl, there was enormous emission of radioactivity affecting not only this country but the Western world, and resulting in hysteria, not only on the continent, but in Britain? In view of that hysteria and the hundred times greater damage that could result from a nuclear attack, how can civil protection be provided?
    Mr. Shaw: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman had now totally destroyed the concept of a nuclear-free zone. It is absurd to think that any local authority or population can protect itself against the possibility of radiation unless it has a fully worked out plan for civil protection.
    Mr. John Browne: Will my hon. Friend accept that the county of Hampshire has a greatly increasing population and, therefore, a greatly increasing civil defence problem? Will he further accept that the chief constable and the chairman of the police council, Councillor Michael Boyle, are extremely prudent men? Is he aware that both those men are applying for a significant increase in the establishment of the police in Hampshire, which does not seem to be coming through his Department? Will he look into that question urgently and meet the legitimate demands of those police authorities?
    Mr. Shaw: I am well aware of the application, which was originally for 33 posts and now is for 28 posts for Hampshire. It will be given urgent consideration in the light of my right hon. Friend's decision to ensure that all police authorities should have any proposed increases analysed for proven need. We hope to arrive at a decision shortly.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Bearing in mind that civil defence in respect of hostile attack is subject to statutory control, does the Minister agree that it would be much better to put the all hazards approach on a statutory basis? Does he further agree that we shall never have an even-handed approach to civil defence unless we have statutory control on an all hazards basis and requirements laid down by central Government?
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that we have made some progress with the small amending Bill to the Civil Defence Act 1948 which was piloted through the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminister (Sir N. Bonsor). In addition, the 1983 regulations are statutory. If the plans which we now require are brought under those regulations, they will have all the statutory force required to provide the civil protection cover that the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks.

    Peacock Report
    Mr. Patrick Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received since publication of the Peacock Report.
    Mr. Allen McKayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the Peacock report.
    Mr. Hurd: We have received a small number of letters from hon. Members and from the public about specific matters raised in the report.
    Mr. Thompson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Bearing in mind the increasing burden of the licence fee on many ordinary people, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong to tie the BBC licence fee to the retail prices index, as suggested by the Peacock committee? Should it not be tied to some RPI minus X formula, leading, I hope, to a reduction in the licence fee and a concentration of the BBC's mind on priorities, efficiency and quality?
    Mr. Hurd: That is an interesting variation on the recommendation in the Peacock report. We are considering, and must consider, if we are to live with the licence fee as a system for some time, how we can ensure that citizens are protected from excessive increases and that the BBC has the same sort of pressures on it for efficiency as are common throughout the public sector.
    Mr. McKay: Does the Home Secretary accept that the Peacock report has endorsed the view of Parliament regarding concessionary television licences for old people? Will he now take the opportunity of the next Queen's Speech to announce that concessionary television licences will be adopted? This is probably his last chance before an incoming Labour Government will do so.
    Mr. Hurd: I recommend as holiday reading to the hon. Gentleman the Peacock report, which went out of its way to demolish the Labour party's proposition.
    Mr. Soames: Has my right hon. Friend seen the representations from my constituents on the Peacock report, particularly those connected with the disgraceful reporting by the BBC of the position in South Africa? What steps will he take to ensure that a political balance is restored to the BBC?
    Mr. Hurd: The responsibility for ensuring that the BBC treats controversial subjects with due impartiality rests with the board of governors of the BBC and is enshrined in its resolution of 8 January 1981, which is an annex to the BBC's licence and agreement. Parliament has given the board of governors of the BBC, not the Home Secretary or any Minister, this extremely important responsibility and it is up to the board to make arrangements to ensure that that responsibility is discharged.

    Civil Defence
    Mrs. Shieldsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated expenditure by district councils on civil defence in 1986; what proportion will be provided by central Government resources; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: District councils' civil defence expenditure is incorporated in county councils' estimates and the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The total of local authority estimates for civil defence expenditure in the current financial year is £19,494 million. Civil defence grant is paid on approved expenditure at the rates of 75 per cent. or 100 per cent., depending on the nature of the activity.
    Mrs. Shields: Will the Minister make available a 100 per cent. grant for the provision of control centres?
    Mr. Shaw: As the hon. Lady will know, that is at present the case for the construction of control centres. We are considering whether the 100 per cent. grant should be available for a wider range of expenditure, including staff costs.

    BBC News Broadcasts
    Mr. Chopeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Her Majesty's Government have any plans to monitor political balance in BBC news broadcasts.
    Mr. Hurd: No, Sir. It is for the board of governors of the corporation, as I have just said, to ensure that BBC programmes are presented with due impartiality.
    Mr. Chope: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the performance of the governors of the BBC in carrying out their responsibilities? Why can we not have the same straightforward newspaper reporting on BBC television as we enjoy when we listen to the BBC World Service?
    Mr. Hurd: That is the responsibility of the board of governors. I think it is entirely legitimate and, indeed, desirable, that citizens or organisations who feel themselves aggrieved or feel, as my hon. Friend evidently does, that standards have slipped in this regard should take every opportunity to make their views known direct to the governors. It is part of the responsibility of the governors to pay attention to that.

    Birmingham Pub Bombings
    Ms. Clare Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why it has not yet been possible to conclude the review of the convictions of six men for the Birmingham pub bombings.
    Mr. Hurd: I have been concerned to examine thoroughly the material submitted to me following the World in Action television programme. In addition, as my hon. Friend said a few minutes ago, I am now considering points raised in the recently published book on the case.
    Ms. Short: It does not make anyone in Birmingham feel any better about the Birmingham bombings to know that six innocent men have now been locked up for 12 years. Can the Home Secretary tell us when he is likely to reach a conclusion? Can he also tell us whether it is true that the Home Office repeated the forensic tests and found that the tests that were used were totally unreliable?
    Mr. Hurd: I am not going to deal bit by bit with the particular aspects of this complicated matter. The hon. Lady would not seriously expect me to do that. When suggestions are made that there is new evidence, as has happened recently with Mr. Mullin's book, it must he right, if I am to make a serious judgment, a serious decision, in the matter, that I should take those new arguments into consideration. That is what is now happening. I have no desire or interest in delaying a decision on that. It is a very difficult decision now, as it has always been. The criteria have been well established under the different holders of my office, and I shall seek to apply those criteria to the best of my ability.

  PRIME MINISTER

    EC (Agricultural Spending)
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Prime Minister if she will raise, at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers, the issues raised by the monthly reports submitted to the Council by the Commission on trends in agricultural spending in accordance with the 4 December 1984 agreement.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): The Commission has produced these reports partly in response to my hon. Friend's persistent questioning. The issues raised by these reports have been considered by the Budget Council in its discussions on the 1986 budget.
    Mr. Taylor: As the 1–4 VAT rate, which was meant to last for several years, has now been fully budgeted this year, and as the Council has clearly abandoned any attempt to control agricultural spending, can the Prime Minister now give some indication to British farmers, to the Third world countries that are savaged by Common Market dumping, and to the Soviet Union, which benefits hugely from Common Market dumping, as to what will happen when, almost inevitably later this year, the Common Market is bankrupt once again and runs out of funds?
    The Prime Minister: The revised Community budget for 1986 has now been adopted and this replaces the budget ruled illegal by the European Court of Justice. We believe that the new, revised budget makes adequate provision to meet all the Community's agricultural obligations. We do not expect any significant overrun into 1987. I must say that I agree with some of my hon. Friend's strictures on the effect of dumping surpluses on other countries.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that at Whitwell in my constituency the Coal Board has just closed a pit even though it has made a profit—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about the EEC.
    Mr. Skinner: Yes—even though it made a profit for the greater part of the 100 years that it was open. The Common Market has been bankrupt for about five years out of the last 10—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about agricultural spending, in the EEC.
    Mr. Skinner: Yes. The Common Market has been bankrupt for about five years out of the last 10 and, if it

    589
    had been a coal mine, this Prime Minister would have shut it. Why does she not get on with it and save the British taxpayer some money for a change?
    The Prime Minister: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the taxpayer this year, in spite of the closing of a number of pits, will still pay something like £1·5 billion for the coal industry. With regard to the common agricultural policy, this year's price fixing was estimated to reduce spending by 320 million ecu in 1986 and 457 million ecu in 1987. Community financing of intervention was also cut, saving the budget 350 million ecu a year, so we are in fact steadily dealing with the problems of the common agricultural policy, in the same way as we are dealing steadily with the coal industry.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a definitive question, a rare occasion for Prime Minister's Questions. We must stick to the subject.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: May I refer to the approach that has been made to my right hon. Friend by Sir Henry Plumb, the leader of the European Conservative parliamentary group, asking her to call a world food conference on the twin problems of embarrassing food surpluses in the Western world and starvation in the less developed countries? Will she give the House an assurance that she will take the lead and call urgently a food conference in London at the earliest possible moment?
    The Prime Minister: The question of surpluses between the major producing countries was, as my hon. Friend knows, discussed at the Tokyo summit. We are in touch and in close consultation with the United States about those matters. We also agreed there that the proper forum for it to be discussed was in the new GATT round, which we are hoping will began in September. That should, and indeed must, include the whole question of agricultural surpluses and how to deal with them.

    Engagements
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 July.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does the Prime Minister agree that today's Westland report does not live up to the juicy leaks and well-trailed publicity? Will my right hon. Friend not spend too much time on it on this busy day?
    The Prime Minister: The Government will, of course, respond to these reports in due course, but I should like to make two things clear straight away. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have total confidence in our officials referred to in the report. As the House will be aware, those responsible for decisions and disciplinary action have already concluded that there is no case for such action. Secondly, I do not accept the Committee's comments on the role of the head of the Home Civil Service. He continues to enjoy the Government's total confidence. He is a very distinguished public servant, who has performed great service to Governments of both parties.
    Mr. Kinnock: The members of the Select Committee on Defence, of all parties, have been fastidious in their report on Westland plc. In that report, published today, they raise the most profound questions about the conduct of senior officials serving the Government, describing their conduct as "improper" and "disreputable". As head of that Government, does the Prime Minister accept ministerial responsibility for those officials, particularly as some of those named are directly accountable only to her and are personally associated very closely with her?
    The Prime Minister: I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman's question before he asked it. The Government will, of course, respond beyond that to those reports in due course. At present I have nothing to add to what I have already said.
    Mr. Kinnock: This is not a usual Select Committee. All of us obviously understand that the Government will require time to compile their full response in the normal fashion, but there is one question to which the Prime Minister can and—I believe the country also thinks this —must given an answer now in a direct fashion. It is: will she accept the direct ministerial responsibility for officials that everyone understands goes with the office of Minister at every level, or will she be part of a cover-up?
    The Prime Minister: I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have total confidence in our officials referred to in the report. Secondly, I do not accept the Committee's comments on the role of the head of the Home Civil Service. He continues to enjoy the Government's total confidence. He is a very distinguished public servant who has performed great service to Governments of both parties.
    Mr. Kinnock: By her repetitive replies and her failure to respond to the one issue upon which she can definitely respond today, it is difficult to escape the feeling that the Prime Minister is seeking to hide behind officials. If that is the case, is the Prime Minister aware that she is in great danger of herself attracting the reputation of being disreputable and improper?
    The Prime Minister: No, but clearly the right hon. Gentleman asked that question because that was what he wanted to say at the end. The fact was that I volunteered the two points properly that we have total confidence in our officials, and we are proud to be able to stand up for them at this Dispatch Box.
    Mr. Lyell: With the approach of the holidays, will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on expelling another minor official from the Labour party, but will she agree with me—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the Prime Minister's responsibilities.
    Mr. Litherlandasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Litherland: I refer the Prime Minister to paragraph 160 of the report of the Select Committee on Defence. It says:
    "Since the information was passed by telephone to Westland in any event, the reason given by the Prime Minister for releasing the information to the Press Association begins to look flimsy, to say the least."

    591
    Will she now say what will happen to those five senior officials, because the buck stops here?
    The Prime Minister: I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's question before he asked it. Beyond that, as I said earlier, the Government will of course respond to these reports in due course. I have nothing further to add this afternoon.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the statement that the Commonwealth is more important than the issues that temporarily divide it?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I believe firmly in the Commonwealth and I am sure that it is strong enough to withstand any differences between us in the future, as it has withstood them in the past.
    Mr. Cartwright: Will the Prime Minister tell the House clearly whether she accepts or rejects the unanimous finding of the Select Committee on Defence that two key officials in her Department, Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell, were deeply involved in the planned leaking of the Solicitor-General's letter, yet apparently failed to tell her what was going on? If that is so, how can the Prime Minister continue to express confidence in the officials concerned?
    The Prime Minister: I have answered the points about my officials, but let me answer them again. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have total confidence in our officials referred to in the report. As the House will be aware, those responsible for decisions on disciplinary action have already concluded that there is no case for such action. Secondly, I do not accept the Committee's comments on the role of the head of the Home Civil Service. He continues to enjoy the Government's total confidence, and I am glad to express our confidence in his distinguished service.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the appalling Soweto uprising in South Africa occurred when there was a Labour Government here and that, at that time, apartheid was in its full, rigorous force, but, nevertheless, under the Labour Government, no fewer than 75 trade missions were sent to South Africa to encourage trade, at a cost to the taxpayer of more than £410,000? Have we not heard enough humbug from the Opposition on South Africa?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Snapeasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Snape: Does the Prime Minister agree that Mr. Bernard Ingham is normally very good at telling the rest of the world what is going on, and yet we are expected to believe that on this occasion he did not even tell the Prime Minister what was going on? Will she now answer the question, because it is her reputation that is directly under threat?
    The Prime Minister: I have already indicated that the Government will be replying in due course. I have nothing further to add this afternoon. I am delighted that on this occasion, the last day when I am answering questions, the Opposition appear to be satisfied with health, education, social security, the welfare state— [Interruption.] —and between them they cannot muster a single question. My goodness, they are ready to go away!
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take it after the private notice question.

India (Drug Liaison Officers)
3.33 pm
Sir Edward Gardner: I beg to ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to answer the question of which I have given him private notice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): As I told the House on 22 July—
Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the point of order after the private notice question.
Mr. Gow rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have said that I shall take points of order after the private notice question. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
Mr. Gow: My hon. and learned Friend has not read out the question.
Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. Will the hon. and learned Member for Fylde read his question?
Sir Edward Gardner: Perhaps I may acquaint the House of the question of which I have given private notice: what action is being taken to deal with the refusal by the Government of India to allow the posting of two British drug liaison officers to New Delhi and Bombay?
Mr. Tim Eggar: As I told the House on 22 July, the Government of India have told us that the posting of drug liaison officers should not proceed without their written consent despite their earlier agreement in principle. We have taken this up with the Government of India at the highest level. Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent a message to Mr. Gandhi. We hope that he will reply in terms which give the Government of India's agreement that the postings should go ahead.
Sir Edward Gardner: Is my hon. Friend aware that large supplies of hard drugs are now passing through India on their way to Britain, and that, without adequate intelligence, which British drug liaison officers could provide, our attempts to stem the flow of this terrible traffic are bound to be seriously impeded? Is it not scandalous and wholly irresponsible of the Indian Government to aid and abet drug traffickers by denying us the means of identifying them and their activities? Last month the Indian Government said that they would allow those officers to be posted. Now they are refusing that posting. What on earth is going on?
Mr. Eggar: I share my hon. and learned Friend's concern about the recent developments, which we regard with great seriousness, not least because we estimate that in the first few months of this year 80 per cent. of heroin that has come into the United Kingdom has come from India. Last year the total amounts of heroin seized that had come via India had a street value of some £53 million. The only people who can possibly benefit from the latest development are the drug traffickers and the only people who will suffer are the drug addicts, both here and in India.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Minister has our wholehearted support in his attempt
594
to put drug enforcement officers in place in India. What reasons have the Indian Government given for their refusal, and are there any precedents for this action?
Mr. Eggar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. As he knows, we have seven drug liaison officers in different countries throughout the world and in no other country have we had anything like the same difficulties or complications in posting them.
The situation in India perplexes us. The Indian Government gave us a written undertaking which enabled my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to tell the Select Committee on Home Affairs that the drug liaison officers were to be posted, subject to certain details. We are not clear about the exact reason for the further delays.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: Are we not constantly getting lectures on moral matters from the Indian Government and are not the Indian Government the biggest humbugs that we know about? I shall excuse my hon. Friend from answering that question.
Mr. Eggar: I note the point that my hon. Friend makes.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Minister first repudiate the obnoxious, unnecessary and contemptible attack on India's Government that has just been made? Knowing, as he well does, that I have been concerned that drug liaison officers should be installed in India, will he please answer the question that he has already been asked as to why India is refusing, and, in particular, whether it is because, on the basis of reciprocity, they are asking for information and help regarding smuggling which Her Majesty's Government are refusing to give?
Mr. Eggar: I recognise the part that the hon. and learned Gentleman, with others in the House, has played in trying to persuade the Indian Government to agree to the posting of British DLOs in India.
On 24 June the Indians asked us not to send our officers until agreement was reached on unrelated issues about cooperation between the United Kingdom and the Indian revenue authorities. That point was raised by the Indian Government. We responded immediately and said that we would give our full co-operation within our powers under the law. In other words, we would do everything that we could legally do to assist the Indian Government. That assurance appears not to have been accepted so far.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Despite the South African matter, is not the world drugs menace something to which the Commonwealth Heads of Government might turn their attention? Without attacking the Government of India at this moment, should not this be brought before other partner Governments and perhaps Sir "Sonny" Ramphal could do something about it?
Mr. Eggar: I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's points are drawn to the attention of the Commonwealth Secretary-General. The fight against drugs is worldwide. Every country has a major part to play in that fight and that is why we are so distressed at the stance taken by the Government of India.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Does the Minister appreciate that the excellent resolution passed by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in Ottawa last

595
year received the assent of all Commonwealth countries and instructed Governments to improve their position? Is he aware that, although heroin is a terrible drug, the greatest growth in imports is in cocaine? Rather than trying to give off-the-cuff answers to the House, he should have much closer relations with Dr. Alexander, the High Commissioner at India house, in Aldwych.
Mr. Eggar: I recognise the role that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members played in the fight against drugs and we are all grateful for that. He spoke about cocaine. The largest threat at present is from heroin and, as I have said, we believe that some 80 per cent. of heroin comes through from India. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about contacts with His Excellency the Indian High Commissioner. I saw His Excellency on Saturday 28 June and on Friday 11 July to discuss this issue. In the past year there have been 30 or more contacts at either ministerial or senior official level on the question of sending drugs liaison officers to India.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the House will be extremely disturbed by the news about the lack of co-operation by the Indian Government in this small effort to control the international trade in drugs? Can he reassure the House that he has had talks with the Indian High Commissioner in London since the decision by the Indian Government was taken and that the Prime Minister has been in contact with the Prime Minister of India since that time? Can he also reassure the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has suggested, that the subject will feature on the agenda for discussion by the Commonwealth leaders when they next meet?
Mr. Eggar: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent a message to Mr. Gandhi and we are still waiting for a response to it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary felt it right to inform the Select Committee on Home Affairs before the House rose about the difficulties we are encountering. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others will take the opportunity on Mr. Gandhi's visit to London in August to raise this question with him.
Mr. Tom Clarke: We all hope that the Indian Government will co-operate in these matters, but does the Minister accept that his own Government's record might have been more impressive if they had not considerably reduced the number of customs officers since 1979? Can the Minister explain the deterioration in relations not just with the Government of India but with almost every Commonwealth country, especially in recent weeks?
Mr. Eggar: In reply to the implied point made by the hon. Gentleman, I have to tell him that there is no indication from the Indian Government that there is any connection between developments in the Commonwealth and this issue. We certainly do not see any such connection. There are two officers from the Indian customs service in London, and they receive different forms of co-operation from the Government.
Mr. John Wheeler: Does my hon. Friend recall that some members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs visited the Indian sub-continent last November, and that alone among the three countries the Government of India declined to receive them? The
596
Governments of Pakistan and Bangladesh co-operate fully with the United Kingdom to suppress this odious drug trafficking trade. Will he again urge upon the Government of India the necessity to rejoin the humanitarian members of the Commonwealth and other countries in doing something about this problem?
Mr. Eggar: Because we believe that this is a worldwide fight, during the past year we have often been in close touch with the Indian Government. We shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the Indian High Commissioner.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the Minister dare to repudiate some of the interventions from senior Back Benchers who should know better and whose remarks seemed designed to sour a delicate situation? Is he aware of the helpful visit to India by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in May this year when there was every sign that the matter would be resolved speedily? Is he further aware that we share my right hon. Friend's puzzlement and his desire to get things moving?
What in the Minister's view is the new factor which has intervened since May? Is it the sikhs in Khalistan, although that problem was apparent in May? Is it something to do with sanctions and South Africa? What is the key factor? Will the Minister seek to clarify with the Indian Government the precise reason why they are now delaying? Will he make it clear to them that hon. Members on both sides of the House want progress to be made in ending this vile drug trade and that the only people who can benefit from further delays are the drug barons?
Mr. Eggar: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and particularly welcome the support that he and the Leader of the Opposition have given to our efforts to post drugs liaison officers in India. Of course, I cannot speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends or for their views, but we seek to ensure that our relations with India are good and excellent. Obviously, one must take into account the fact that right hon. and hon. Members and people outside the House feel very strongly about the drugs liaison officers issue. It is bound to have an effect on the way in which Her Majesty's Government's relations with India are viewed.

Points of Order
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a House of Commons point, not a party point. During Prime Minister's Question Time the Prime Minister used the words "in due course" four times. Why cannot "in due course" be tomorrow morning between 10.15 am and 11 am during an Adjournment debate? Why should some hapless junior Minister be sent along to defend the Cabinet Secretary and Mr. Ingham? Is there not a unique case for the Prime Minister herself to come to the House and not to let the matter fester? Surely she should come to the House and answer the questions which have been properly put.
Mr. Speaker: Whoever speaks for the Front Bench on either side is not a matter for the Chair.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There are three statements and business questions this afternoon, followed by private

597
Members' debates. I shall take another point of order, although if it is on the same point it is a matter not of order but of argument.
Mr. Peter Snape: I am seeking not to argue with you, Mr. Speaker, but to raise a point of order. Only the Chair can answer the point of order. Surely it is unfair if, after promising to co-operate with the inquiry, the Prime Minister forbids civil servants to give evidence to it, and if a junior Minister is asked to shuffle off excuses and to take the blame for what the Prime Minister said — [Interruption.] The democrats on the Government Benches want the issue to be quietened down, but they will not quieten me in a hurry. There has been an attempt at a cover up. We have nowhere else to go but to you, Mr. Speaker, to ask that the matter be debated properly. The right place for that debate is in the House, and the right time is tomorrow morning.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot help. Hon. Members know that who speaks from the Front Bench is not a matter for me. By great good fortune, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) drew a place in the ballot for the Adjournment debates tomorrow. The whole House will be interested to hear him, and some hon. Members might even be able to take part in the debate.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Does it arise out of questions?
Mr. Madden: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take no further points of order on the matter raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
Mr. Madden: This is a matter that could directly affect you, Mr. Speaker, and all other Members of Parliament during the recess. I have received information today that immigration officers at Heathrow are balloting to take action as from August bank holiday, the effect of which would be to bring Heathrow to a standstill. Thousands upon thousands of people arriving in this country would be subjected to very long delays in order to receive permission to enter the country. The immigration officers are balloting because of their anger and exasperation at the conditions in which they are working, which is a direct result of understaffing.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can best raise that matter on the motion for the summer Adjournment. If what he says is correct, clearly we should not adjourn tomorrow and, indeed, should sit until this matter has been resolved.

Business of the House
3.50 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May we have the business for the week beginning 21 August — [HON. MEMBERS: "October."]
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I think that the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm exceeds his expectations. The business for the first week after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY 21 OcronER—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Education Bill [Lords]
WEDNESDAY 22 OcToBER—Progress on remaining stages of the Sex Discrimination Bill [Lords]
THURSDAY 23 OCTOBER — Until seven o'clock completion of remaining stages of the Sex Discrimination Bill [Lords]
Remaining stages of the Salmon Bill [Lords]
FRIDAY 24 OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Public Trustee and Administration of Funds Bill [Lords]
Proceedings on the Family Law Bill [Lords] and the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill [Lords] which is a consolidation measure.
Motions on Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Orders.
Motion on the Second International Fund for Agricultural Development (Second Replenishment) Order.
The House may also be asked to consider any other Lords amendments and messages which may be received. It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate that Government business will also be taken in the two following weeks. It is expected that the new Session will be opened on Wednesday 12 November.
Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether, in view of the impending recess, he is now able to make an immediate statement on the investigations into the Deputy Chief Constable of Manchester, Mr. Stalker, as it would be in our universal interest to have a clear indication of the Government's view on this matter?
Today the Government are rushing through the statements on the royal ordnance factories and on Unipart and Leyland Bus. We have asked for statements on those subjects for the last month, but now there will be no time for a proper debate in Government time on these critical issues before Parliament rises. Is that satisfactory for the thousands of people who are anxious about the future of both the ROFs and the Leyland enterprise?
The report of the Select Committee on Defence on the Westland affair is obviously a matter of considerable importance. Last week the Leader of the House responded to my request for a debate on the report in this Session by saying that it was a "reasonable request". Is he now satisfied with the arrangements for the first week back, which plainly exclude any debate on that Select Committee report? Will he even now reflect on the matter and change the business for the first week back so that we may discuss the report.
I also note that in the first week back no time has been allocated for a debate on southern Africa. That is peculiar,

599
especially when in the intervening period during .August and September there will have been at least one meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government and at least one meeting of the European Council specifically to discuss that matter and the initiatives arising from their previous deliberations. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that this is another matter which he will reconsider so that we may debate the issue of South and southern Africa in the early days when we return after the Adjournment of the House?
Mr. Biffen: I will take those points in the order in which they were presented by the right hon. Gentleman.
I quite understand why there is anxiety that the so-called Stalker report should be made available. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that it would be inappropriate for the Government to do that until inquiries are concluded. I am sure that he will join with many others in the House and with the early-day motion which wishes a speedy conclusion to the inquiries which will then permit the publication of the report. I will, of course, refer his specific request to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
I think that the whole House will acknowledge that it is helpful for the employees concerned that statements should be made today in respect of the royal ordnance factories and British Leyland. I believe that that would have the general consent of the House.
With regard to a debate upon the Westland report, the right hon. Gentleman referred to our exchange on this topic last week. Of course, I take note of his request that the matter should be debated fairly early in the overspill, but I believe that the timing of such a debate would properly be a matter for the usual channels and perhaps it could be proceeded with in that manner.
Similarly, I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's concern about southern Africa, but I am sure that its topicality will not have diminished during our absence. Again, this is something which can be looked at through the usual channels.
Sir Trevor Skeet: Has my right hon. Friend noticed early-day motion 1067 relating to advice on technology to parliamentarians which has already been signed by 93 hon. Members?
[That this House, while recognising the support and assistance granted to the United States Congress and Senate during the past thirteen years by the Office of Technology Assessment, acknowledging that a similar approach is currently being considered for establishment in France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Australia to obtain well-informed and objective assessment, and in considering the rapid growth of technology in the past decade and its impact on economic development, health, environment and so forth, feels that where the need arises that there should be a body at Westminster to advise Parliamentarians of both Houses upon the implications and impact of scientific innovation, the identification of commercially exploitable areas of science, the correct evaluation of conflicting technical data, the collation of information secured from abroad, and the rational use of national resources; and urges the House of Commons Commission or relevant authority to establish a body within the precincts of Westminster to research, prepare reports and advise Parliamentarians on scientific matters independently of the executive, while at all times subscribing to three
600
crucial elements, namely, that it will accord with British Parliamentary traditions, be funded in part by the House of Commons Commission, and evolve out of the existing structure of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee.]
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can provide an early date to discuss this matter, as it is vital to the House.
Mr. Biffen: I have taken note of the early-day motion to which my hon. Friend has referred. It might be a suitable matter to be raised through an Adjournment debate rather than in Government time.
Mr. Michael Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is proper that the House should depart for the summer recess without having the opportunity to debate the Westland report? Does he not think it is extremely serious that the House should not discuss such major charges against the head of the Civil Service? Does he not consider that, if he does not provide time for a debate, he will be a party to the collusion between the Prime Minister and the head of the Civil Service—and collusion means guilty association?
Mr. Biffen: No. The right hon. Gentleman has a long and distinguished career in the House and he should not mar it by becoming a rather low-grade McCarthyite by implying collusion in this matter. The report, which came out today, deserves proper and measured consideration. As I suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I believe that that can take place in the overspill. If the right hon. Gentleman takes a contrary view, he can, of course, vote against the recess motion.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Regarding the innocence of the late Giuseppe Conlon and the Maguires, will my right hon. Friend invite the Home Secretary to take counsel with his advisers during the recess and, instead of leaving it to Back Benchers, find a way whereby either there can be a new trial or a Queen's pardon can be recommended?
Mr. Biffen: I am not sure what status or authority would have in this matter, but I shall take account of what my hon. Friend says and refer his remarks to those of my right hon. Friends who are approached.
Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Leader of the House aware that another report which concerns many Members with constituency interests in Plessey is that of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which is presently on the desk of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? It happens to relate especially to the Plessey work force in my constituency. If a statement cannot be made in the House this week, may a statement be made in the other place next week?
Mr. Biffen: Clearly my responsibilities do not run up the road. No statement can be made until the report has been made available and is ready for publication. I shall consider the matter, especially in respect of the facilities that might be offered by the other place.
Sir Edward du Cann: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House tell my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the strong feelings held in all quarters that war service should count for the pension calculation of civil servants, as is evidenced by early-day motion 254, which has been signed, following the lead of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), by well over 250 Members?

601
[That this House believes that overseas Civil Service pensioners should be allowed to count war service towards their pension entitlement in the same way as every other branch of the public service; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to do justice towards a small number of mostly elderly people whose working lives were spent abroad in the service of the Crown.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware that a mere 4,600 people are affected? Every year there are fewer. This House surely should give them justice.
Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend puts with great eloquence the point which hitherto has been argued forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mrs. Renée Short: The Leader of the House will no doubt recall that two weeks ago, after the welcome vindication of Mrs. Wendy Savage, I asked the Prime Minister whether she would take on board the matter and discuss it with the Secretary of State for Social Services with a view to having an inquiry into the competence of those who were her major accusers, especially as one of those gentlemen does virtually no National Health Service work with NHS patients, although he is working in an NHS hospital. Most of his time is spent dealing with private patients at £400 a time. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is about time that we had an inquiry?
Mr. Biffen: The judgment whether we should have an inquiry more properly belongs to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Mrs. Short: The Prime Minister said that she would speak to the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Mr. Biffen: I shall refer the request to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend read early-day motion 1120, which is headed "Compensation for Whistleblowers". It has been signed by 250 Members on both sides of the House.
[That this House positively supports paragraphs 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 of the Twenty-third Report of the Public Accounts Committee entitled Production Costs of Defence Equipment, on the subject of Post Costing of Contracts with Aish and Company; supports in particular paragraphs (x) and (xi) in the Report's recommendations which state:
'(x) We note that MoD officials responsible for contracts with Aish and Company did not begin to appreciate the possible extent of excess profits until the meeting with the company in March 1982. We conclude that the information provided to MoD by the two former employees probably did have a material effect on the MoD's post costing activities at this firm (paragraph 39).
(xi) We note that Treasury and MoD do not rule out the possibility of compensation to individuals who have helped MoD to identify possible excess profits but that the value and propriety of any compensation proposals would need to be considered very carefully (paragraph 40)'; and believes that compensation should be paid for loss of income and professional opportunity arising from whistleblowing in the case of Aish and Company.]
602
As the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee have been rejected in the Treasury minute, will my right hon. Friend ensure that a Minister explains the decision in the first week after the recess?
Mr. Biffen: The normal processes whereby PAC recommendations are considered by the Treasury mean that eventually the recommendations come before the House. I shall examine the matter that my hon. Friend has raised to ascertain the prospects for an early debate.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Arising from points of order yesterday, and having been encouraged by the response of the Leader of the House, I ask the right hon. Gentleman what arrangements he proposes to make to advise the House about the use of the Member's Dining Room when we return from the summer recess. What arrangement is it proposed to make for the House to debate the use of all these facilities, which is giving cause for widespread concern in all parts of the House?
Mr. Biffen: I have a statement that says that no action will be taken to bring into operation the proposed Dining Room experiment until there have been further discussions by the Catering Sub-Committee in the autumn. I know that one cannot win them all. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. As for these matters being debated, the activities of the Service Committee give rise to debates on the Floor of the House. I am sure that such opportunities will arise in future as they have in the past.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I remind my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of the exchange that we had a fortnight ago on 10 July when I put it to him that the proposal to use Fulbeck airfield as a possible nuclear dump was a breach of the statement made by Sir Thomas Dugdale on 20 July 1954, which is reported in Hansard at column 1190? My right hon. Friend told me a fortnight ago that he would do his best to arrange for an early statement on whether this policy was a breach of existing policy. So far as I know, he has not done so. Will he tell me what he has done to obtain an early answer, or what he proposes to do?
Mr. Biffen: I shall inquire to see whether the July lethargy is on account of myself or the Department concerned. When that has been done, I shall be in touch with my hon. Friend.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1105 in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and 24 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House?
[That this House condemns the oppressive enforced corralling into artificial villages of country people in Ethiopia by the Government of Ethiopia, thus driving them from their land at a great cost in human lives and provoking among the survivors a new wave of emigration of refugees into neighbouring countries like Somalia which have economic problems enough already; and therefore calls upon the Government of Ethiopia to terminate this inhuman practice forthwith, since failure to do so should be construed by Her Majesty's Government as an unto-operative action bordering on genocide which merits the curtailment of British development and food aid to Ethiopia.]

603
The motion remonstrates against the enforced corralling into artificial villages by the Marxist Government of Ethiopia of the hapless people of their country. This has precipitated a mass exodus of refugees into neighbouring countries, which are poor enough already. If there is no time available for a statement on this matter to the effect that representations will be made by Her Majesty's Government against this inhumane treatment, will he ensure that the matter will be accorded the priority that we attach to inhumane behaviour in southern Africa?
Mr. Biffen: There is no time for a statement. The Government have made their concern clear to the Ethiopian authorities. That was reported to the House on 23 May.
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: As the Prime Minister is responsible primarily for the sad state of affairs of the Commonwealth games that are to start in Edinburgh tonight, will the Leader of the House advise the Prime Minister not to go to Edinburgh because she would not be welcomed by more than a dozen Scotsmen?
Mr. Biffen: Despite all his many years in the House, the hon. Gentleman has not grasped the constitutional relationship between the Prime Minister and myself. I cannot undertake the task that he requests. The views of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister much more robustly coincide with the views of the British public than do those of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on recent developments in local government so that we can take account of the fact that the Ealing Labour-controlled council has recently sacked the town clerk because he insisted—
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman will next be sacked.
Mr. Greenway: —on being politically impartial? The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) will be sacked before anyone else. The same council is intimidating all its employees politically. The people of Ealing are worried that the Labour council now seeks to install a stooge town clerk to do its political bidding. Something must be done.
Mr. Biffen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a pertinent point which should have very much wider circulation. I hope, therefore, that he will treat his question as a trailer to the contribution that he will make in the debate on whether we should adjourn for the summer recess.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Leader of the House aware that many of us believe that before the House goes into recess we should have a statement on the Foreign Secretary's trip to South Africa, which has turned out to be as worthless as we predicted it would be?
As for the report of the Select Committee on Defence on Westland, how does the Leader of the House take it that, while the debate takes place in the country, in the media and elsewhere, the House will be denied the opportunity of being able to contribute to the debate? No provision has been made for us to debate the issue during the week after our return from the summer recess. Is this not a disgraceful abuse and typical of the way in which this Administration run matters?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman could well reconcile himself to the fact that life goes on whether the House is in session or not. Many active political debates take place irrespective of whether the House is in session. I am not sure that necessarily the nation is that much the poorer. I take account of what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of the debate. I have already shown a willingness to consider the matter further in my response to the Leader of the Opposition. There is no intransigence on my part.
Mr. Cecil Franks: I regret having to pursue the Stalker affair with my right hon. Friend once again. I am sure that by the time the House resumes in the autumn the matter will have been resolved and, therefore, will no longer be sub judice. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1153, which is indicative of the concern that is felt on both sides of the House about the Stalker affair.
[That this House is concerned about the damage being caused by the continuing uncertainty arising from the investigation of a complaint made against the Deputy Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police; notes that this matter has been under investigation since 28th May 1986, if not earlier; notes further that the House will rise on Friday 25th July 1986 and not return until the Autumn; and urges the Police Complaints Authority to bring the case to an early conclusion and to report before the House rises so as to enable hon. Members to have the opportunity of raising the wider issues involved.]
If the matter is dealt with by the appropriate authorities before the House returns in the autumn, will sympathetic consideration be given at some time during the early weeks of the new Session to the matter being discussed by the House?
Mr. Biffen: I understand entirely the point made by my hon. Friend. He may have noted that in my reply to the Leader of the Opposition I referred to the early-day motion. I think that we should see how the matter stands when we return towards the end of October. I shall be prepared to consider any requests from my hon. Friend at that time.
Mr. Robert Parry: Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to have words, during the summer recess, with the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments on the proposed construction of a nuclear power plant near Hong Kong? Early-day motion 1157 expresses widespread concern and fear.
[That this House, noting the grave concern of the general public of Hong Kong at the building of the proposed nuclear power plant at Daya Bay in the Guangdong Province of China, notes the opposition by a coalition of more than 100 trade unions, professional groups, community and local organisations and the petition signed by 700,000 citizens in two weeks which supports the anti-nuclear opposition backed by civic and church leaders, academics and scientists; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make urgent representations to the Chinese Government for the re-siting of this plant from close proximity to the Crown Colony, the most densely populated region on earth.]
Do any contingency plans exist for evacuation in the event of a serious accident at the proposed plant?
Mr. Biffen: Probably the best thing that I can do to assist the hon. Gentleman is to refer the early-day motion

605
to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and ask my right hon. and learned Friend to get in touch with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: My right hon. Friend knows that those enthusiasts on the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill are doing their best to get things moving by holding hearings during the summer recess. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Committee has gone a step further in its efforts to help Eurotunnel by refusing to hear evidence from the ferry companies and others on the financial viability of the tunnel and the safety considerations of the tunnel? In view of the unprecedented and bizarre—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member disclosing what is going on in the Select Committee?
Mr. Aitken: No; I am disclosing what has not gone on in the Select Committee. I am about to ask for a debate. In view of the bizarre and unprecedented suppression of evidence, which, incidentally—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member should ask for a debate and then sit down.
Mr. Aitken: I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that as soon as the House resumes we shall have an early debate so that the House and the country may hear the evidence that has been censored.
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has such an enviable innocence in the way he presents his propositions. I should like to examine carefully what he has said before deciding whether we should have a debate.
Mr. Max Madden: I fear that the Leader of the House is becoming rather bored with our regular exchanges about the treatment of visitors at Heathrow. What are the Government doing to stop Heathrow being thrown into chaos as from the middle of next month by action taken by immigration officers concerned about the treatment of visitors and angry about their conditions? I see that the Minister of State is giving some information to his bag carrier. I think that the Secretary of State for Transport should be concerned. What are the Government doing to stop the chaos arising at Heathrow?
Mr. Biffen: I think that, with a perceptive judgment, the hon. Gentleman has referred to me as a bag carrier of the Treasury Bench.
Mr. Madden: I did not mean the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Biffen: I see. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is a tentative, sort of headline answer to the points that he raised. To assist in solving the difficult position that he has described, there has been a redeployment of staff and the provision of extra accommodation. There have been discussions with the Nigerian Government and Nigeria Airways, as the position largely derives from the influx of Nigerians. I shall ask the Home Secretary to get in touch with the hon. Gentleman further.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the insidious document published recently by the Civil Aviation Authority, calling for more night flights at Heathrow and Gatwick airports? Is he further aware of the grave disquiet in my constituency about that
606
possibility among people whose lives have been thrown into turmoil by aircraft noise? Will my right hon. Friend make arrangements for the House to debate this important matter that touches on people's lives in a most profound way?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend perfectly describes a phenomenon that is immensely irritating in environmental terms in selected areas of the United Kingdom. I suggest that, in the first instance, my hon. Friend raises the matter in an Adjournment debate.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall endeavour to call those hon. Members who have been rising. That may give more scope to others seeking to speak in the debates or the Adjournment motion.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Fees Office has confirmed that a letter is to be sent out this weekend regarding the vote on Members' allowances? As the House is not sitting for the next three months, and as it is rumoured that the letter contains a shock or a surprise, can he tell us what it is?
Mr. Biffen: There is no shock or a surprise. It is merely a commonsense observation that the vote that took place was on the proposals for the current year. They were not intended to be retrospective.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I refer to the Education Bill and the Division on the caning amendment that was lost on Tuesday. Can my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made when the House resumes—prior to the further debate on the Education Bill—so that inquiries can be carried out? A number of Conservative Members, both for and against caning, were prevented from getting to the Division Lobby in time because of celebrations prior to the royal wedding. Although I am not asking for a rerun, it would be helpful if the Sessional Order could be brought to the attention of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police and all police surrounding Parliament square to ensure that hon. Members can get here to vote.
Mr. Biffen: I am satisfied that the police authorities did their best to ensure passage. There were quite unprecedented crowds. If they had been moved on to enable a gaggle of parliamentarians to cast a vote, it would have soured the atmosphere of the evening's celebrations.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: On a much lighter and harmonious note, in view of the end of term, I ask the Leader of the House whether he has studied my early-day motion 1146.
[That this House recognises the superb artistry of the Bolshoi Ballet; is grateful for the happiness and pleasure given to our citizens throughout the medium of television and by the performance at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden and elsewhere; and urges Presidents, Prime Ministers and government, both East and West, to pursue actions which maximise those things which make for common accord and minimise those matters which are divisive.]
I know that the right hon. Gentleman will be busy in the next three months trying to maintain his majority in his constituency. He will not have the responsibility of thinking up answers to business questions at 2 o'clock in the morning, so he will be ready for Thursdays. As we shall

607
not have time for a debate, and in spite of the fact that he once told me that he was the greatest philistine in the House, will he find time to go to see the Bolshoi Ballet and give it some encouragement?
Mr. Biffen: I think that the lobbyists for the Bolshoi Ballet should provide me with a free ticket.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Is my right hon. Friend aware, if the Labour party is not, that if there were an early debate on the Westland inquiry, the House's attention would have to be drawn to paragraph 183 of the Committee's report where part of the Committee unanimously absolved the Prime Minister from any blame or responsibility in the matter? Is it not nonsense on the part of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) to talk about collusion when he has not read the report?
Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says. When we have a debate that can take account of the Government's response and the reflective consideration of the report, I hope that my hon. Friend will be lucky enough to catch your eye. Mr. Speaker, and take part in the debate.
Mr. Robert Litherland: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 842.
[That this House expresses regret at Her Majesty's Government's refusal to recognise the plight of sufferers from abnormality of the feet; noting that this condition is mainly a result of spina bifida, polio, osteomyelitis and hydrocephalus, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is urged to understand and appreciate the seriousness of the problem and to reconsider the appeals emanating from the Stockport Odd Feet Association for special concessions regarding the relief from value-added tax on the purchase of the second pair of shoes required for this particular disability.]
The motion expresses regret at the Government's refusal to recognise the plight of sufferers from abnormality of the feet. mainly from polio and spina bifida. We ask for concessions on a second pair of shoes that disabled people must purchase.
Mr. Biffen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the early-day motion. At this stage of the Session, the most helpful thing that I could do would be to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to its content.
Mr. Richard Hickmet: I ask my right hon. Friend whether, at an early stage when we return in October, we can have a debate on the future of the British Steel Corporation, especially in the light of its profits announced for the last financial year and its productivity compared with some years ago. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be opportune to review the success of the corporation and where it goes here?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend will appreciate that there are a great many demands on time, even in the overspill, but I shall certainly take account of his request, not least because the steel industry remains not only an important industry but an increasingly successful one.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Tom Clarkerose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Tony Banks.
Mr. Tony Banks: That cost me 50p, Mr. Speaker. Will the Leader of the House explain to me, as a relatively new and inexperienced Member—
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Hear, hear.
Mr. Banks: Coming from the hon. Gentleman, that is rather rich. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why we need so long a period for the summer recess? A. considerable amount of business on which hon. Members are pressing for a debate has yet to be considered. The other place will be sitting a week longer and returning two weeks earlier than the House of Commons. I realise that all right hon. and hon. Members have lots to do, but we shall be deprived of a valuable platform which we can use as Members of Parliament.
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain these points? What are the procedures? How is the length of the recess decided? I am sure that I am not the only person who is interested in knowing the answers; the rest of the country must be interested as well.
Mr. Biffen: The recess is just a touch longer than the average recess at this time of the year, but there is not much in it. I think that most hon. Members find it valuable to have a reasonably lengthy break. I know that the hon. Gentleman would be deeply saddened if he could not attend the Labour party conference. Such considerations stretch the days. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I did not expect to hear such hostility on the Labour Benches at the prospect of a Labour party conference. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition needs even more time off to train Labour Members.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: On the question of the recess, does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the time in which we have both been Members, July has always been a month with a mixture of high drama and boredom and that some of the high drama is real and some is simulated? Does he know that at the beginning of 1988 — my right hon. Friend has to look ahead—there will be a change in school terms? Because of the examination changes, all the schools will break up for the holidays at the beginning of July. This will create problems for hon. Members who have children. This will apply to Government maintained and independent schools through the new examination changes. What will my right hon. Friend do? Will we have an extra month's holiday, or should I say working recess? My right hon. Friend will have to plan next year for the Commons' programme the year after.
Mr. Biffen: I wish devoutly that July had more boredom and less high drama. Voices around me have told me that my hon. Friend was totally misconceived in suggesting that revolutionary changes in school holidays were ahead. I suspect that, if revolutionary changes in school holidays occur, this place in due course will change, and then there will be a chorus of complaints that we no longer have the 90-day recesses which we used to have which gave us a chance to travel overseas, to go round our constituencies, to be with our families and to put matters in better perspective. One cannot win.
Mr. Tom Clarke rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Tom Clarke. I am sorry about the bet.
Mr. Clarke: I am sure that you will accept, Mr. Speaker, that no Scotsman ever regretted going home with

609
an extra 50p in his pocket. This is no exception. In view of the astonishing reply by the Leader of the House to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), has the right hon. Gentleman borne in mind that my right hon. Friend was merely reflecting the tone of the report? Does he accept that the last sentence in the report gives witnesses who feel that they have been unfairly treated the chance to put matters right? What practical steps will the Government take within the next few days to make that possible?
Mr. Biffen: If the hon. Gentleman's point is valid—I do not have the advantage of having read the report—it is a great argument for having the debate later rather than earlier.

Severn Crossing
4.24 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about a second Severn crossing.
In February 1984 my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Transport announced the Government's decision to proceed with a programme of strengthening and repair for the Severn crossing. That programme is well under way and is proceeding well. At the same time my right hon. Friend announced that he intended to initiate a study into the way in which a second crossing might be provided in the same general corridor as the existing crossing. Consultants were appointed later in the year and asked to report by August this year. I am glad to say that the consultants have completed their work ahead of time and copies of the report have today been placed in the Library of the House.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I have considered the consultants' findings and recommendations and have decided that a second Severn crossing should be provided. We propose that this new crossing should be a bridge sited at the English Stones, about three miles downstream of the existing crossing with connections to the M4 on both banks and with an additional southerly link to the M5. The new bridge would carry a dual two-lane motorway with hard shoulders. The consultants advise us that it will be possible to provide windshielding on the bridge.
We are proceeding with the next stage of planning immediately. This is a major project and much work remains to be done and consultations set in hand. I am sure that the House will welcome this commitment to build a second crossing of the Severn on the main route into south Wales. I know that this decision will also be very widely welcomed in Wales. The Government have always recognised the vital importance of the Severn crossing to the economy of Severnside and south Wales. Our action in strengthening the existing crossing, and the commissioning of this report, its completion by the consultants within the timetable set and the decisions that I have announced today confirm our determination to ensure that the crossings are adequate for future traffic needs and underline our commitment to the future economic development of the Principality.
Mr. Barry Jones: I welcome the statement. It is welcome news and an important proposal in the history of the south Wales economy. The report's conclusions brutally spell out the delays and their economic consequences for the 1990s at the existing bridge. There was no alternative but to build. The Wales Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry and Gwent county council have long sought such a statement.
Will the Secretary of State join me in acknowledging the persistent campaign over a decade of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who fights so hard for his constituency and the county of Gwent?
I wish to put a series of questions to the right hon. Gentleman. How many jobs will the project create? How much will it cost? How could the right hon. Gentleman telescope the planning procedures to ensure the earliest

611
possible start? Will the new bridge be tolled? There will be implications for the existing bridge either way and for the M4 and M5.
Will the Welsh Office budget bear the cost of the new bridge? Which Department — the Welsh Office or the Department of Transport — will sponsor the bridge? Which Department is in charge in terms prosecuting the building of the bridge? Will the cost of the bridge affect the other budgets of the Secretary of State for Wales? We know that he has many other important economic and social programmes, and we want none to fall aside because the bridge is to be built. What is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the construction time? Does he agree that the steel, cement, construction and transport industries will gain greatly from the project? Because windshields for the bridge are mentioned in the report, will be comment on the safety factors?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the second crossing will give the south Wales economy a major boost and avoid expensive and damaging hold-ups at the existing bridge? Does he agree that south Wales will become an even more attractive location for modern job prospects and especially for the location of manufacturing projects from Japan, Europe and the United States?
This is an exciting development for the 133,000 unemployed citizens of the five south Wales counties, where male unemployment is one in four. It is an immense psychological boost to the economy. It will restore confidence from Cardiff to Brussels and it will create many jobs and buttress others. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to press on with all speed. The Opposition believe in the urgent need for this project and a Labour Government would build a second crossing with ruthless speed. It is the key to a better industrial future for Wales.
Mr. Edwards: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tone and warmth of his welcome and for the support he has given to the decision. I agree that it will be widely welcomed by many and I acknowledge that many have compaigned for a long time.
The cost of the actual construction is given in the consultants' report, at 1986 prices, as £183 million. However, when we come to the total cost involved, including land acquisition and other matters, it will be over £200 million. I would not wish to be more specific than that at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman asked about telescoping the planning arrangements. I hope that when he talked about proceeding at ruthless speed he was not suggesting that there should not be proper consultation with those that will be affected. I can confirm that we are as anxious as he is to waste no time in getting on with the necessary procedures. We are getting on to the next stage at once with a sense of urgency on the basis that a bridge must be provided as soon as it is needed and Parliament so decides. We wish to be in a position to provide the crossing by the mid-1990s but, of course, the decisions at each stage will have to have regard to the way in which the traffic develops.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the process we will follow. As I said, we are going ahead without pause on the planning arrangements. Our intention is to proceed by way of legislation to avoid planning procedures being unduly prolonged. However, as I have emphasised, there will have to be proper consultation with those affected. In order to get the maximum possible speed when we are ready to go
612
ahead and the greatest economic advantage, if the outcome of the present tendering exercise for Dartford tunnel proves successful—there is every sign that it will —we shall consider using similar procedures.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Welsh Office budget and which Department will be responsible for the bridge. Both the Department of Transport and the Welsh Office have worked in the closest possible collaboration on this matter. I should like to pay a tribute to the former Secretary of State for Transport, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, for the considerable effort that he put in to getting this matter going in the fastest possible time. I would also like to express my appreciation for the way in which the present Secretary of State for Transport has thought it right, in view of the importance of the announcement for south Wales, that I should make this statement. I must emphasise that this is a project for which both Departments are responsible. However, the actual construction of the bridge will be the responsibility of the Department of Transport. My Department will clearly be involved in the approach roads on the Welsh side arid the. Department of Transport will be involved in the approach roads on the English side. The Department of Transport has the technical expertise, which clearly makes it appropriate for it to be the responsible Department.
The hon. Gentleman asked about windshields. One of the reasons for going so carefully into the question of the tunnel alternative was because of our concern about the wind. One of the benefits of having undertaken this important and essential study is that it has come to the conclusion that windshields can he provided effectively so that traffic will not be delayed and interrupted as it has been in the past.
The hon. Gentleman emphasised the enormous importance of this decision for the economy of south Wales. May I also point out that it is an important decision for the economy of Avon as well? It is a fact that 60 per cent. of the traffic crossing the present bridge goes from south Wales to the Bristol area and that the proposed plan will shorten the journey by about 14 km. We are talking about a project of importance for the whole of Severnside and south Wales.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: I welcome the statement and the fact that it is being made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I say that with no disrespect to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I feel that it further underlines the Government's commitment to the economy of south Wales and the importance of the Severn bridge as a prime feature there. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this statement fulfils a promise previously given that the Government would ensure that a second crossing of the Severn would be in place as soon as it was needed? May we hope that we need have no more unnecessary scare stories about the present Severn bridge, which have certainly done nothing to help the economy of south Wales?
Mr. Edwards: It is our intention to provide the bridge as soon as it is needed, taking account of the build-up of traffic. That must be the right way to proceed. We have gone ahead to ensure the absolute security of the present crossing. The limitation of the present crossing is in terms of capacity. There is now clear evidence that we shall face an increasing capacity problem into the mid-1990s.

613
Therefore, we are going ahead with the planning for the next stage of the new bridge so that it can be provided when necessary. As I have said, we are taking every step to ensure that the time scale is kept as short as possible on the assumption that the traffic builds up in the way we expect.
Mr. Michael Foot: I certainly congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the statement. However, many Opposition Members think that a special tribute is due to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) and Gwent county council. They have fought so long for this project. May I say that perhaps the best way of celebrating would be to abolish tolls on the present bridge and make sure that we do not have tolls on the new one?
Mr. Edwards: If it makes people happy to be congratulated, no doubt congratulations will come. The truth is that everyone who has had the smallest knowledge of the south Wales economy has recognised the importance of securing this crossing. The Government have made their determination to do that absolutely plain from the word go. It has not needed any lobbying either by the hon. Member for Newport, East or by Gwent county council to bring the Government to that decision. However, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the announcement.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to tolls. The Government have made a statement about their tolls policy. This enables me to answer a question put by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) that I did not answer. The cost of the bridge will fall within the appropriate departmental budgets in the normal way. However, a toll regime and the possibilities opened up by the Dartford tunnel procedure may offer the possibility of reducing the demand on the public purse and making it possible to build more of the other roads in England and Wales, which I have no doubt hon. Members will continue to demand. I see the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) agreeing with those views. I know that his party does not want a Severn bridge at all and has argued that frequently. However, I know that he will be pressing me for other roads and I am sure that he will support a private option and a toll regime in order to produce the maximum possible resources.
Mr. Paul Marland: It will come as no surprise to my right hon. Friend to know that his announcement will be warmly welcomed in west Gloucestershire. Whenever there was a problem with the Severn bridge, whether it be wind or repairs, the traffic was always diverted up the A48, which runs straight through my constituency and there was absolute mayhem on that road with all the extra traffic.
As congratulations are in order, I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on not simply talking about something but doing something about it. It is all very well to congratulate Opposition Members on their input in lobbying my right hon. Friend but deeds come much harder than words. It is easy to talk and very difficult to grasp the nettle. I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on behalf of all my constituents on what he has done today. The inclusion of windshielding is
614
an exceedingly good idea because often in the past the present Severn bridge has been closed because of high winds.
Mr. Edwards: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's thanks and I know that the decision will be welcomed in his constituency. He talked about deeds, but the House must understand from the consultants' report that the Severn is the most difficult estuarial crossing anywhere in Britain and this is a major undertaking. All the work done in the present study was an absolutely essential precursor to the further work and could not have been avoided. Indeed, without it we would never have reached our present knowledge about the possibilities of windshielding and of maintenance-free depths. We hope that with the form of bridge envisaged, which will have a short bridge section in the centre of the channel, it will be possible to avoid some of the resurfacing and maintenance problems that exist on the present bridge. That sort of fact has emerged as a result of the study.
Mr. Richard Livsey: We warmly welcome the proposals for a second Severn crossing, and believe that it is absolutely necessary and will be of particular benefit to the south Wales economy. Will the Secretary of State say whether he will publish a timetable for the construction of the bridge? Can he tell us why a two-lane rather than a three-lane bridge will be constructed, when there is congestion on the present two-lane bridge? Why was a tunnel rejected when 100 years ago a certain Mr. I. K. Brunel was capable of constructing one for the railways? Has a Severn barrage been considered in connection with the new bridge crossing? Will the Secretary of State consider writing off the debt of the present Severn bridge?
Mr. Edwards: We are constructing an additional dual two-lane motorway with hard shoulders, which will work in tandem with the existing bridge. I appreciatc that the hon. Gentleman has not yet had the opportunity to read the lengthy, detailed report which makes clear recommendations about the adequacy of the solution, or to read why the consultants recommend a bridge solution rather than a tunnel solution. That has been decided not merely on cost terms, although there is a considerable cost advantage, but on operational terms. It would probably not be possible to provide hard shoulders in a tunnel and we have all learnt the importance of having them. The relevance of a barrage crossing between Cardiff and the Weston-super-Mare area to the general traffic flow from Cardiff along the M4 to London and, substantially, into the Bristol area can, at the most, be extremely marginal. We are also concerned with getting an early crossing when it is required for traffic, and not having to await possible prolonged discussions on a barrage project. The two matters are not related.
Mr. Rob Hayward: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments, particularly as I know of the importance of the project for both Wales and Avon. It could generate thousands of jobs on both sides of the Severn at its peak of construction. May I take this opportunity to draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the fact that many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Cope), will represent their constituents' interests on environmental matters during the planning process?
Mr. Edwards: I can confirm the benefit that will accrue to the Avon area and the shorter journey times involved, which is a reason why we decided to choose the M5 link. Despite the need for prompt and effective action, I fully understand the importance of consulting properly and ensuring both that the interests of local people are guarded as fully as possible in building this major road link and that the usual compensation arrangements will apply. The Severn estuary is an environmentally important area, so we must do our best to ensure that the environment is protected, although I believe that in many ways the bridge will be a positive feature in the landscape.
Mr. Michael Cocks: The fact that the statement is made by the Secretary of State for Wales rather than the Secretary of State for Transport shows that Conservative Central Office is more worried about election results in south Wales than in south-west England. It was only in a late answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) that the county of Avon and the fact that there is another bank to the bridge was mentioned. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) that there is a second bank to the bridge and that those who represent the people on that side want their full share of the work and benefits that will flow from its construction. It is not good enough to present the proposal to the I-louse merely as a benefit for Wales. There are two sides to this and I hope that that will be borne in mind.
Mr. Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that it needed my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) to draw attention to the Avon side of the bridge. I drafted that section of the statement and expressly inserted a reference to "Severnside" because I fully appreciate that the proposal affects both sides. I welcome the invitation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to me to make this statement because it helps to emphasise the close collaboration between the two Departments in what is an essential junction for communities on both sides of the estuary.
Mr. Michael Stern: May I join the general chorus of congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his welcome announcement? I wish to follow the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) and the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks). Has my right hon. Friend worked out, or does he intend to work out, any way in which the undoubted economic benefits for the area as a whole— that is, both south Wales and Avon—can be equalised so that contractors on the Avon side of the estuary will compete on equal terms with those on the subsidised assisted area on the Severn side?
Mr. Edwards: I do not know of subsidies for road contractors which would allow one side to have a competitive advantage over the other. Obviously, we shall consider many important matters, such as whether the tender is competitive and the technical ability of the contractor to carry out this formidable engineering task. We shall in the next phase consider the options opened up to us by the Dartford tunnel procedures and the possibility of producing a design and tender operating procedure.
Sir Anthony Meyer: My right hon. Friend and his colleagues deserve the warmest
616
congratulations on having conducted a careful study and on having acted so swiftly on its results. Does he agree that this shows that excellent communications are by far the best way of bringing jobs to areas, whether we speak of north Wales, south Wales or Avonside?
Mr. Edwards: I agree. We have taken the decision in the month in which we are considering tenders for the Conwy tunnel crossing, which will be the largest such operation yet undertaken in the United Kingdom. Therefore, we are tackling with massive new engineering schemes two of the major traffic needs of the Principality, and that should be taken on board.
Mr. Donald Coleman: The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that there will be a welcome in south Wales for his announcement. Everyone is happy about it as it is important to our economy. Whatever the Secretary of State said in respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), he is the man who will have tribute paid to him for his persistence It is a pity that the Secretary of State is insistent about tolls. Will he ensure that if we must have tolls, we have toll points on both sides of the bridge to avoid the problem on the present bridge of traffic waiting on the bridge?
Mr. Edwards: No doubt the world will be amazed at this desperate need to find some form of support for the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes). It will be amazing if the world is ever brought to believe that he influenced the Government's decision on this major project, but if people think that he did, so be it.
The hon. Gentleman will see, when he comes tb read the consultants'report that the consultants address themselves to the question of toll booths and where they might he positioned. Clearly that is a practical matter that will have to be gone into in some detail before a final decision is taken.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: The Secretary of State has done me the courtesy of quoting what I would have said before I said it so that I do not need to repeat it.
In terms of transportation priorities, both cross-border and within Wales, can he say what the effect will be on his departmental vote? In particular, what effect might this have on the need to dual the Heads of the Valleys road and to improve transportation within the valleys? Does the fact that either he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport propose to introduce a Bill have implications for the environmental safeguards that will he required on the estuary?
Mr. Edwards: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's confirmation that Plaid Cymru in fact is opposed to a second Severn crossing, and wants the road to be built elsewhere. I had not thought he would do that.
Mr. Thomas: I did not say that.
Mr. Edwards: That was what I said, and the hon. Gentleman thanked me for confirming it. If there is some misunderstanding, perhaps it can be settled within his party.
I can tell him that we are consulting on the other priorities for the 1990s in Wales, as he knows, and will consider the various recommendations currently being put to us from all over Wales.
With regard to environmental issues, we clearly have to give an adequate opportunity for those who will be

617
affected to comment, and we shall do that. The object of the legislation is to avoid the possible long delays that can take place if one uses traditional planning procedures, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, can take 10 or 15 years on such a project.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: The sum of £200 million is a great deal of money, but there is no doubt that on commercial criteria alone this expenditure is justified. That being the case, have we not missed an opportunity to contain public expenditure with this project? As it is commercially justifiable, could we not, as with the Channel tunnel, have had it done through the private sector?
Mr. Edwards: What I said about the Dartford tunnel options may not be clear. The whole of the Dartford tunnel tendering procedure was designed to ascertain whether a privately financed solution was practical. My right hon. Friend is at present considering the tenders received. In the light of that experience, we shall certainly want to see whether that is a possibility in this case. As I pointed out earlier, it could release resources for all the other desirable road projects that people want.
Dr. John Marek: I am sorry to hear the Secretary of State steadfastly refuse to congratulate Gwent county council and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes). I wondered whether the Minister's statement is a result of a sudden realisation by the Conservative party that the general election is well above the horizon. Is there a fund of some sort for these projects that will be announced? If so, will anything be available to other parts of Wales? In particular, could we have a dual carriageway on the A483 instead of the present ragbag of roads — unless, of course, the Secretary of State has already resigned himself to the fact that the constituencies of Delyn and Clwyd, South-West will be Labour gains at the next election?
Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has clearly failed to recognise that we appointed the consultants some two years ago to report in August, and they have reported ahead of schedule. We said that we would report on the consultants' conclusions as soon as possible. Not only have we reported on the conclusions of the report, we have announced our decision on where the road will go. In view of what he said about roads in his part of the world, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will support a privately financed bridge, if that proves a feasible option proposition.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: The Secretary of State well knows that on 29 November 1984 the Government cut the percentage of the working population in Wales qualifying for regional development grant from 90 per cent. to 35 per cent. In order to maximise the advantages of the new bridge to the economy of south Wales, does he intend to restore those losses?
Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has grossly misrepresented the statistical position because, under the different arrangements, a very high proportion of the population of Wales receives regional assistance. What we have done is to change the pattern of regional assistance so that Wales benefits considerably more from regional
618
assistance, as was pointed out by one of my hon. Friends. What this will do, as the consultants clearly point out, is to give a considerable further boost to regional policy.
Dr. Roger Thomas: Can I seek the assurance that this is a genuine additional bridge, a complementary bridge, rather than a replacement bridge? Many people in south Wales fear that the present bridge will never be fully safely operational again. Wales needs two bridges, not one and a half.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We are pressing on with the programme. It is going well. We are confident that, when it is complete, the present bridge will be absolutely secure as a crossing. As I said earlier, the limitations on that bridge are those of capacity. We are now seeking to enlarge substantially the capacity of the crossing.
Mr. Roy Hughes: I welcome the statement, and I am glad that it has been made by the Secretary of State for Wales. The crossing of the Severn is a vital connection to and from Wales. I say this with no disrespect to the Secretary of State for Transport who is in his place in the Chamber.
Broadly speaking, the scheme is what I have been advocating for quite some time and, in that sense, I have been backed up by my right hon. and hon. Friends, by county councils like Gwent and by Newport borough council. Will the Secretary of State appreciate that this is the culmination of several years of campaigning that commenced with the famous Adjournment debate on 28 October 1983 when I was alone in the Chamber with the hon. Lady the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker)? [Interruption.] She was promoted after that.
Contrary to what the Secretary of State has told the House today, does he appreciate that there were many fainthearts at that time, some of them in high places, but later on even CBI Wales started to sit up and take notice, and that took a bit of doing?
I regret, of course, that there is no intention as yet on the part of the Government to abolish tolls on estuarial crossings. I advise and urge the Government to think again about this matter, particularly bearing in mind the horrific unemployment situation in Wales, about which so much needs to be done.
Can the Secretary of State tell us about the proposed time scale for the building of the bridge? Will he, apart from being ruthless about planning, try to ensure that the planning procedures are sharpened up? Did he, like me, note a little apathy in the third paragraph in the conclusion of the report in its reference to delays in future years? Can I assure the Secretary of State, on behalf of thousands of motorists, that lane closures, delays and frustration very much exist already? They need to be eliminated as quickly as possible.
Finally, will the Secretary of State assure the House that the contract for the building of the bridge will be awarded to a British company, because there is already speculation to the contrary?
Mr. Edwards: If that was the speculation before the House had even been told of the decision to build, one can see the value of it. I have laid down the criteria that the Department of Transport will have to take into account in choosing the contractors. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is pleased about the decision that we have

619
taken. A great many people, including the hon. Gentleman, have made representations over the years, none more vigorously than my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson), whose first parliamentary question in the House addressed itself to this very topic. If credit is to be given to anyone, it is to the hon. Member within the Government and my Department, who has never ceased to press the importance of the matter upon me.

Royal Ordnance plc
5 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about Royal Ordnance plc.
On 17 June, I announced the Government's decision not to proceed with the planned flotation of Royal Ordnance plc. I also made it clear in answer to questions on 18 June that we would review all the various options to decide how best to achieve our aim of privatisation. That review is now completed and I can tell the House that, with the exception of one factory, it remains our firm preference to sell the company as a whole. We would hope to do so by a private sale if that proves practicable. Over the coming weeks, we shall be inviting bids on the basis of a selling memorandum and I shall report further to the House when we have made some concrete progress.
The exception is the tank-building business at Leeds. Following discussions between the Ministry of Defence and Vickers, an offer has been made by Vickers plc to purchase Royal Ordnance Leeds, which the Government and the board of Royal Ordnance have accepted, subject to detailed discussions now taking place between Royal Ordnance and Vickers to finalise the agreement. The price will be related to an audited net asset value but we expect it to be about £11 million. As part of the agreement, Vickers will build a major new facility at the Leeds site, similar to its factory at Newcastle. That reflects its faith in the business and its determination to win the export orders that are critical to the continuing future of the factory.
I can also tell the House that in the light of the agreement, the way is now clear for a decision to order a seventh regiment of Challenger tanks, subject to detailed contract terms. Vickers has agreed that the tanks will be manufactured at Leeds and we have negotiated with Vickers prices that represent an improvement on the terms offered by Royal Ordnance. I am satisfied that the competitive pressures that have operated on both companies during our various negotiations have ensured that the Ministry of Defence will receive good value for money for this important order.
Mr. Denzil Davies: The most significant and perhaps the most disturbing announcement in the statement, which was leaked heavily in this morning's newspapers, is the sale of the tank factory at Leeds to its main and only competitor, Vickers. We believe that that sale is another step in what will turn out to be the dismemberment of the Royal Ordnance factories. The Secretary of State's "firm preference" and fine words mean nothing at all after the way in which the Government and his Department have treated both the management and employees of the Royal Ordnance factories.
It is extraordinary that a policy of privatisation that was supposed to encourage competition within the British defence industry is eliminating that competition and creating a monopoly supplier in the British economy for main battle tanks. Is the Secretary of State aware that his predecessor wrote a personal letter to all the employees of all the Royal Ordnance factories assuring them that their factories would not be sold off to a competitor, which could, by the very nature of being a competitor, close

621
down those factories? That assurance has now been cynically and brutally abrogated by the right hon. Gentleman.
If two private sector companies were to merge the important sectors of their business in that way, a Government of the day, rightly, would refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The Government are doing exactly the same thing; they are promoting a merger between two competitors and thereby creating a monopoly. Why should not that be considered by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, in the national interest?
Is the right hon. Gentleman still persisting, as we think he is, in his policy of competitive tendering for defence contracts? If so, the only competition in future for the building of tanks will come from foreign competitors. In view of the amount of support that is given by foreign countries to their defence industries, there is a real danger in future that the next generation of the main battle tank for the British Army will be built not in Britain, but in France, Germany or the United States. The right hon. Gentleman's policy on the ordnance factories is in a mess, and he knows it. What he should do now is keep them in the public sector, where they have been profitable, efficient and competitive.
Mr. Younger: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not give a welcome to this encouraging announcement. I think that he will find that not only he but others will regret the fact that they have made that move at this time without looking more carefully at it. If one looks at the deal from the point of view of those whose livelihood is in building tanks, one sees it as a most important and positive step in giving those people a more secure future.
The undertaking that my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), my predecessor, gave the employees in the letter that he wrote is maintained by the decision that I have made today. It is exactly the case that the undertaking that he gave still applies. We do not envisage, as he did not, parts of Royal Ordnance being sold to someone who would wish to close them down to eliminate competition. That is most certainly not the case in this instance. The deal improves Leeds's future prospects and involves the commitment by the owners to build a major new factory in Leeds, to build those tanks. Therefore, no one can say that that commitment is not being fully carried out.
Of course, we wish to encourage competition in every way we can. One should bear in mind—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will — that if there are two different tank manufacturers and nothing like enough business for both of them, one does not get meaningful competition except for a very short time. It follows that the new company, with the two factory sites together, should be able to be a much more powerful competitor agaist foreign competitors or, indeed, a more powerful component in collaborative ventures for the future.
With regard to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, under the Fair Trading Act it is the duty of the Director General of Fair Trading to consider and refer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry anything that he considers should be referred to him. Any further decision thereafter will be for my right
622
hon. Friend to make. I have n6 reason to think that there is any difficulty about that. No doubt that will be raised if it is thought appropriate.
Whichever way one looks at the statement, it is an important and positive announcement for the future of those who make tanks. I think that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) will greatly regret having been so sour about it.
Dr. Keith Hampson: My right hon. Friend knows that many of us have felt that Royal Ordnance has been unsatisfactorily handled, but what he said about the commitment of Vickers to further investment is welcome in part. As the details have not been finalised, will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that Vickers has a long-term commitment and that the investment is not simply to quicken up the Challenger tank order, after which the factory might have little to do? Surely an investment in the longer-term to diversify the product range is the answer. As many of us want to keep Royal Ordnance as an integrated company, was there no chance of a private sale that involved the whole of Royal Ordnance, including Leeds?
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His extremely close interest in the factory and everything to do with it is well known. I agree that the longer-term the commitment can be the better, but the length of any commitment for tank manufacture in Britain is bound to be affected by the likely ordering pattern for tanks. In the long term, I do not see any substantial increase in the number of tanks that are likely to be ordered by my Department. It follows that the long-term future for all those who make tanks is crucially dependent on having a highly competitive way of operating and therefore a better chance of getting foreign business. The combined arrangement will be much better placed to achieve that.
Mr. Denis Healey: Let me, as the constituency Member of Parliament, cheer up the Secretary of State a little. I welcome the Government's belated recognition that Barnbow is the best heavy tank factory in Britain, and the recognition by Vickers that the Barnbow work force is the best tank force in Britain. I deeply regret that the Government's 12-month delay in placing this order has made redundancies inevitable at Barnbow this autumn. However, if Barnbow is, as the Government admit, the best tank factory with the best work force, why on earth have the Government decided to sell it off to a firm with an inferior capacity, thus creating a private monopoly in which the British taxpayer is the only customer? How on earth can the Secretary of State reconcile that with his predecessor's statement that he wished to see competition—a statement that followed the passage that the right hon. Gentleman read out from his predecessor's statement?
On price, would not Vickers be able to recover the £11 million that the right hon. Gentleman says that it will pay for the factory out of the profits from the Challenger order alone? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that if an auditor finds that the factory's assets are worth more than £11 million — this morning The Times suggested that they are worth £16 million—Vickers will have to pay the higher price?
Why should the House, or the work force at Barnbow, have any more confidence in the undertakings from Vickers that the right hon. Gentleman has just relayed

623
than they had in the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking to sell off Royal Ordnance as a whole and not to sell it off in bits?
Mr. Younger: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome of at least parts of the statement. He is very much more realistic than his right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies).
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) made the point that, as the only domestic customer for the purchase of tanks, the Ministry of Defence is in a unique position. It is my concern over the long-term future of tank manufacture in this country that leads me to the inevitable conclusion that this is by far the best solution. The right hon. Gentleman points to it being a monopoly. He might like to reflect carefully upon what the position would be if we allowed just the two—indeed, the only two—tank manufacturers in the country to battle it out for orders that are not nearly sufficient to keep the two going. There are barely enough orders to keep one of them going. The result would be that one of them would go to the wall. Therefore, it is much better for the long-term future of tank manufacture that this deal should be done.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the seventh regiment of Challenger tanks. I very much hope that Vickers will be able to recover the money that it has invested. I have no idea whether it thinks that it will be able to do it on one order alone, but I very much hope that it will recover the money. The quicker it recovers it, the more prosperous the company, which all depend upon, will be.
I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to have pretty good confidence in a company that is prepared not only to pay about £11 million for the assets of this factory but also to invest probably a larger sum in the building of an entirely new factory in its place on the same site and to employ most of the same work force. I should have thought that he would be very pleased indeed about that.
Mr. Jim Lester: I welcome the end to the uncertainty by the announcement of the Challenger order, but is my right hon. Friend .aware that there will be widespread concern in Nottingham, and in the Nottingham ROF, about the fact that the natural partnership in tank production between Leeds and Nottingham will be broken. What assurance is he able to give the House that co-operation over future tank production will be maintained? One of the major points that was made at the time of privatisation by those hon. Members with Nottingham constituencies who dealt with the Bill was that the philosophy of privatisation is wider share ownership among employees. How can my right hon. Friend guarantee wider share ownership among the employees, either in Leeds or in the rest of the ROFs, on the basis of a single sale, on whatever criteria?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate the points that my hon. Friend has made, and I am grateful to him for welcoming the end of the uncertainty, which will undoubtedly be a great relief to many. However, my hon. Friend will know very well—indeed, better than most—that Nottingham is to be involved in the order announced today — the seventh regiment of Challenger tanks. In future, it will no doubt be very well placed competitively to obtain further orders, or to take part in further orders, either as a subcontractor of Vickers, if that is the most appropriate way,
624
or in some other way with foreign firms. My hon. Friend knows better than most that a very large part of Nottingham's output is export orders. In no way will that be altered by this statement, because it remains part of Royal Ordnance.
As for wider share ownership, I should very much have liked to see a flotation, if that had been possible, in July and an opportunity for all concerned to own shares. However, I hope that the Leeds employees will find that Vickers is a good employer, and I hope that it will discuss with the unions and all concerned at Leeds how matters are to be taken forward.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Secretary of State will be aware from what he has been told by his Minister of State, who met a number of hon. Members at a meeting to which we took shop stewards from Barnbow, that there has been much discussion about Barnbow's future in recent months, let alone recent years. One of the overall questions that all of us will have to face up to is that, whether the factories are owned by Vickers or by anybody else, the future is bleak for Barnbow and that alternative types of production there ought to be considered, because it will not be able to support the size of work force that it has supported in the past.
Fortunately, I received a letter this morning from one of the men who works at Barnbow. I did not know that the statement was to be made today. He asked me to write to the Secretary of State with some very prescient questions. He said:
"The Government decided to privatise the Royal Ordnance Factories to make them more competitive with outside industry, but now we find RO Leeds offered to our main competitor, the reason given 'there is not room for two tank factories in the country.'"
His question is this:
"If there isn't room for two tank factories in the country how on earth can there be room for two in the same company?"
It is a real question. Are the redundancies to be in Leeds or are they to be in Newcastle? There will have to be redundancies somewhere. He then went on to say that he had listened to a chap from Vickers on Radio Leeds the other night who said:
"Vickers were all for expansion not closures."
My correspondent said that his follow-up question would have been that Leeds knows all about Vickers: look what it did to Crabtrees, Manns Dawson, Payne and Elliot, Campbell and Hunters. He said that it was no use telling the people of Leeds that Vickers was going to expand; the books are clear. The factory is to be cut back even more than it would have been had it remained in the ROF.
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for some of his remarks but, with great respect to him, I do not think that to disparage what is an extremely good company is likely to be helpful either to the right hon. Gentleman or to his constituents. Vickers is now proposing to move into his area and spend a large amount of its money, not Government money, upon building a brand new factory. There are 630 constituencies in this country. They would all be very glad to have a brand new factory. The right hon. Gentleman has got that wrong. He is absolutely right, of course, about the need for diversification. To rely upon tanks alone in the long term would be difficult, but on reflection might he not think that this is at least one step in the right direction of diversification? The products that are made by Vickers at

625
Newcastle are not the same as those which are made at Leeds. At least it will broaden the product base a little, and I certainly look to Vickers to take that further.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Will my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who represent Barnbow employees in Leeds are concerned to secure both the short-term future of that company and its long-term prospects? His announcement today that the order for the seventh regiment is to be placed at Leeds and that it is guaranteed to be completed at Leeds is very welcome, as it secures the first of these objectives. I am sure that all hon. Members with Leeds constituencies will greatly thank him for that.
My right hon. Friend's announcement of major investment by Vickers in Leeds is a completely new factor, which transforms the position. Asset-stripping by Vickers would be completely unacceptable to both sides of the House. However, any further major long-term investment by a successful company like Vickers, on top of the already major investment that it has made only a couple of miles down the road at the Howson Algraphy plant in my constituency, would be very welcome. Is my right hon. Friend sure that he has secured adequate guarantees of that investment during his negotiations, and is he sure that the contract, when it is finally signed, will have that clearly embodied in it?
Mr. Younger: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. He is completely right when he says that there are both short-term and long-term interests in this factory and its employees which are important to us all. I am glad that at least the short-term problem has been greatly helped by today's announcement. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, asset-stripping would, indeed, be unacceptable to us all. However, this is the very reverse of asset-stripping. It is, I suppose, asset-building, in that the company is coming into the area and building an entirely new factory.
As for guarantees, as part of the agreement, Vickers has given an undertaking to move ahead in the way that I have described. I am quite certain that as an honourable company of very good standing that has every intention of making this business flourish, it will carry out what it has said it has undertaken to do.
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: In the interests of consistency with earlier questions that I asked the Secretary of State, may I welcome very much the order for the Challenger tanks at Barnbow? That is by far the most important immediate question for the employees at Leeds. But the key question is the duration of the order and the time span that there will be before considering further orders. Surely, with Vickers' record in the City, as the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said, the employees at Barnbow will not have much confidence for the future unless there is some sign of what will follow the order. Will the Secretary of State tell us how long the contract will last, because otherwise the belief that Vickers has bought the competition will not give the employees much faith for the long-term future?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says and I thank him for his welcome for the order for the seventh regiment. Of course, he is right to say that we must consider the longer term. No decision has been taken on any further regiments' orders for Challenger tanks. I have
626
formulated no plans to place any such further orders. It would be wrong of me to give a guarantee that that can be done, because no such decision has been taken. Naturally, that will be considered for the future. When we consider the future of the Royal Ordnance factories we must not rely solely on future orders of tanks by the British Ministry of Defence, because they are not likely to be forthcoming in large enough quantities. This order should keep the factories going until about the end of the decade. From then on it will be a question of how well the new company manages to obtain new orders in different areas.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: Will my right hon. Friend say why, when many of us thought that a flotation was in the best interests of the ordnance factory, a private sale is now the preferred option?
Mr. Younger: Yes. I had hoped that it would be possible to have a flotation, as planned, in July. As I said to the House when I announced the decision, we could not do it in July because, in our view and that of our advisers, it was clear that the company was not in the right condition for flotation. It would have been irresponsible to float the company when it was not ready to be a robust performer in the open market. My intention remains to privatise Royal Ordnance. I hope to privatise it as a whole and I shall, of course, keep the House informed.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Where will the British Army go for tanks in the future if it is not satisfied with price and quality from Vickers? What guarantees has Vickers given for the new factory? I noticed that, when responding to questions, the Secretary of State moved from saying "facility" to saying "factory". It may be useful to define whether we mean a facility or new factory.
Mr. Younger: I am not sure what the difference is. It depends whether one is speaking English or American. I mean a factory. The Americans refer to it as a facility. In future, when the British Army seeks bids for tank orders, I hope that it obtains competitive bids from tank producers abroad—
Mr. William O'Brien: Such as Germany?
Mr. Younger: Yes, and I hope that there will be a much better possibility of collaborative projects for the next order of main battle tanks. I hope that Vickers, in its new form, can take part in that.
Mrs. Anna McCurley: My right hon. Friend's statement will bring some relief to my constituents at ROF Bishopton. Will the Secretary of State move swiftly to enact his expressed preference to end uncertainty? Will he respond to the rumour published in the newspapers today that the sale will not be open, but that Royal Ordnance Factories plc will be sold off to Trafalgar House?
Mr. Younger: I am pleased if my statement has helped to end difficulty and uncertainty, or at least to reduce it, at Bishopton, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) takes such an interest. I repeated today that my intention is still, if I can do so, to privatise Royal Ordnance as a whole, if that proves to be practical. I hope that this can be done as quickly as possible to eliminate uncertainty. I assure my hon. Friend, in response to her other question, that we are open to several bids to buy Royal Ordnance as a whole.

627
I do not envisage it being a sale to one bidder; I hope to get several bids, which will be properly evaluated, and I shall keep the House informed.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is clear that the Secretary of State's policy is in total shreds because, having given undertakings that he would put the whole of Royal Ordnance into a flotation or on to the market as one unit, he is now selling off one little bit. Will he please tell me, since morale in the ROFs is about as low as it can go, why any employee should believe that the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking today is any more use than the undertaking given by his predecessor, which he has now totally abrogated?
Mr. Younger: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is wrong. Although it is my hope successfully to privatise Royal Ordnance in one unit, I cannot give a guarantee that that will be so. Nor have I, or my predecessors, ever given such a guarantee. I hope that the hon. Lady will understand that. On morale, I readily agree that the uncertainty for all the employees of Royal Ordnance has been unsettling during this period. I wish to end that uncertainty as quickly as I can. I can say today at least that any low morale among the tank manufacturers is ended. They now have a clear and firm future as a result of my announcement today.
Mr. Den Dover: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents at ROF Euxton will feel massively betrayed if they have no opportunity to buy shares when he floats the rest of the Royal Ordnance organisation without the tank manufacturers? The employees went along with the privatisation provided that they had that opportunity.
Mr. Younger: I note what my hon. Friend says. If it proves possible to come to an arrangement which involves employees' share ownership, no one would be more pleased than I. My hon. Friend will probably agree that his constituents and most employees of Royal Ordnance factories will be primarily concerned that the business should be given a firm future. I must balance that fact when I consider the possible ways of privatising the factories, which I hope will be as a whole.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Will the Secretary of State return to the questions put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste)? Is the investment on the new factory legally binding in the agreement or is it just a promise or an understanding as outlined by the Secretary of State? If it is not legally binding, is it not possible that Vickers could rat on the deal?
Mr. Younger: I understand that, on hearing this for the first time, the hon. Gentleman wishes to have some assurance. That is part of the agreement that has been openly entered into.
Mr. Lofthouse: Is it legally binding?
Mr. Younger: Yes. It is part of the agreement that has been openly entered into by Vickers with the Ministry of Defence. If it is of any reassurance to the hon. Gentleman, Vickers intends to start work very quickly. Vickers told me that it expects to start work at the beginning of August. There can be no doubt that Vickers has every intention of going ahead as fast as it can.
Mr. David Clelland: I shall resist the temptation to take issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) about the relative merits of the work forces in Leeds and Newcastle. I assure him that, although my constituents work for a private company, they are nevertheless a highly skilled work force —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can do without the embarrassment of being supported by Conservative Members. The Secretary of State is aware that the northern region has the highest unemployment in Britain, and Tyne Bridge, where the Vickers factory is located, has one of the highest unemployment levels in the region. Therefore, it must have been in the Secretary of State's mind, when taking the decision, that it may have implications for the Newcastle factory. Will he assure the House that he has discussed the matter with the company and that there are no detrimental employment effects on the Newcastle factory?
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, although I am not sure that his language was the most felicitous. He said that his constituents, although working for private enterprise, were highly skilled. I should have thought that they were highly skilled because they worked for private enterprise. It is a matter of the expression that one uses. The hon. Gentleman knows that Vickers; is a good company and is extremely proud of its relatively new factory at Newcastle. It is not likely that Vickers would do anything adversely to affect that factory.
Mr. O'Brien: What was the recommendation of the board of directors of the Leeds ROF when it met on 15 July, considered a valuation of £25 million of its plant and rejected the £11 million offer of Vickers because it was less than half of the plant's value? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the profit from the tank order will exceed £10 million and that orders on the order book are also worth more than £10 million, so Vickers has a great deal of money? Will he also confirm that the 1,400 people who are employed at Leeds will be retained by Vickers, or will there be substantial job reductions? What were the management board's recommendations concerning the Vickers offer and what will the profits from tank sales and orders on the book be? Will they not be substantially more than is required to buy the factory and build a new one?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate the points on which the hon. Gentleman wants answers, and I shall do my best to supply them. The board of Royal Ordnance plc, which is in control, has agreed to this arrangement. That is the essential factor. The price that is paid will be related to an audited asset value for the plant. We must bear in mind that it is all very well to draw up the asset value of a plant, but its actual value is what somebody is prepared to pay for it. If the hon. Gentleman would like to take a little longer to consider the market and the situation of the factory, I think that he will agree with every adviser who has been asked to give an opinion that this is a remarkably good deal. Such a sum, and an undertaking to build a new factory on the same site, is a remarkable deal. I hope, although as a customer I am anxious to get the lowest possible price, that the company and the work force are so efficient that profits will be considerable. I hope that there will be enough to pay the company back so that it can be profitable and prosperous.
Mr. Peter Pike: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are grave fears among employees in ROFs

629
throughout the country except Leeds, where they will be worried about whether there will be redundancies there or at Newcastle? Does he agree that the fears that were expressed in Committee about two years ago have proved to be well founded time and again and that the Government have done tremendous harm during the past two years to the viability of ROFs? Would it not be best to drop the scheme altogether? Does he agree that the preferred option of selling the ROFs as a unit is not on?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate and understand that there have been considerable uncertainties and fears for those who work in ROFs. That is inseparable from the difficult business of trying to move it into the private sector. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of what has happened to the efficiency of Royal Ordnance. It is very much more efficient, even now, than a few years ago. That offers a much better prospect for the future because it means that there are much better prospects of getting orders from overseas. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will agree that my intention to get Royal Ordnance into the private sector, if possible as a whole, is very much in the interests of his constituents.
Mr. Jack Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware of the appalling damage to the morale of all of the work force of ROFs that has been done by him and his predecessors during the past six years, in which orders have been lost and thousands of employees have lost their jobs? That should be compared with the record of the Labour Government. As parliamentary answers show, employment in ROFs rose under Labour.
Would Vickers have agreed the deal if the undertaking to build the additional plant at Leeds had been legally binding? What is the future for the Blackburn factory? If the right hon. Gentleman intends to sell off the rest of the ROFs as a single entity why, so many months after the event, has he still not published the opening balance sheet for ROF plc, dated 2 January 1985, or the trading results for 1985, when both would have been available if a prospectus had been issued?
Mr. Younger: I know of the hon. Gentleman's great interest, especially in the Blackburn factory, which is in his constituency. What he said about morale is quite right. The only way in which to put it right is to get the company
630
settled in its new organisation. If it is possible, I want it to be put into the private sector as a whole as it stands. I hope that that will be possible, but I cannot guarantee it.
We have had several expressions of interest from firms and organisations which would like to place a bid for Royal Ordnance as a whole. They will be evaluated. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will be done as quickly as possible. All the necessary information, including balance sheets, for example, will have to be produced.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), which he carefully failed to answer? Is it not the case that the board recommended against the sale and, despite some discreet but heavy arm-twisting, is still generally against it? Will he remember that many of us in the Select Committee predicted that this would happen, so diminishing rather than increasing competition? Is it not a part of the deal that the ROF has agreed not to set up any alternative tank-building facility anywhere in Britain?
Mr. Younger: That has not been put to the Royal Ordnance board, but I can confirm that it has agreed to the deal.
Mr. Ashdown: Did it recommend the deal?
Mr. Younger: It has agreed to the deal.
Mr. Ashdown: Did it recommend it?
Mr. Younger: I do not know what the difference is. I have made it perfectly clear that this was a negotiation between the Ministry of Defence and Vickers. The board has been kept informed throughout and has agreed that it can accept the deal.
Mr. Ashdown: What did the board recommend?
Mr. Younger: I am trying to answer the question. There have been several suggestions, deals or proposals, but they have been turned down by the Ministry of Defence or the Royal Ordnance board; but they are not relevant to this case. This recommendation has been put to the Royal Ordnance board as a result of negotiation between the Ministry of Defence and Vickers. The board has accepted it. That is the important point.

Unipart and Leyland Bus
5.35 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): On 6 February, I informed the House that it was the Government's intention, with the agreement of the Rover group board, that negotiations should be pursued for the separate privatisation of Unipart by the early placement of shares with United Kingdom institutions.
With the approval of the Government, the Rover group has reached agreement in principle, subject to contract, for the sale of a 75 per cent. shareholding in Unipart to a consortium comprising Unipart management and a group of United Kingdom investment institutions led by Charterhouse hank. It is proposed to reserve up to 5 per cent. of the ordinary share capital for Unipart employees. Rover group would receive up to £50 million, depending in part on Unipart's future performance. The Rover group would subscribe up to £3·75 million for equity in the restructured company.
Rover group's links with Unipart will be retained through its holding in Unipart, and by contractual arrangements agreed between Austin Rover group and Unipart. Return to the private sector should enable Unipart to develop and diversify its operations, while continuing to meet the requirements of Rover group.
On Leyland Bus, my hon. Friend the Minister of State informed the House on 27 June that the Rover group had received tenders for Leyland Bus from Aveling Barford, and Laird group, and a Leyland Bus management consortium.
The Rover group has recommended, and the Government have agreed, that the tender from the management consortium should be taken forward.
The Rover group has therefore reached agreement in principle, subject to contract, for the sale of Leyland Bus and a 33 per cent. shareholding in Leyland Parts to a consortium of Leyland Bus management and investment institutions. It is also proposed that employees will be able to participate in the shares of the new Leyland Bus holding company. The Rover group would receive about £11·7 million for Leyland Bus and the shareholding in Leyland Parts. The details of the sale contract remain to be negotiated.
As I have consistently made clear to the House, there is substantial overcapacity in the traditional bus market and some measure of rationalisation would be inevitable under whatever ownership. It is the intention of the management team to decide urgently on the most effective new structure for their manufacturing operations, and on employment levels. Some job losses will be involved, including the future closure of Eastern Coach Works at Lowestoft. However, the Government accept the view of the Rover group that the proposals by Leyland Bus management are soundly based and provide an opportunity to develop a viable bus manufacturing operation.
Mr. John Smith: Why does it make sense to amputate 75 per cent. of Unipart, which is a successful and integrated operation, from the rest of the Rover group? If it is desirable to diversify the development of Unipart, why can that not be done with it remaining wholly in the ownership of the Rover group? Is it another
632
example of the Government's ideological obsession with selling off all the profitable parts of the public sector? Will the Secretary of State tell the House more about the price? How much is to be paid now and how much in the future? How is the price related to future profitability and what will be the capital of the restructured company?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in plain language, his ominous references to the rationalisation of Leyland Bus and to new employment levels mean many job losses, starting with the depressing loss of the entire plant at Eastern Coach Works in Lowestoft? How many jobs will go in all?
Does the Secretary of State now appreciate the catastrophic results of the Government's public transport policy? This is not an example of a cyclical fluctuation of demand, or of an industry in structural decline. The reduction in bus orders from 5,801 in 1980 to a projected 1,850 in 1986 results directly from the ending of the bus grant, deregulation proposals and the ending of revenue support for bus services. The jobs which will be lost are the direct result of a transport policy which has not only ruined public transport but, as we have seen today, has meant that a successful bus industry is in danger of disappearing.
In such circumstances, is it not the Government's duty to give special help and support to the areas and individuals who have suffered, and who will suffer, and to help the new company as it seeks to grapple with problems caused by the Government?
The Government should have retained Leyland Bus in the Rover group so that, as an integrated operation, it could have the best chance of success. However, as the Government were determined, whatever the arguments, to sell off Leyland Bus, Opposition Members prefer the management-trade union consortium to the other bidders.
Why does the Secretary of State, curiously, refer only to the participation of the management and investment institutions? Why does he not refer to the participation of Unity Trust, the trade union financial institution which represents all the employees in the trade unions at the plant? Will the Secretary of State undertake that the Government will not put any obstacles in the way of Unity Trust's successful involvement in the company?
Finally, when does the Secretary of State think that he can come to the Dispatch Box without a message of industrial contraction and ever-increasing job losses?
Mr. Channon: I shall try to answer the points raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. First, I shall try to give him details of the price of Unipart. Under the terms of the deal, approximately £50 million will be paid to the groups; of this, £30 million will be payable on completion, with a deferred element of £5 million plus interest from the marketing of Unipart shares, and up to £15 million if Unipart achieves specified future profit targets. Those are the parameters within which the deal has been structured. I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I believe that Unipart could have a very flourishing future in the private sector; that view is widely shared by Conservative Members.
I have never disguised from the House that there are serious problems in the bus industry. They would remain whether Leyland Bus was in public or in private ownership, and it is quite irresponsible of any hon. Members to say otherwise. There have been considerable changes in the bus market over a period of years. A new

633
type of bus seems to be emerging as the probable bus of the future. I am sure that Leyland Bus's future management will be watching those developments carefully. It would not be right to retain Leyland Bus within the Leyland company. It would have a much better chance under the control and ownership of the management buy-out. I have been told today that Unity Trust is seriously interested in participating, and if that is so, it is something which I very much welcome. I am sure that the House will join me in hoping that the consortium will be successful in the future.
Mr. Robert Atkins: As one who has pressed privately and publicly for this, the optimum decision, in terms of the offers made, to be taken, I welcome this decision greatly, and it will be welcomed by my constituents who work in the Leyland Bus factory in Farington in South Wirral. Is not that a tribute to the management team led by Ian McKinnon, and the trade union team led by Derek Bullen, who have invested so much time, trouble and now presumably money in securing the long-term future of Leyland Bus? I thank particularly my right hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who have listened carefully to the points of view of all involved.
Does the Secretary of State agree that there are still difficult decisions to be taken? Does he also agree that the joint approach of trade unions, management and others which has so characterised the campaign of the management buy-out offer, should be used to good effect to ensure that the rationalisation of the company is sensitive and productive and secures it a long-term and viable future?
Mr. Channon: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming these proposals. He has been a doughty fighter for his constituency and for this company which is located there. A great deal of credit must go to my hon. Friend for this result. I share my hon. Friend's views about the quality of the management and about Mr. McKinnon. I tried to support Mr. McKinnon and his colleagues in Thailand a little while ago in my previous job, and I shall do what I can to continue helping them. I have already told the House that difficult decisions will have to be taken, but I have every confidence that the new structure of the company will provide a good method for creating a viable bus manufacturing industry.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I welcome the Government's decision to reject the Laird bid which, in effect, would have closed the Leyland Bus plant in Workington. However, although I wish that Leyland Bus had been retained, reporting directly to the Rover board, I accept that the management consortium's proposals secure the future of the Leyland Bus plant in my constituency. I look forward to the future and ask the Secretary of State to do so too.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is another obstacle? Despite what he said, we are faced with redundancies in Workington and Farington. They may not be substantial, but they will certainly affect the populations of both areas to some extent. The Secretary of State knows that the future of the Workington plant is very much dependent on the rail business, on Railbus and on DMUs. Will he take a personal interest in ensuring that
634
we get the work? If the Leyland bus and rail plant in Workington is to survive, it needs that business and it will not survive without it. I ask the Secretary of State to make a long-term consideration and to take a special interest in ensuring that we get that work for the future.
Mr. Channon: I am absolutely confident that the company's management will be keen to get the rail orders referred to by the hon. Gentleman. He has raised that point on a number of occasions with my hon. Friend the Minister of State and myself, and we shall, of course, take note of his comments. If the hon. Gentleman will not mind me saying so, we have taken seriously his campaign for Workington and for this factory in his constituency. My hon. Friend visited Workington recently. We take great account of the views of the hon. Gentleman and I am glad that he is partially pleased with our decision today.
Mr. Steve Norris: Given the appalling record of previous Governments in the management of the motor industry, will my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a widespread welcome on the Conservative Benches for the progressive liberalisation of parts of the former BL company? May I express, on behalf of my constituents in the Unipart business, a warm welcome for his proposals, which will allow them to participate in the ownership of the company and in its subsequent successful growth? I particularly welcome the retention of a 25 per cent. holding in the company by Rover group which will allow Rover group to benefit from the increased work of the Unipart business and will also ensure that the Austin Rover contract with Unipart, which is so vital in its short-term future, will be there to ensure that the company is a profitable and viable concern in future.
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the Unipart proposals. I know of their tremendous importance in Oxford, East, and particularly Cowley. I strongly share his views about Unipart's prospects. I hope that it will be successful in the private sector. I think that my hon. Friend is right and that for the Rover group to retain a shareholding in Unipart is a good idea. The deal with Rover is safeguarded by the contractual arrangements agreed between Austin Rover and Unipart not very long ago. I hope that there will be no problem about that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his advice on these difficult subjects during the past few months.
Mr. Dave Nellist: What other major car manufacturer, be it Ford, Vauxhall or Honda, has sold off one of its regular valuable sources of income, its spares division, and thereby threatened its own viability? Is not it particularly odious that Unipart has been built up with public money and now that it is to become part of the private sector its first priority will be profits? Even if it does not make those profits, Rover will not get the full sale price that the Secretary of State has announced today.
Finally, what guarantees have been given to the work force of Unipart, given that earlier this year, in February and subsequently, I have raised with the Secretary of State on a number of occasions, in the House and privately in his office, the legitimate fears of Unipart's work force about privatisation, as expressed through Mr. John Hughes, the Transport and General Workers Union convenor at Coventry, which led to his sacking by that

635
management? What guarantee does the Secretary of State have from the management that Mr. Hughes will be reinstated and that no other workers will be disciplined or sacked because of their trade union's fears about privatisation?
Mr. Channon: I know that the hon. Gentleman has always been opposed to the proposal and, as he points out, he has expressed that forcibly to me in public and private. I fear that I cannot satisfy him on that point. The hon. Gentleman will have to pursue the matter of Mr. Hughes with the company and not me. That is not a matter in which I can intervene.
The Rover group board believes that its best interests are served by selling Unipart now and the Government agree. The board is satisfied that proper safeguards have been built into the contractual arrangements between Austin Rover and Unipart for the foreseeable future and I hope that that future will be successful.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: I welcome the expedition with which my right hon. Friend has accomplished his part of the deal. Is it not a good thing to have this marvellous test of the way in which management and trade union relationships have been built up in Rover to see the way in which the Leyland deal has been constructed? However, will he assure the House that Rover's integrity is in no way diminished, in the sense that it can now go forward from these two deals and concentrate on the areas where it is manifestly successful?
Mr. Channon: Yes, I think that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am grateful to him for his remarks generally and on the collaboration between management and trade unions in the case of Leyland Bus. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) came to see me on many occasions with trade union representatives and I was impressed by the constructive desire to keep the company going and the desire to work constructively for the future.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I join others in welcoming the Secretary of State's decision to come down in favour of the management buy-out in part or in full. However, does he realise that laying aside only 5 per cent. of the shares in Unipart for worker participation is far too little and looks like a cosmetic exercise? What percentage of shares are likely to be laid aside for employees for Leyland Bus? In particular, what is the ratio of participation in Leyland Bus between the management buy-out and the investment institutions?
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his general welcome of the proposals. On Unipart, it is intended to reserve up to 5 per cent. of the ordinary share capital for employees. It is also intended to introduce schemes enabling employees to buy further shares in the company on comparable terms with investors. On flotation, if that should take place, it is envisaged that employees will be given preferential application rights. Therefore, it is better than it seems at first glance and we shall obviously keep matters under continual consideration.
The full details of Leyland bus and the participation of employees have not yet been completely worked out. They are under consideration and there is the participation, which in principle has been agreed, of Unity Trust. May I write to the hon. Gentleman with more details when they are known?
Mr. Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, whatever the out-of-date Labour party may say this afternoon, the workers in these two parts of the Rover group will welcome their return to the private sector so that they too can enjoy the fruits of their hard work and success, as the Jaguar workers are? Will my right hon. Friend be able to hold out the same carrot of privatisation for those who work in the Austin Rover car group? Although that may not be an immeidate prospect, they should have that in their sights for the future so that they too can participate in their own businesses.
Mr. Channon: As my hon. Friend knows better than anyone, that has always been our intention. We said so at the last general election and the Government's position is unchanged on that point. My hon. Friend is entirely right to point to the great success of Jaguar and the great example of privatisation that that offers. Privatisation presents great prospects to employers and managers in these companies. That is being increasingly recognised.
Mr. Terry Davis: If Unipart and Leyland Bus will be run by exactly the same people who are already running those activities, why does the Secretary of State think that they will be more successful in private ownership than in public ownership?
Mr. Channon: Experience shows that that is the case.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an imaginative plan on behalf of many of my constituents who work at the Farington plant for Leyland Bus. May I say on their behalf that they will welcome the opportunity to participate in the shareholding of that company on its return to the private sector? Will he give an assurance that, in the division of the present integrated businesses of bus and truck at Leyland, the parts sector going into the bus business will be adequately provided for to ensure that the business will remain viable?
Mr. Channon: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the business will remain viable. In general, I can meet his points and I am grateful to him for his welcome for what is proposed.
Mr. Joe Ashton: Is it not a fact that. in the past seven years, the Government have run the bus industry down to a third of what it was when they took office, creating massive redundancies in my trade union, and this sell-off is to increase the Exchequer's profits to create funds for a proposed election tax cut? What good is a tax cut to somebody without a job or who cannot afford a motor car and is waiting for a bus that does not come? Is he aware that the only reason that many of the workers have welcomed the proposal is because it is the least worst of the three options compared with Aveling Barford and Laird? The whole sorry picture of bus manufacture under the Government has been nothing but a disgrace.
Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman exaggerates. There have been dramatic changes in the bus industry. The market is changing and people must be responsive to change. Most of the changes were inevitable and would have taken place whatever the policies of successive Governments. The prospect offered to Leyland Bus under these arrangements gives it the best chance of success in a difficult market. I think that the view is widely shared

637
in the House and by a great many of the workers, and I hope that they will have a successful time in the new company.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Given the rather churlish welcome by the Opposition to the wider share ownership prospects of this launch, will my right hon. Friend confirm that 5 per cent. of this company is worth between £3 million and £4 million, and that thus each worker in Unipart could if he wished purchase up to £4,000-worth of preferential shares? That is to be warmly welcomed and shows the prospects that exist for privatisation and the growing confidence in the competitive qualities of British manufacturing industry and the car industry in particular.
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out those facts. As I said to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), I hope that there will be other opportunities for the employees of Unipart. That will be widely welcomed by the workers there and is a good example of how privatisation can work satisfactorily and to the benefit of all concerned.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: The Secretary of State should not take too much note of his hon. Friends, who would not know a worker if they fell over one. Instead of taking note of their comments, will he begin to answer the questions that were put earlier? The first question was, can he name any other motor manufacturer which does not own and control a spares business? Will he then tell us the advantages of selling off Unipart and why it has been sold at a knockdown price of £50 million when last year it was valued at £100 million? Is this not just pure political dogma? While the Leyland Bus deal is the best of some bad offers, surely it would have been better to leave Unipart with British Leyland because the same management will still run it. Will he tell us how many jobs will be lost at Lowestoft, at Leyland and at Workington, and whether the workers who lose their jobs will be cheering him then?
Mr. Channon: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is the view of the Rover group board that the arrangement about Unipart is a good idea. It also takes the view that it has negotiated the best possible price for Unipart with Charterhouse. If I might take one example of a company in the position to which he has referred, the obvious example is Jaguar. It has not been a howling failure since it was privatised. I note that the hon.
638
Gentleman laughs at that. It is interesting to see Opposition Members laughing at Jaguar, which is such an outstanding success.
I have already told the House that unfortunately it seems that the Leyland Bus Eastern Coach Works at Lowestoft will have to close, but if any way can be found to keep it open we will try to help. I believe that some 484 people are employed at the Eastern Coach Works. That was the figure at the last convenient date. The management will have to consider carefully the future of these companies, but it has confirmed to me that it intends to keep open the works at Farington and Workington and that news will be widely welcomed in the House.
Mr. Ernie Ross: The Secretary of State told us that some form of rationalisation will take place. Can he tell us exactly how many redundancies will occur as a direct result of his statement? As my right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said, it is because of the Government's deregulation of the bus services that people do not need so many buses. The House knows that, much earlier, the Secretary of State had his fingers burnt when he tried to sell the whole of British Leyland. The workers should know that now he is starting off by selling Leyland Bus and Unipart. Next to go will be trucks and then the Rover group itself will be under threat. Given that the Leyland work force was on holiday on 17 July, does he not think that this is rather a disgusting holiday postcard to sent to those workers who will come back to some form of rationalisation that will mean job losses?
Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman underestimates that which the workers in these factories have known for a long time: that losses were being made in the bus industry and that whatever ownership it was in, rationalisation measures had to be taken. It would have been irresponsible of me not to mention the decisions of the Government at the earliest date that we could before the House went into recess. It has proved possible to do that and to have delayed the statement would have been irresponsible. Indeed, I have been pressed time and again to announce measures as soon as conceivably possible. for the reasons that I have given to the House on at least three occasions, I cannot give a figure for the number of redundancies. That is because final proposals by the management have yet to be made. The management will have to look carefully at the business. This solution offers a reasonable long-term prospect and offers that prospect to Farington and Workington. I should have thought the House would welcome that.

Nuclear Waste (Compensation)
6.7 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The refusal of NIREX to compensate property owners in Fulbeck who cannot sell their properties because of plans to dispose of nuclear waste at Fulbeck."
As you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, and as the House will know, I and residents in and around Fulbeck strongly oppose the proposal to put low-level nuclear waste into what is euphemistically called a near-surface disposal facility.
At the moment, I wish to concentrate on an important, albeit fairly narrow, matter — property compensation. This falls into two parts. The first part is being dealt with and is in connection with local residents who were selling property at the time of the announcement and whose contracts fell through. I am happy to say that I and others were able to persuade NIREX to pick up those contracts. A much more serious problem is now arising, which is that, because of the announcement by NIREX to treat Fulbeck as a possible waste disposal site, many local property owners are unable to sell their properties, either at all or at full valuation. I and others have been pressing NIREX to enter into some agreement either to purchase the properties or to make compensation. It has refused to do that and that is unacceptable and should be unacceptable to the House.
There is a precedent which I am entitled to call in aid because in Kent the Channel Tunnel company has now
640
given an undertaking that if, during the next 10 years, property owners are unable to sell their properties at full valuation, the company will buy in the properties. Unfortunately, I have been unable to persuade NIREX to take a similar view. That is an injustice to my constituents and requires the urgent attention of this House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman 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,
"The refusal of NIREX to compensate property owners in Fulbeck who cannot sell their properties because of plans to dispose of nuclear waste at Fulbeck."
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day

  Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 113 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Adjournment (Summer)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 25th July, do adjourn until Tuesday 21st October and that the House shall not adjourn on Friday 25th July until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Neubert.]
Mr. Speaker: No fewer than 35 right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in this debate. I hope that contributions will be brief in what is, after all, only a three-hour debate. I have selected the first two amendments on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
6.10 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Question, to leave out the first "Friday 25th" and insert "Monday 28th".
Mr. Speaker: With this we shall discuss the amendment to leave out the second "Friday 25th" and insert "Monday 28th".
Mr. Shore: We want the House to adjourn, not tomorrow, but on Monday 28 July, so that a debate can be held on the report on the Westland affair by the Select Committee on Defence.
It is six months since the House debated the extraordinary circumstances that attended the resignation of the then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). That debate, on 15 January, was on an Opposition motion calling for a Committee of the House to be set up to investigate all aspects of the Westland affair. The debate concluded with a vote on the Prime Minister's motion which was carried and which included the following words:
"the House … recognises the competence of departmental Select Committees of the House of Commons to consider the issues raised by these developments."—[Official Report, 15 January 1986; Vol. 89, c. 1090.]
The Select Committee on Defence took evidence at once and, indeed, two of the key witnesses, the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robert Armstrong, who carried out the so-called leak inquiry, gave their testimony before the Select Committee as long ago as 30 January and 5 February respectively. Clearly there were contentious and difficult matters for the Committee to consider in drawing up its very careful report, including the fact that it was denied access to the five civil servants directly involved in the most notorious incident—the leak of the Solicitor-General's letter to the Press Association. I refer to Mr. Bernard Ingham, the Prime Minister's press secretary, Mr. Charles Powell, one of the principal private secretaries at No. 10, Miss Colette Bowe, Mr. Mogg and Mr. Mitchell, senior officials at the Department of Trade and Industry.
Only today, at 11 am, was the Committee's report published. The timing is important and unfortunate, but it makes it certain that if the House adjourns this Friday we shall have no time to debate the report until the House resumes in October—three months ahead. I have no doubt that the Government hope that during that time the impact of the report will be blunted and its contents buried beneath the weight of other and subsequent events. I suggest strongly that the House should not allow that to happen and that the report be debated before we adjourn for the summer recess.
642
Major issues were left unresolved in the earlier debates in the House. I am referring, not to the honest differences of policy choices between Cabinet Ministers over the future of Westland — such differences certainly existed, as have similar differences in Cabinet over many other issues. Left unanswered was whether the Government had been proclaiming one policy in public—neutrality about the future ownership of the company—and another in private, backing a takeover by the American Sikorski firm. In other words, left unanswered was the question whether the Government were deceiving the country and the House about their real policy. That central question of deceit and partisanship arose on several occasions and in a number of extraordinary contexts. It gave rise to a series of further questions which needed urgent answers.
That brings me to today's publication of the Select Commitee on Defence report which cries out for discussion and debate.
Apart from a detailed description of the part played by the key figures in the drama, the story describes a major effort by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Prime Minister to discredit the then Secretary of State for Defence and the deliberate and unconstitutional leaking of the Solicitor-General's letter to that end.
The rest of the story deals with the attempts to cover up ministerial involvement in the leak by initiating an inquiry into the actions of officials, when all the principal people involved knew from the start what had happened and who was responsible.
I begin with the discrediting of the former Secretary of State for Defence. Paragraph 105 of the report states:
"The view seems to have been that as long as he remained in office and promoted the cause of the European Consortium, the activities of the Ministry of Defence could be countered by steps taken elsewhere in Government."
Those steps included the instigating of the famous letter written by the Solicitor-General, at the Prime Minister's suggestion, and its deliberate leaking into the public domain.
The Prime Minister's excuse throughout has been that it was essential, in the interests of shareholders, to correct so-called material inaccuracies in a letter written by the then Secretary of State for Defence to Lloyds merchant bank. This had to be done—and done quickly, so it was said — so that it could be in the hands of Sir John Cuckney before his press conference on 6 January.
The Select Committee, however, is quite clear. In paragraph 160 it states:
"Since the information was passed by telephone to Westland in any event, the reason given by the Prime Minister for releasing the information to the Press Association begins to look flimsy, to say the least. Sir John Cuckney told us that the information made no difference to his policy at the press conference."
What, then, was the real reason for making the Solicitor-General's letter public? The Select Committee is categoric. It states in paragraph 162:
"It is clear that the passages chosen for selective disclosure from the Solicitor-General's letter were calculated to do the maximum damage to Mr. Heseltine's case and to his personal credibility."
The Select Committee further reveals from an examination of the Press Association tapes on 6 January and the reports carried by newspapers on 7 January that
"further parts of the letter were disclosed after the original call from Miss Bowe to the Press Association. The urgency argument cannot apply to these disclosures. Their only

643
purpose can have been to further discredit Mr. Heseltine. The fact that additional disclosures appear to have been made has not been acknowledged by the Government."
The deliberate leak was open, outrageous and unconstitutional. The Solicitor-General then demanded that an official inquiry be set up. For similar, and perhaps less serious, breaches of the Official Secrets Act, Clive Ponting and other officials have been prosecuted in the past. But here we come to another extraordinary fact. On 16 January the Attorney-General guaranteed immunity from prosecution to Miss Colette Bowe of the DTI who had read sections of the Solicitor-General's letter over the telephone to the Press Association. According to paragraph 195 of the Select Committee's report,
"the Attorney-General said that when he was asked to grant immunity he was also told enough 'to make it clear to me that under no circumstances would I have prosecuted her in any event.' These statements are unequivocal."
The report continues:
"Unauthorised disclosure Would have been an offence. If 'under no circumstances' would the Attorney have prosecuted Miss Bowe, then he must have known that the disclosure had been authorised. He must also have received this information from Sir Robert Armstrong."
Prior to the Select Committee's report there could have been only two explanations for the Attorney-General's conduct — that he was deliberately misled by senior colleagues who asked for Miss Bowe's immunity while withholding from him the fact that the disclosure in question had been authorised, or that the Attorney-General himself had participated in the charade of putting the spotlight on officials by being a party to concealing the roles played in leaking the letter by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
It is astonishing that in the debates on the Westland affair, which focused mainly on the leak of the Solicitor-General's letter, no Law Officer has been allowed to participate. The Attorney-General certainly has a lot to explain. I am sure that an early opportunity should be allowed for him to do so. His written answer to a question today does not fully explain why he gave immunity to Miss Colette Bowe. He says that she acted "in complete good faith". But how can a breach of the Official Secrets Act be in complete good faith unless it was sanctioned by a Minister?
What about No. 10's role? Of course, we have to distinguish between the chief officials—in this case Mr. Bernard Ingham, the chief press officer, and Mr. Powell, one of the principal private secretaries — and their political mistress, the Prime Minister. As we all know, while they are in frequent personal touch, they do not necessarily tell each other what they are doing. They just commune. As we heard from the Prime Minister earlier today, she has total confidence in their intuitive judgment.
We all know that Miss Bowe and Mr. Mogg of the DTI, on the instructions of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, were required, to get clearance from No. 10 before authorising the leak, and preferably that No. 10 itself should release the Solicitor-General's letter. No. 10 passed the buck back to the DTI. But, as the Committee points out in paragraph 155:
"As far as the disclosure of the Solicitor-General's letter was concerned … Mr. Ingham undoubtedly realised the implication of what was about to take place and wished to distance No. 10 and the Prime Minister from the consequences."
As the Committee says on the still more important point:
644
"it is quite extraordinary that five senior officials accepted apparently without demur that giving extracts from the Solicitor-General's letter to the Press Association was 'the only way to do it in the time'."
Even more surprising is the fact that Mr. Bernard Ingham, the chief press officer, did not veto the release of the letter and report the request at once to the Prime Minister. As for Sir Robert Armstrong, the Cabinet Secretary and head of the Home Civil Service, it is clear that he allowed himself to be used for the unsavoury purpose of an attempted cover-up. As the Select Committee put it in paragraph 196:
"the inquiry's principal finding was that the disclosure had been authorised by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. This must have been known before the inquiry began to, among others, Mr. Brittan, Sir Robert Armstrong, Mr. Ingham and Powell."
Yet Sir Robert proceeded. Not surprisingly, he failed in the most routine function of directing any of his inquiries to the Ministers concerned. It was only the civil servants who were called in for explanation. Even more surprisingly, to quote from paragraph 213:
"The disclosure of the Solicitor-General's letter without his permission was an improper act",
and that the officials concerned,
"were wrong to disclose it or to connive at its disclosure. Yet … no disciplinary action is to be taken against any of the officials concerned."
As the report adds:
"We find this extraordinary. In commenting upon these matters, Sir Robert could bring himself to say only the disclosure was 'very regrettable' … 'I think it would have been much better not to have disclosed the information that way'. Asked how he would behave had such a disclosure been suggested to him, Sir Robert thought that it was an impossible question to answer. He could not say what he would have done in the circumstances."
As the Select Committee rightly says in paragraph 214:
"It is to the Head of the Home Civil Service that all civil servants have to look for example and a clear lead in such things. In this case that lead has not been given."
Now for the Prime Minister. She will no doubt take some comfort from the Select Committee's statement in paragraph 183:
"The evidence is that the action of the Prime Minister's office on 6 January in relation to the disclosure was without her direct authority. She has stated that she had no knowledge on 6 January of what was taking place. We accept this".
However, that does not answer the question about when she was in fact informed. In paragraph 197 it is recorded:
"The Prime Minister told the House that she did not know about Mr. Brittan's 'own role in the matter of disclosure until the inquiry had reported'."
That was on 22 January. But, unlike the statement that it made about accepting the Prime Minister's word that she did not know of the events of 6 January, the Select Committee offers no comment on this important matter, except to recite a series of questions asked in the House of Commons during the 23 January statement. Then the Prime Minister's reply to direct questions was simply evasive. Further, when the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) was interrogated by the Select Committee, the report states in paragraph 204:
"We asked Mr. Brittan whether or not he had any conversation with the Prime Minister, about the fact that he had authorised disclosure of part of the Solicitor-General's letter, before the Prime Minister received the report of the inquiry. He refused to tell us. When it was put to him that there was a period of time after the inquiry had been set up during which he knew what his role had been but chose not to inform the Prime Minister, he would not comment."
As the questions are so clear and relevant, why did the Prime Minister evade on 23 January and why did the

645
former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry refuse to answer the Select Committee's questions? Once again, they should at least be given the opportunity of an early debate and to give their own explanations.
This report deals with very serious matters affecting the reputation of senior Ministers, the Law Officers and very senior civil servants. It is a unanimous and scrupulous report. Undoubtedly an early debate is needed, yet if present arrangements stand there will be no opportunity for at least three months for the House to hear the explanations of the principal Ministers concerned. The fact that we do not have the opportunity to debate in the House of Commons does not mean that debate—and it is much less likely to be well informed—will not take place elsewhere, and much of it will be done, as the report itself demonstrated, by unattributable briefing, press guidance, telephone calls and so on.
This is no way to discuss a major issue that affects the conduct of Government and the credibility of senior Ministers, including the Prime Minister herself. That is why we shall vote for our amendment tonight.
6.26 pm
Mr. Reg Prentice: I do not intend to follow the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), and I do not see why anyone else should. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in many ways his speech was an abuse of the House.
The motion before us affects the dates of the recess. The short debate that we traditonally have on this occasion is used by Back Benchers to express briefly their concern that certain matters that they think are important should have further debate. It is essentially a Back Benchers' occasion. The right hon. Gentleman did not simply tell us why he thought that there should be a debate on the Westland affair but made the speech that he would have made in opening a debate on the subject. In doing so he took far too much time.
This is an issue which the minority of our constituents who were interested a few months ago have forgotten. Again it merely shows how far the Labour party is out of touch with the real concerns of people and how obsessed it is with fighting yesterday's battle.
I want to refer to one aspect of the timing of the summer recess. We go into recess just as Ministers have begun the annual process of the public expenditure review. We do that at about this stage every year. We shall come back from the recess when the review is either completed or nearing completion. That also repeats the pattern of previous years.
I wish to put a general proposition and a specific point. My general proposition is that the public expenditure review is among the most important decision-making processes that affect any Government in any year. It determines the shape and size of all our main spending programmes. It affects our national economy and to a large extent determines the shape of the Chancellor's Budget.
Because of our timetable, the public expenditure review is largely immune from parliamentary reaction. It is immune from any process of debate by which Members of Parliament can voice their views on expenditure priorities while the discussions on public expenditure take place.
646
A radical review of the timetable of the House during the 12-month period is required. The public expenditure review and the priorities contained within it demand far more of our parliamentary time. Having made that general point, I wish to make a specific plea to the Government to pay close attention, in the coming months and in the context of public expenditure, to the overseas aid programme.
The programme is much too small, has been too small under successive Governments and ought to be increased. The irony is that last year and the year before we had debates on the overseas aid programme, as outlined in the public expenditure review. On 22 November 1984, we had a day's debate on the subject when the House commented on the aid programme for the coming year. That programme was criticised on both sides of the House because it was inadequate. Last year we had a foreign affairs debate during the debate on the Loyal Address in which we largely concentrated on the overseas aid programme. Similar criticisms of the inadequacy of the programme were made but, at that time, the expenditure figures had not been announced—they were announced three days later. However, they were generally known. The criticisms were retrospective criticisms of the policies made by Government.
I had hoped that, somehow, we could have adjourned a little later this year in order to have a full scale debate on overseas aid. In that way the views of hon. Members on both sides could concentrate on the need for a larger programme. I do not wish to repeat the traditional arguments for the overseas aid programme but I believe there are overriding moral arguments and arguments of enlightened self-interest. Most hon. Members who speak on this matter agree with the general argument—there is no difference between political parties. There is the simple recognition that successive Governments have not measured up to their promises.
I shall make four points for increasing aid this year, and my arguments are especially applicable this year. First, the crisis in sub-Saharan Africa has not gone away and will not go away. Only last week, the Overseas Development Administration announced a new initiative to help with an airlift to people in the Sekota region of Ethiopia. People are starving there because of what has become the all-too-familiar sequence. Earlier poor levels of rainfall led to a low yield of crops. This was followed by flash floods which led to the interruption of transport facilities. Therefore, an airlift had to be mounted —this time by the Belgian air force and supported by contributions from this country and other donor countries. That case is typical of the announcements which have been made by the ODA and its sister organisations in the western world. Such announcements have been made week by week over the past two years and they will continue to be made. We are giving help but what is wrong — many other hon. Members agree—is that the help we are giving is within the scope of a small aid programme and is therefore at the expense of other recipients. We have not recognised that this crisis in Africa presents a new dimension to the problem and it demands extra resources from all the major donors.
Secondly, public opinion is readier to support a greater aid effort from this country. The success of Live Aid, Band Aid and Sports Aid and the success of hundreds of local initiatives demonstrates people's concern. People are prepared to give and are prepared to work for fund-raising

647
activities and they want the Government to do more. It is pure coincidence that, today, Her Majesty the Queen has knighted Mr. Geldof, but the fact that she has done so underlines the message that I am trying to convey.
My third point is something of a paradox. We could do substantially more for the aid programme at the cost of a tiny amount in relation to general public spending. At the moment, the net aid programme is costing something less than £1·25 billion a year, while total public spending is £140 billion a year. We are talking about less than 1 per cent. of the total expenditure. About a year ago, I wrote to the Prime Minister about this and pointed out that a 50 per cent. increase in the aid programme would mean an increase in public spending of less than 0·5 per cent. However, the Prime Minister said that this would mean an extra £500 million and was an unthinkable amount. I do not believe that that is an unthinkable amount. If the political will were there it would and should have been done then, and it can be this year.
My final point is that it is time our actions lived up to our words. This Government, like previous Governments, have supported, at special assemblies of the United Nations and numerous other international conferences, the case for a larger transfer of resources from the developed countries. The summit meetings of the seven leading economic powers have made that appeal. We were part of that when the summit met in London, two years ago, in June 1984. Paragraph 15 of its communique states:
"Ministers urged all donors to make determined efforts to increase aid flows in line with agreed targets".
If we are committed, on paper, to making increased efforts, I suggest to the Government it is time we increased it. We could do so this year and we could accompany it with an appeal to other developed countries, not only in the west but in the Soviet bloc, to do more. We could give a bold and imaginative lead to the world in the most important question now facing people.
6.37 pm
Mrs. Llin Golding: As I only took my seat in this House on Tuesday of this week it would he regrettable for me not to voice the concerns of my constituents before this House adjourns.
It is 47 years ago to this very month that my father, Ness Edwards, made his maiden speech as Member of Parliament for Caerphilly. I am proud to be here following in his footsteps. He taught me respect and admiration for this House and for that, as for many things, I have always been grateful.
I understand it is the custom to say something pleasant about the former Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. His name escapes me at the moment; however, I should make it clear that I have known him intimately for some years. He has assured me that I will not be allowed enough time in this House to mention all his virtues. I will confine myself to saying that I have been deeply touched by the tributes that people have paid to him—from all sides of the House. I am sure he was a respected Member and I am sure that he will be deeply missed by everyone.
John and I have a lot in common, not least our deep regard for the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme and its people. I am proud that I have been elected to speak for its people, its independence and its interests. Even if I had not been elected, I would have wanted to remain resident in Newcastle-under-Lyme. It was therefore distressing to us both that part of the malicious whispering and leafleting
648
campaigns of the Liberals in the by-election was that we intended to move our home from Newcastle-under-Lyme. There was never any truth in that allegation.
I cannot help referring to the by-election, and in doing so I may be slightly controversial. It was entirely untrue that the former Member and myself had all along planned that the seat should be handed over to me. I can assure hon. Members that both he and I approached a number of people offering our support if they wished to stand. The allegation perpetrated by the Liberals that there was irregularity in the procedure to select a Labour candidate for Newcastle-under-Lyme—even the smallest irregularity—was not true. The Liberals did not and could not produce anything that would justify that smear.
The Liberals committed a gross misrepresentation on the issue of salaries, including the implication that the secretarial salary was somehow to be added to my allowance. It was suggested that we had completely free transport, free post and a free telephone regardless of the circumstances. That was disgraceful. In no election campaign have I ever known a wife's earnings to be added to that of her husband's. That part of the Liberal party's campaign was sexist in the extreme.
It is untrue also, as the Liberals claimed in a leaflet, that when eggs were thrown at our opponents we both stood yards away and appeared to do nothing to stop the egg throwing. That is so untrue. We were never present when eggs were thrown. That is typical of the smear campaign in which the Liberals indulged.
By their campaign the Liberals have damaged the good name of the office of Member of Parliament for Newcastle-under-Lyme and they have smeared the people and their party's reputation in Newcastle-under-Lyme. The Liberals' disgraceful campaign, only part of which I have mentioned, damaged the reputation of all political parties and all politicians. I hope that that message will reach Liberal Members and their supporters.
That is enough of the squalid approach to politics that the Liberals perpetrate in by-elections. They were important messages for us all from the electors of Newcastle-under-Lyme. It is clear that they want more jobs and that they are deeply concerned about the plight of young people. It is obvious that they are concerned at the lack of resources for nurses, schools, colleges, polytechnics and universities. They are disturbed by the crisis in the National Health Service and by the long waiting lists. The old age pensioners express their great anger and bitterness at the entirely inadequate 40p increase in the pension. I have been sent to Parliament by the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme to voice their concerns, and this I shall continue to do.
6.45 pm
Sir Fergus Montgomery: In all the years that I have been a Member of this place I have never before been called by the Chair immediately after a maiden speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). I think that we are all aware that it is a tremendously nerve-wracking experience to speak in the House at any time, and especially on the first occasion. I think that the hon. Lady delivered her maiden speech with great humour and charm.
The hon. Lady did not tell us anything new about the Liberals. We have all had experience of the same sort of tactics from Liberals in our time. I am sorry that the only

649
Liberal Member present to hear the hon. Lady was the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). I hope that he will carry back to his leader what the hon. Lady said. I am sorry that he found it so humorous. If I were a Member representing a party who had indulged in those tactics, I would have wriggled in my seat with shame.
I have great admiration for the hon. Lady's husband. He and I were quite interested in horse racing and we used to have modest bets. I think that he always won more than I did, and I was not very happy about that. I admire him also because he was the hammer of the extreme Left wing of the Labour party, which has done so much harm to the Labour party. He showed enormous courage. I hope that we shall hear from the hon. Lady again in the not too distant future.
I wish to raise two issues which I think are of importance. The first one is set out in early-day motion 1140, which has all-party support. By the reintroduction of trucking charges, the British Airports Authority will be able to act in a monopolistic fashion and discriminate against non-British Airports Authority airports such as Manchester. Many of us have fought valiantly for Manchester airport over the years. The authority will be able also to discriminate against certain international airlines, which I believe is contrary to the spirit of the Government's White Paper and the Airports Act 1986.
On 1 May, the British Airports Authority reintroduced charges for airline operators or their agents to truck cargo to and from Heathrow airport. The charges on trucking movements will not apply to operators whose cargo has an inward or outward bound air leg at Heathrow or any other authority airport. In other words, the charges discriminate in favour of authority airports and against others.
I shall give some examples of discrimination. British Airways and British Caledonian use Heathrow and Gatwick as their gateways and are exempt from movement charges. Airlines such as KLM, Lufthansa and Air France, which use Heathrow to assemble cargo for trucking to their European airport hubs, such as Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris, are charged fees and movement charges. This is despite IATA resolution 597B, which allows carriers to substitute trucking movement for air carriage.
British Caledonian does not fly from Heathrow but because its cargoes enter and exit from Gatwick, trucking charges are not levied. KLM, Air Canada and Singapore Airlines all have services from Heathrow but they are charged for moving certain cargo from Heathrow to Manchester. The discrimination between airlines contradicts the White Paper entitled "Airlines Competition Policy", which pledged the Government to promote competition in all markets. Airlines such as KLM, Air Canada and Singapore Airlines need to truck from Heathrow to Manchester excess freight, special cargoes or urgent goods for which a London service is unavailable. As Manchester is a non-authority airport, full charges apply. If the cargoes were trucked to Stansted, which is an authority airport, for outbound air carriage, the charges would not apply.
Such discrimination is entirely contrary to the undertaking that was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), the Under-Secretary of State for Transport during the Committee proceedings on the Airports Bill. He said:
650
"It is totally accepted by the Government that none of the three London airports should be able to develop or trade unfairly against other United Kingdom airports."—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 20 February 1986, c. 204.]
Although the charges are levied only on movements between Heathrow and non-British Airports Authority airports, the fact that Heathrow remains part of the BAA structure provides an opportunity to use income generated by trucking charges to subsidise other BAA airports such as Stansted. The discrimination between BAA and non-BAA airports in levying those charges is a positive benefit to Stansted. That is contrary to undertakings given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment who said, when he was Secretary of State for Transport:
"I now give the House the assurance that it has sought that there will be no subsidies from the other London airports to Stansted."—[Official Report, 9 April 1986; Vol. 95, c. 265.]
I feel that we have reached a serious position whereby things are happening contrary to pledges given by Ministers. I point out the difficulties for an airline such as Singapore Airlines. Singapore Airlines uses Air Canada as its cargo agent. Singapore Airlines runs a daily service to Singapore from Heathrow. Since 1 April 1986, it has run a twice-weekly flight, a mixed passenger freight service, from Manchester. Those who battled for Manchester over the years were thrilled when Singapore Airlines was given permission to operate that route.
Trucking takes place from Heathrow because incoming cargo at Manchester is trucked to Heathrow for distribution. Secondly, five out of the seven weekly flights from Heathrow to Singapore are non-stop, thus reducing the scope for cargo carriage to points en route. Some of the cargoes must be sent from Manchester. Passenger load factors at Heathrow are so high that the capacity for cargo is limited. Rather than add to the congestion and delay at Heathrow, some of the excess cargo goes to Manchester, where capacity is available. Air Canada, as the handling agent pays trucking charges, which in turn are passed on to Singapore Airlines.
Singapore Airlines estimates a weekly charge of £1,200, or in excess of £60,000 a year. That is a heavy additional burden to bear in the first year of a new Manchester service. I wonder whether it is a coincidence that the charges were introduced one month after the start of the new Manchester service. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can give some guidance tonight.
The reintroduction of trucking charges is incompatible with the Government's airline competetion policy and their Airports Act. It discriminates between airports and between airlines. I think that it runs the risk of retaliation from continental airport authorities which may seek similar means of protecting their operations and penalising United Kingdom carriers.
Even if trucking charges can be justified as a means of balancing the British Airports Authority's books, they should be levied on all operators—not just those who were far-sighted enough to negotiate long leases in 1969. They should not discriminate beween British Airports Authority airports and other airports. They should be related to true costs, and not levied at penal rates. The same amount of income can be generated by charging more operators less money.
The second point I wish to raise concerns one of my constituents, Mr. John Stalker, who is the deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester police. My right hon. Friend is aware that the problem has caused concern to all

651
hon. Members. When it was suggested initially that perhaps there was an Irish connection, I pooh-poohed that suggestion. I am afraid that the more I read and hear, the more I have become suspicious about the so-called Irish connection. Mr. Stalker, investigating certain complaints against the Royal Ulster Constabulary, seems to have been determined to get to the whole truth. As a consequence, I think that he has antagonised certain people in the Province.
It has been claimed that Mr. Stalker carried out independent forensic tests in Ireland that proved that the Royal Ulster Constabulary evidence was false in the controversial cases where it had shot and killed suspects. In the case of 17-year-old Michael Tighe, Mr. Stalker's team concluded that an ambush set up by an agent provocateur led to the cold-blooded murder of the wrong man.
It is claimed that, just before Mr. Stalker was taken off the inquiry, he was planning to interview the Chief Constable and the deputy chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and he intended to recommend that the RUC was badly officered and needed sweeping reforms. Suddenly, at the end of May, Mr. Stalker was removed from duty and replaced by Mr. Sampson, the chief constable of West Yorkshire.
Mr. Sampson was appointed not just to take over the investigation into the RUC but to head an investigation on Mr. John Stalker. It was strange to have the same man heading two intertwined inquiries. I can only describe that decision as a piece of bad judgment by somebody in authority.
It is sufficient to say that, since the end of May, John Stalker and his family have had the most awful time and have lived under a terrible cloud. Mr. Stalker has been subjected to trial by innuendo and gossip. It is about time that this sorry business was brought to an end.
John Stalker must have been pleased that he received so many tributes from members of the Greater Manchester police force. My wife was a member of the Greater Manchester police committee until April this year, when the Greater Manchester council was abolished. She said that, the more she saw of John Stalker, the higher he went in her estimation. She said that he conveyed the impression that he was not just a good policeman but a completely honest and incorruptible man.
I should like to know from my right hon. Friend why the investigation has gone on for two months. Very little seems to have happened. Somebody, somewhere, must have some responsibility. It is about time that we knew the full facts of the case. We pride ourselves on claiming that British justice is the best in the world, but I have seen little sign of justice in the case of Mr. John Stalker. I hope that, before the House rises, my right hon. Friend can give me some information on the two issues I have raised tonight.
6.57 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: I am happy to be the first Labour Member to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) both on her victory and on the speech that she has just made, and look forward to the many speeches that I am sure she will make in future. I am one of the few Members of the House of Commons who were Members when her father was a Member. Some hon. Members received their earliest instruction in trade union history from him. In my constituency, his name is honoured, especially on that
652
account. My hon. Friend's husband sustained that tradition in the House. I am sure that he will do so in his future appointments. He could not have been luckier in having his wife as his successor in that constituency.
The most avid observers noted a difference between my hon. Friend's speech and some of her husband's speeches. Her speech was briefer. When he spoke at greater length, it was always done in the interests of greater humanity at large, and deliberately, and we all knew exactly what he was doing. We are glad to see my hon. Friend here. I am sure that she will make a great contribution to future Parliaments. I thank her for her maiden speech.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) outlined why Labour Members feel that our motion should be carried and why the Leader of the House should not be a party to rejecting it. I shall couple that matter with one that I raised a week ago. I believe that it is intertwined with the question of confidence in the Government and what this Government get up to when Parliament turns its hack.
The Commonwealth conference will he held within a matter of days. Everyone knows that it is likely to be the most critical Commonwealth conference for generations. Everyone knows that there is a possibility of such strains being placed on the Commonwealth that some members may wish to depart from it. It would be an utter disgrace if the Commonwealth, or parts of it, were allowed to be shed in such circumstances without the House of Commons having a chance to give its view.
I ask the Leader of the House to give me an assurance in slightly more forthcoming terms than when he merely referred me to the ordinary provision under which Parliament can be recalled. We want something better. If there is a crisis at the Commonwealth conference and a danger of member countries leaving the Commonwealth. I hope that the Government will take the initiative in recalling the House. That may happen in a couple of weeks, but it would be a disgrace if, after so many warnings had been given and when such grave issues are at stake, ruptures of the Commonwealth occurred after that meeting and the House were denied the right to have a proper report and debate on it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give that assurance.
These matters are connected with the confidence, or lack of confidence, we may feel in the way in which the Government conduct their affairs. Winston Churchill once said that we use recriminations about the past to enforce effective action in the present and future. Recriminations about the Westland affair ensure that nothing of that sort recurs. To ensure that there is no recurrence, we have to remodel the way in which the Government conduct their affairs. It is difficult to do that, because the Prime Minister is headstrong and seeks to impose her will on the Cabinet and the House of Commons in a way that few Prime Ministers have sought to do. In many instances, she has done that with disastrous consequences.
We recall the Prime Minister's rejection before the Falklands war of proper discussion in Cabinet in time. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office demanded discussions in Cabinet, but the right hon. Lady pushed it aside. Several instances could be cited, from the Falklands war to the Westland affair and on issues even more important than Westland — for example, British Leyland — when the Prime Minister has deliberately sought to ensure that the Cabinet does not have a proper chance to discuss what is involved and has thereby deprived the House of Commons

653
of the chance to influence events. The Prime Minister's method of conducting this country's affairs—by running the Cabinet and by trying to enlist the few people on her side whom she can mobilise at essential moments or even by making the decisions and demanding that the rest follow and that the House dance to her tune—has been damaging in respect of employment, our relations with the Commonwealth and many other matters.
The Westland affair illustrates this in a glaring manner. Impartial Members on both sides of the House have been able to bring their influence to bear to discuss the matters in detail. All the members of the Select Committee on Defence deserve congratulations for their presentation of the report. Hon. Members, including the Chairman—the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins)—have done a considerable service to democracy by presenting a report of this nature. The Government's brushing it aside, as the Leader of the House sought to do and as the Prime Minister did today, is not the proper way to proceed. The right hon. Lady will live to regret it greatly. I do not believe that any previous Prime Minister would have pushed aside such an issue and sought to sweep it under the carpet without further debate in the hope that it would subside altogether. It will not.
It has been suggested that the Committee's report exonerated the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney has referred effectively to that point and I shall not cover it. I believe that the House will insist on having a full debate on this subject.
It has been said that paragraph 183 exonerates the Prime Minister, but paragraph 184, referring to the Prime Minister's account, states:
"We asked Sir Robert Armstrong about this; and he thought it 'strange, but I believe that to be the case'."
It becomes "curiouser and curiouser", as Alice in Wonderland said, in paragraph 185:
"The Secretary of the Cabinet's descripion of this as `strange' is something of an understatement."
What if his statement were accurate? What would that mean? In other words, the Committee said that what it had been asked to believe was barely credible. The Prime Minister and the head of the Civil Service sought to persuade the Committee to believe them, but it did not.
Mr. Edward Leigh: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted from paragraph 184. Will he read the latter part of paragraph 183 in which the Committee made it clear that it accepted, in respect of the disclosure on 6 January, that there was no evidence that suggested that the Prime Minister knew of the disclosure?
Mr. Foot: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not been following me. Perhaps he has been following the report as carefully as he normally does, but he has not followed it properly. That passage was read by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. If the hon. Gentleman reads the subsequent paragraphs, he will see that they undermine any belief that the Prime Minister is exonerated. I shall leave aside the Attorney-General's part, although many questions must be answered, but the House has a special duty to know about the "collusion" that took place. I referred to that during
654
business questions when I said that collusion is guilty association. Guilty association between the Prime Minister and the head of the Civil Service is revealed in the report.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney underlined what the report says—that the House of Commons and everyone else should have the right to look to the head of the Civil Service in these matters. The Committee looked to him as it was entitled to do, but he failed the Committee. His explanations cannot be believed. It is very serious when the head of the Civil Service has such charges made against him by a House of Commons Committee. It is a serious matter when hon. Members are sent away without having a full chance to examine the report.
It is a serious matter also when, a few days before the event—I suppose that the Prime Minister knew exactly what was in the report — the right hon. Lady took exceptional measures to reappoint that head of the Civil Service. Either she knew what was in the report and acted in that way in defiance of what would happen later, or she thought that, if the report was to be critical of the head of the Civil Service, she had better get the blow in first. Either way, that is discreditable. I do not believe that any previous head of the Civil Service confronted with such a unanimous report by a House of Commons Committee would have wished to stay in his post.
The only reason the head of the Civil Service stays in his post is to protect the Prime Minister. He thinks that that will be the last service that he can perform. The Prime Minister has no right to require civil servants to behave in that way. She had no right to deny the minions in her office the possibility of giving evidence before the Committee. She had no right to give instructions and to use them. She has even less right to use the head of the Civil Service in the way that she has. She has fatally undermined their capacity to act in future cases. What is to happen in future cases if the head of the Civil Service and the Prime Minister receive messages from the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General? Will they think themselves entitled to follow the model of publication that was followed in this case? It was a model of publication where no action was taken against those who committed the offence. All those issues are very grave for the future. If the head of the Civil Service is to perform his functions properly for the House and the country, he should offer his resignation to the House of Commons and to the Prime Minister. I believe that the Prime Minister should come to the House and explain the matter.
I congratulate the Committee on its report. The concluding remark—I do not think it is normal for such Committees to suggest, but I think that it is right—says that if anybody thinks that any of the accusations against the head of the Civil Service and the Prime Minister are unfair they should come before the Committee again and state their case. That is the offer. Therefore, nobody can say that I or my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney have been unfair because the Committee has guarded against it. Of course, the only proper place for the Prime Minister to state her case is in the House of Commons. One day she will, have to pay for having misled the Committee, misled the head of the Civil Service, and misled the House.
I am sorry that the Leader of the House should also be a party to the matter. He once spoke about a balanced ticket. He is a kind of balanced ticket all on his own. Perhaps that was his idea. However, if there is to be any

655
balance left in the Government, the right hon. Gentleman and those like him who believe in honour in our politics should exert themselves before it is too late.
7.11 pm
Mr. Michael Hirst: I appreciate that I am hardly likely to endear myself to my colleagues by urging my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to postpone the adjournment for the Summer recess. However, I wish to raise an urgent matter which is important, not just to Scottish Members but which has a direct bearing upon the responsibility of Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry. That matter relates to the status to be accorded to undertakings given in offer documents during takeover bids. I specifically refer to the takeover bid by Guinness for Distillers.
It may be helpful if I give hon. Members a brief history of the way in which the takeover bid unfolded. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will assist me if I have a lapse of memory. The Argyll group launched a takeover bid for Distillers, a large Scottish drinks business, which was popularly thought to have lost its way. Throughout the takeover battle, the Argyll group constantly reminded people of its absolute commitment to locate its corporate headquarters in Scotland should the takeover be successful. I do not believe that anyone in the House has cause to believe that Mr. James Gulliver and his board, which includes one of our colleagues in the House, would not have honoured to the letter obligations it made in the course of that bid.
The Distillers board was hostile to the takeover from Argyll and it found a white knight in Guinness, which the previous year had taken over the Bell's whisky group, one of the independent Scottish whisky distillers. Distillers Company Ltd., which had argued that there was no commercial logic in the Argyll group's bid and had vigorously asserted its determination to stay independent, suddenly raised the white flag and recommended the Guinness offer to its shareholders.
In fairness, Guinness acknowledged the Scottish dimension throughout its takeover efforts. Anything that Argyll had offered, Guinness offered more. The board's structure was to be a joint board, a holding company to have as its non-executive chairman Sir Thomas Risk, a corporate lawyer who is as influential as he is respected. It was to have a group corporate headquarters in Scotland.
At the press briefings Guinness waxed lyrical about all the things it would do for Scotland. We were told that the chief executive was house-hunting in Edinburgh and around that part of Scotland. I understand that more recently he has been house-hunting in Oxfordshire. Any Guinness or Distillers employee who had a job in London would have to justify that job to Ernest Saunders and explain why it should stay in London rather than be relocated to Edinburgh.
I believe that the Scottish business, industrial and political community were left with the thought that the effective day-to-day control of an amalgamated combine, including Distillers, would remain in Scotland after the takeover. However, there were problems for Guinness. The Director General of Fair Trading recommended that the Argyll bid should not be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because there was no prima facie evidence that competition would be endangered by the merger. Guinness, with Bell's already under its belt, would, with DCL, have a sizeable proportion of the
656
domestic Scotch whisky industry. Presumably, that was the reason for the Office of Fair Trading recommending to the Department of Trade and Industry that there should be a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of the Guinness/Distillers bid.
One way or another Guinness successfully avoided a reference by agreeing to dispose of a number of the brands of Distillers to Whyte and Mackay, another Scottish whisky distiller. We do not know what additional assurances may have been given by Guinness to the Office of Fair Trading in order to avoid a reference. However, we know that the second Guinness bid was not referred. We were then left with the position where Argyll and Distillers slogged it out in the market. I believe that the involvement of Sir Thomas Risk was a crucial factor in delivering victory to Guinness.
The offer document dated 3 March said:
"Following the merger, Sir Thomas Risk, Governor of the Bank of Scotland, will be appointed non-executive chairman of the combined group … Mr. Ernest Saunders will be appointed as vice-chairman … Mr. Ernest Saunders will also be appointed as group chief executive."
The other vital clause in the offer document was Guinness's reaffirmation:
"We shall take the necessary steps to make the holding company a Scottish registered company and will move the group headquarters to Edinburgh, where the group chief executive's office will be located."
Mr. Alexander Pollock: I wonder whether my hon. Friend had an experience similar to mine, whereby Mr. Ernest Saunders sought to have a meeting during the takeover battle and made those assurances in person, underlining his commitment to the offer he was putting to the shareholders.
Mr. Hirst: Yes, indeed. More than that, I believe that those undertakings, which were categorically understood as such, were also made in a room in the House of Commons.
The small shareholders of Distillers and a number of the important Scottish financial institutions that were significant shareholders in Distillers accepted the Guinness offer. Guinness duly won the hand of Distillers. In the three months since then it has seemed less of a marriage and more of a rape. Sir Thomas Risk was publicly spurned as the chairman of the combined group. We understand that Mr. Saunders is now to take that slot.
Sir Thomas Risk is a highly experienced company director and a man with an extremely distinguished pedigree as a corporate lawyer. He is the former chairman of one of the largest mutal insurance companies and the Governor of the Bank of Scotland. It is unthinkable that, at any stage, he did not know what was expected of him as the non-executive chairman of the combined group. Apparently, there is no longer to be a joint board and the name of the new group, which had been left in limbo, remains Guinness plc.
The corporate headquarters are not yet sited in Scotland. We are told that Guinness is appraising the position, but since it had the active co-operation of the Distillers board during the vital weeks of the takeover bid one must assume that it was in a far better position to appraise the position of the Distillers group than was Argyll — the non-preferred bidder which nevertheless could make a commitment about the location of the head office.

657
Since then Guinness has declined to give assurances that it intends to honour its obligations, and we do not know what decision it may make in the future. The issues are far greater than simply the financial wheeling and dealing that may go on during a takeover bid. In the past fortnight the Bank of England, the Takeover Panel, the Stock Exchange, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and a wide range of City institutions have publicly expressed their concern about the development. Undertakings were given and statements made in the offer that Guinness made, and if similar statements had been made in a prospectus and subsequently breached, one might reasonably have expected to see criminal charges preferred under companies legislation.
The Government have clearly signalled their preference for self-regulation rather than the establishment of a Securities and Exchange Commission with statutory powers of regulation. To retain confidence in self-regulation, self-regulation must be based on the highest standards of professional and commercial integrity. It cannot be right that undertakings given during the heat of a takeover bid can be lightly tossed aside if they are subsequently found to be inconvenient. A measure of that City concern must be the unprecedented public criticism by the Bank of England at the way in which the proposed new board changes ignore material statements made during the bid battle, which undoubtedly influenced its outcome. The Governor of the Bank of England underlined the importance that he attached to the Scottish dimension, given that Distillers is the largest industrial company based in Scotland.
The Takeover Panel, whose involvement in a takeover bid normally ends at the conclusion of a bid, has also, in an unprecedented way, expressed concern about how undertakings have been disregarded. The concern expressed by financial institutions has spread much further than Edinburgh. That deep anxiety is felt across the political, social and business spectrum in Scotland.
People are entitled to feel anxious about the other declared intention of Guinness to set up its corporate headquarters in Scotland. If it has welshed—if that is not an unfair word to use—on other commitments, is it unreasonable to think that it may do so on that remaining vital commitment on its corporate headquarters?
The site of that headquarters matters. The constant drift of decision-making in Scottish companies to headquarters in the south has been a strong factor in enfeebling the Scottish economy. I do not make that comment from the standpoint of narrow nationalism. Without a suitable range of corporate headquarters in Scotland there will not be the professional support and other services which are essential to sustain the business community.
I want Guinness to honour its obligations and to play its part in Scotland. It must understand that it must act to restore the public confidence that has been endangered by the developments of the past few weeks. It is an important company. It earns substantial profits and employs thousands of people in Scotland, including some of my constituents. As a substantial public limited company it has obligations which the public must see being honoured.
Because the matter is sufficiently urgent and important to merit a discussion of its wider ramifications in the
658
House, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to set time aside for such a debate, and to ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to take the closest interest in developments, lest there be any unfavourable developments in this saga while the House is adjourned for the summer.
7.24 pm
Mr. David Penhaligon: In the circumstances, it is appropriate for me to add my genuine congratulations to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) on the lucid and articulate way in which she made her maiden speech. No one could be under any illusions about how she felt, what she meant to say or the message she wished to give to the House. There is a certain precedent which suggests that one should be uncontroversial in one's maiden speech, but I can assure the hon. Lady that attacking the Liberal party in the House is regarded as uncontroversial. It has sustained many a political career in the House and I suspect we shall have a great deal more of it.
The campaign was certainly vigorous and the area is yet another island of Britain which I have come to know through a by-election. The by-election was called deliberately and in extraordinary circumstances. It is difficult to believe that the great plotter, whom we all came to admire when he was an hon. Member, had nothing to do with it. It was called in the shortest time possible, when most of the electorate were on holiday for at least a fortnight. That was how the campaign started, although I am not sure that it improved as it went on. I congratulate the hon. Lady and I am sure that she will make a vital contribution to the House. Indeed, as a women she is doubly welcome.
The subject that I wish to raise will come as no surprise to the Leader of the House because I have raised it at nearly every opportunity since the fatal day in October 1985. I raise it again today because, as the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) explained, this is our last opportunity to do so. I wish to speak about the tin crisis which is affecting my county.
The one good bit of news I have had today is that Rio Tinto-Zinc which owns the mines has announced that its plans to close the mines have been postponed by a fortnight, thus giving us until mid-August to resolve the matter. Sometimes, when one is passionately involved in an issue, one begins to believe that everyone else must know the arguments surrounding it. Sadly, despite efforts, that is not true in this case.
The initial part of the story is well known. The tin market collapsed in October 1985 and overnight the price of tin fell from £8,000 to less than £4,000 a tonne. Overnight, that turned a prosperous, growing, vigorous mining industry, on which a substantial section of my county's economy had for a long time been based, with a bright future into one with immediate, and perhaps even terminal, difficulties.
We noted the Government's enthusiasm to try to rescue the tin market and I have no criticism of them for their efforts in that direction. My area might nave been better off if they had succeeded. We look to the Government to assist us in this moment of great trial and tribulation. Our argument is strong. With the present international price for tin, no more than 5 per cent. of the tin mines in the world can be breaking even, let alone making a profit. Therefore, it is inevitable that some time the price must

659
increase. If it increases to the break-even point at world demand level, it will produce a price of about £6,500 a tonne. At that price, the mines in my constituency, including Wheal Jane and o South Crofty, would undoubtedly be viable. That has been our argument and that is what all the discussions and speeches have been about.
However, we need some assistance to see us through the period of recovery. Without it, the mines will close. We have apparently made some progress. I pay credit to the Department of Trade and Industry which must have heard this speech more often than the Leader of the House, but having heard it before, hear it again they undoubtedly will. The Department of Trade and Industry has apparently told the Treasury that the original definition for assisting the mines is fulfilled. It is that the mines must show a sign of robust viability. I confess that I have never quite discovered what that means, but those were the words used.
We are led to believe, and my miners understand, from leaks from the Department of Trade and Industry that the application by Carnon Consolidated for the mines nearest my constituency fulfils whatever the criteria were. Having been greatly involved since last October, I can tell the House that that is a massive hurdle to have cleared. Apparently, we have the Department of Trade and Industry on our side.
However, the good news terminates there. It seems that the Department of Trade and Industry is not trusted, to the tune of £15 million, to make a decision. It has to submit its recommendation to the Treasury, and we are told that the Treasury is, some say blocking it, some say looking at it in depth. What is certain is that it has not provided the cash.
I want to tell the Treasury, through the Leader of the House, why it should back this deal. If these mines are shut, 1,000 jobs will be lost. In areas like mine, where unemployment is literally endemic and the prospects of people finding alternative employment within 40 or 50 miles of where they live is dozens if not hundreds to one against, it is well known that the 1,000 people involved will be unemployed.
We hear lovely arguments in the House as to how much it actually costs for the state to maintain an unemployed person. One suspects that it is about £6,000 per person.
Mr. Foot: More than that.
Mr. Penhaligon: Certainly £6,000 per person — I do not believe that one often improves one's argument by overstating it. For 1,000 people, that is £6 million a year. The irony is that that sum, over three years, is about the same sort of sum that has been considered to give the mines the prospect of a future.
If the Government back this rescue—I recognise that that is what it is—there is a real possibility that at the end of three years there will be a viable, credible tin mining industry in my county able to provide well-paid jobs without subsidy, thus continuing the growth pattern that was established until the market changed. That is, if the Government say yes.
If the Government say no, at the end of the three years they will have spent about the same sum and then, as we know, there will be no possibility of any industry in the county at all. I say to the Leader of the House, and I hope that he will say to the Treasury, that such a decision for those involved would be beyond all rational belief.
660
The only decision made so far in this saga that seems to approach such a decision in asininity is what I understand to be the final decision by the Government not even to give Geevor mine £150,000 so that, in partnership with the new owners of the mine, it can keep the mine dry for a couple of years to see what the market looks like then. The Government have already offered £1 million to West Penwith for a package deal. I have no doubt that there would be a willingness to give up £150,000 of that £1 million deal to give this mine a chance.
Mr. David Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, as I understand it, a decision on the Carnon Consolidated application is almost certain to be taken early next week?
With regard to Geevor, does he also appreciate that, although the Government turned down the application for £150,000 for care and maintenance, a sum that I described as a piffling amount, ways are still being considered to give some indirect help to Geevor?
Is not the message that hon. Members on both sides of the House must get across to the Leader of the House, to the Government and to whomever will take the decision on Carnon, that a whole industry— one of the oldest industries in the land — is at stake? People will not forgive those who take the decision if that industry collapses for the sake of what in the end will seem a very small sum.
Will the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that we must join forces and impress on the Leader of the House and on those Cabinet Ministers who will take the decision that we must have the right decision for Cornwall?
Mr. Penhaligon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I believe that we worked hard together on this.
The Minister has been well aware of the interest of the west country in this case. The decision is to be made next week, and I desperately hope that it is a good one. Believing as I do in democracy and the power of this Chamber to discuss and examine, and given that the crisis has existed since last October, if the final decision to put at end to an industry vital to the communities and families in the area was made in the first few hours of a week in which the Government could not be called to public account, I believe that would do Parliament and democracy a great deal of harm.
Knowing that the Leader of the House has some sensitivity in regard to these problems, I urge him to convey to the Treasury that the Government's own Department of Trade and Industry has examined this matter for weeks, for months and, it seems to those of us involved, for years, and apparently now accepts that Carnon Consolidated fulfils the criteria laid down. At this late hour to haul away the plank when so much effort has been made in the House would be an obscenity and an outrage, and it would be remembered at least by Cornish people a great deal longer even, I suspect, than the Westland crisis, the opening subject matter of the debate.
7.36 pm
Mr. Michael NcNair-Wilson: When I first saw that the Opposition wanted to delay the recess by a further 24 hours, I found myself inclined to support their suggestion because I assumed that they wanted the additional time to raise a matter of real importance to the nation. When I heard the windy rhetoric of the right hon.

661
Members for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), I could not help wondering to myself why they thought that making party political points was so much more important than looking at some of the real issues facing the nation and its people. Indeed, I go further and suggest to both right hon. Gentlemen that they will not find the 10,000 people working at Westland anxious to read their speeches or to hear their nit picking. They will be grateful to have jobs in a company that now has a new and brighter future than any that could have been envisaged some months ago. That was the real issue. That issue has been resolved, thank goodness, in their terms.
Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman is criticising not my right hon. Friend and me but the report of an all-party Select Committee chaired by one of his right hon. Friends and dominated by Conservative Members of Parliament. I do not think that the report is frivolous, party political and partisan. I think that it is a serious report making fundamental political and constitutional points.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that. Nevertheless, I am equally sure that he was seeking to make as much party political capital as he could. I do not criticise him for that—no doubt that is what he thinks he has to do.
If he really wants the House to delay its recess, I suggest to him that the House should give its thoughts to a subject perhaps rather more important than a Select Committee report. That is, unemployment. Curiously enough, although the Opposition often tell us about their views on unemployment, they have managed to avoid seeking a full day's debate on the subject for several months. Only last week the most recent unemployment figure was published showing that 3,220,000 were out of work in the United Kingdom or were drawing unemployment benefit.
On the face of it, that appears to be a huge pool of unused labour, which could be making a positive contribution to the economy. It is also a massive drain on the nation's resources, estimated by Professor Adrian Sinfield of Edinburgh university as being about £20 billion a year. Thus, if any aspect of public expenditure should be exercising the mind of the House and requiring us perhaps to find an additional day before the recess upon which to have a debate, it seems to me that unemployment is paramount.
As we all know, unemployment is at varying levels in the country. As an hon. Member sitting for a prosperous southern seat, I have to admit to being concerned by a recent "Panorama" programme showing the situation in the north-east. In particular, I was struck by the young men, many of them married, who were prepared to leave their wives and children to find work in the south because there was no demand for their labour in their home towns. I salute their courage and determination to make something of their lives, and I salute their anxiety to provide for their families, although they know that their absence in the south must create huge strains on their marriages. Some, as I know from my constituency, have even uprooted their families from the communities in which they have grown up, and brought them to the south hoping to find a council house, or, if they can afford it, a house that they can buy.
662
I wonder sometimes what those people make of the south; of the wide spectrum of job opportunities and of the new industries that they find in places such as Berkshire. I wonder whether they ask themselves, as I ask myself, why the new jobs created in the new southern industries could not have been started as well in the midlands or the north. I hope that the new Government initiative, announced in The Times earlier this week, to create development corporations in derelict areas, will mean that that exodus from the north and the north-east will soon dry up.
Mr. John McWilliam: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: If I give way, others will not be able to speak. It would be only fair for me to get on with my speech and give them a chance.
From what I have said, it might seem that unemployment is almost unknown in Newbury and west Berkshire, but sadly the latest figures do not bear that out. In the Newbury travel-to-work area, over 2,000 people are out of work, or at least claiming benefit. In Reading, the figure in the travel-to-work area is over 10,000. In Berkshire overall, almost 7 per cent. of the working population is drawing benefit, the figure for Newbury being 7·4 per cent. However, I have to admit to the House and to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that those figures are anything but precise. While 2,000 people are drawing unemployment benefit in Newbury, at Newbury jobcentre there are no fewer than 500 vacancies, and at Reading jobcentre a further 1,300. Yet of the unemployed in Newbury only 9·4 per cent. have registered at the jobcentre—that is, 217 of the 2,000. In national terms, only 12·8 per cent. of those drawing unemployment benefit have chosen to register at their jobcentres. In Newbury, of those registered as unemployed, 20 per cent. or thereabouts have been unemployed for a year or more, some because they are in the over-50s category, others because they are handicapped. Therefore, of the 2,292 approximately 1,800 are available for work, of which 60 per cent. are women.
As I have already said, the jobcentre has over 500 vacancies on its books. The local newspaper, the Newbury Weekly News, is currently carrying four or five pages of job advertisements every week, which means dozens of vacancies in all types of employment, while the Reading Evening Post on average carries 150 full-time and part-time jobs each evening. No wonder a Reading business man said a few days ago that he, who has vacancies at all levels in his company, has come to the conclusion that too many of those drawing benefit are work-shy. Then there are the various private employment agencies that manage to make a fairly good living.
So with such a wide spread of jobs on offer, one is bound to ask how it is possible for Newbury to have 7·4 per cent. unemployment. I can conclude only that the answer lies in three directions. First, I suggest that there is a mismatch between the unemployed and the jobs available—in other words, a lack of skills. Secondly, perhaps 50 per cent of the women may be expecting babies and are drawing unemployment benefit in the last 11 weeks of their pregnancy. Thirdly, some of those drawing unemployment benefit are not looking for work, hence the low percentage registering at the jobcentre. Those are guesstimates, but because compulsory registration at

663
jobcentres as a condition for drawing unemployment benefit is no longer mandatory, the precise information about Britain's jobless, such as those in Newbury, does not exist.
I am not trying to suggest that the current total is necessarily inaccurate. What I am arguing is that we do not know, and that the Rayner economy in 1982 of doing away with compulsory registration to save £10 million a year on administrative costs may prove to have been a costly saving. Certainly, the present Secretary of State for Employment told me that he believed that hundreds of millions of pounds were being claimed in unemployment benefit by some people who had no intention of looking for work or who had joined the black economy. As we also know, over 2,000 persons were prosecuted last year for claiming benefit falsely.
If all that is so, surely a rethink about compulsory job registration at jobcentres is required, together with regular interviewing of those who are unemployed along the lines of the re-start scheme, introduced a few weeks ago to match capabilities to opportunities among the long-term unemployed. After all, we are spending £112 million a year on jobcentres, and there seems little point in that expenditure if we do not utilise the centres to the maximum. Of course, I recognise that one does not have to register at a jobcentre to use it, but it seems to me that those who register are registering their earnestness to find work whereas those who prefer not to seem to lack that same drive.
I recognise that jobcentres, however well they are organised and used, do not create employment if the jobs are not there in the first place. I recognise that the abundance of opportunities in Berkshire is not paralleled in the counties north of Birmingham, yet I believe that all those areas have certain things in common. The first is that nobody is really sure of the size of the unemployment problem. Secondly, certain skills are in desperately short supply. In Berkshire, the skillcentre in Reading has suspended recruitment for its courses on bricklaying, industrial electrics and plumbing because they are hopelessly oversubscribed. There is a two to three-month waiting list for courses in electro-mechanical draughts-manship, electric are welding, heavy vehicle repair and maintenance and storekeeping.
I also suggest that in north or south there is an abundance of community jobs that need doing—clearing the flotsam from our beaches and the litter in our streets and countryside, improving derelict sites, tidying up the countryside, and helping the community. I recognise the valuable work being performed within the community programmes, but I suggest that we should take the matter one step further. Community programmes are looked upon as something to do between jobs— they are not dignified as real employment. But I suggest that they are and have a long-term future.
Further, it seems to me that if the state is to spend £20 billion a year on unemployment, which, in effect, is a state wage, it has 'the right, after a given time, to ask unemployed people to join the community programme as full-time employees recompensed with a proper living wage. At present it is argued that a married man with two children who is out of work costs the state about £177 a week, or £9,200 per annum. It is also a fact that some commentators claim that a family needs an income which is 140 per cent. of the supplementary benefit rate. That would mean, net, about £5,300 per annum, or £102·27 a
664
week. If the latter were the community programme wage, the savings to the Exchequer would be considerably over what it is paying out as unemployment benefit. But, much more important than that, any unemployed person could take up such a job as real employment, although he would be free to leave, of course, if something better turned up.
Some people call this type of scheme workfare. No matter what it is called, it seems to be one way of ending the sense of waster and depression which affects those who are genuinely anxious to work, but who can find nothing to do. I commend it to my right hon. Friend.
7.50 pm
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I congratulate the new hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). She follows two men — her husband, to whom she referred delightfully, and Stephen Swingler who, in their different ways, contributed to the work of the House of Commons. I knew her father. He came from the same part of the world as me. He was of the generation who attended the old labour colleges. Higher education was not freely available. In the 1920s those colleges contributed to much original thought. It was of the kind that some of the colleges of higher education, on the moving staircase, do not provide in quite the same way.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) referred to unemployment. However, I intend to refer to the most valuable report that has been published today on Westland. I congratulate the Select Committee's chairman and its members upon the lucidity of the report and upon some of the matters that they have devilled through and thought out. They will be important to us all in the months ahead. I look forward to the Government's replies. Indeed, the Government will have given so much thought to these matters in recent months that their replies could almost be written tonight. A great deal of detailed passing around Departments which happens to most Select Committee reports, will not be required. But that is not to be.
However, there is one aspect of the report to which I wish to refer that will not wait, in my view, until November. I refer to paragraph 240 of the report, upon which I shall hinge my remarks. It says:
"As far as individuals are concerned, we have made our best judgments on the evidence before us. If anyone feels himself or herself to have been traduced by our findings, we are prepared at any stage"—
what does that mean, I wonder?—
"to take oral or written evidence, in public or in private, from anyone involved in the events we have examined. If that evidence leads us to modify our conclusions, we will of course make a further report to the House."
Remarks have been made not only about hon. Members but about civil servants at No. 10, the Attorney-General and the Secretary to the Cabinet that will cause concern. We should not have to wait until November for a reply to be made to those allegations or accusations, or whatever may be the correct word.
We have gone into leaking of the Law Officer's letter on previous occasions. That is not new. The leaking of the Law Officer's letter is against the conventions. Law Officers are not members of the Cabinet. They perform a particular task. Yet members of the Government and civil servants went around one lunchtime trying to find means of leaking and passing information to the Press Assocation.

665
I became involved in the Ponting case. It was not because I am enamoured of people who leak documents, particularly those who leak serious documents. But there is the allied matter, which is more important, of the Government, or the state. My strong view was that the man should not have had criminal charges brought against him under part II of the Official Secrets Act 1911. In the current case Ministers were aiding civil servants to do what Ponting had done, for which he had been taken to the High Court. That is strange.
I do not wish to offend those who feel that it is wrong to raise these matters on the last evening before the recess, but this is not a party political issue. It is a question of how Government should operate. If we go on in this way, there will be a new phrase about civil servants. We will say that a man is "doing a Ponting". Of others we will say, "Oh, he's doing an official Ponting." The position needs to be clarified.
A delightful story is told about Prime Minister Attlee. He did not read the newspapers, so it was said; he looked at The Times only to read the cricket scores and do the crossword. He was not very interested in what the journalists had to say. His officials tried to get him to install one of the machines that we have in the corridor outside the Chamber, but he did not want that new fangled type of stuff. Eventually they persuaded him to have it outside the Cabinet room because they were able to convince him that he could get the cricket scores from it, and it was said that he always referred to it as the "cricketing machine".
We have come a long way since then. Every morning the media go traipsing across to a most important meeting where all the briefing is done. That briefing should of course be done by a civil servant, but the time has come when he should pass on Government information in the same way as information officers in other Government Departments pass on information. Where political implications are involved, the briefing should be done by an employee of whichever political party is in power.
I shall leave on one side for a moment the fact that the Prime Minister said that she had no knowledge of this matter on 6 January. Instead I wish to deal with paragraphs 187 and 188 of the Select Committee's report. Paragraph 187 says:
"It must therefore be the case that Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell were in a position to tell the Prime Minister on 7 January what turned out to be the principal findings of Sir Robert Armstrong's inquiry more than a fortnight later."
But they did not do so, says the report. Should they not have a chance during the recess to put their views to the Select Committee? In the last paragraph of its report, paragraph 240, the Committee said that it was prepared to take oral evidence, either in public or in private. Paragraph 188 says:
"Yet on 7 January Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell did not share their knowledge — not with Mr. Nigel Wicks, the Prime Minister's Principal Private Secretary, not with Sir Robert Armstrong and not with the Prime Minister."
That is another serious allegation to make about two civil servants, one of whom, one would have thought, has a long way to go in the Foreign Office. This allegation or criticism will hang over him for a long time.
It was made by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, chaired by an eminent former Secretary of State in a Conservative Government who does not lightly
666
put his signature to such a thing. This is not a party political issue in the narrow sense of the term. It is important that the Leader of the House should explain immediately the report's last section. The matter should not be allowed to hang over the Department.
Will those civil servants be given a chance to clear their names? If the allegations are true, they are a damning indictment on how civil servants operate, but I believe that those civil servants are being traduced.
The allegation made against the Attorney-General, whom I respect, in paragraph 195 of the report is damning. During a previous debate on the Law Officers, I said that neither of them could be faulted for the way in which they had behaved. Now there is this damning indictment of the Attorney-General. I have tried to express my opinion on how leak inquiries are set up. They are few. I believe there is another side to the approach taken against the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is responsible for the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is appointed by the Home Secretary under legislation of about 1909. The Director of Public Prosecutions is, however, appointed on the advice of the Attorney-General. He is never again involved with the Home Secretary and works very closely with the Attorney-General.
If there had not been an internal inquiry into the Attorney-General's conduct, Scotland Yard would have been involved straight away. It could not have been done in any other way. I have read the report and I have heard the allegations made against the Attorney-General. I would not say such things about him because I respect him.
The Committee that has made the allegations about him should give him the chance to clear his name. The Secretary to the Cabinet was a deputy under-secretary when I was Home Secretary, and then became a permanent under-secretary. I know and respect him but have hon. Members read what is said about him? Those allegations must be considered before the matter is discussed in the House again. We must be fair to civil servants, let alone to a politician who is also the Attorney-General.
That is the reason for my speech tonight. The Government must tell us straight away what they will do about the last recommendation in the report. The Chairman and the members of the Committee are ready to take evidence. We should not wait until November to discover what will be done. The Government must contact the people involved and ask them if they want to give further evidence to the Select Committee. That is the only way in which their names will be cleared.
8.3 pm
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am especially pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) because, in his remarks about the Select Committee's report, he has put his finger on some key points which must be answered. In some ways the report is profound. It raises questions that must be answered on some occasion other than a summer Adjournment debate. I agree with his profound point that Government information, how it is handled and whether the Lobby system can still survive must be re-examined. We should move to a more open system in which a Government press spokesman gives briefings on the record. It is demeaning for journalists, who should be the detectors of democracy, to behave under the Lobby system

667
as if they were office boys in on some school secret and not be able to attribute to anyone any remarks they hear. The sooner that we alter the nature of the way in which Government information is handed out, the better.
I do not entirely share the praise that Opposition Members have showered on the report and its quality, or at least parts of it. I take up the point that the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South made about the Attorney-General, who I believe to have been traduced by the report in a very unfair and unjust way.
I quote from paragraph 195 to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the last statements of which are emphasised by heavy print. It states:
"If 'under no circumstances' would the Attorney have prosecuted Miss Bowe, then he must have known that the disclosure had been authorised."
It is difficult to imagine a more damaging charge against the Attorney-General. I concur with the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South that the way the sentence is phrased is a damning indictment.
To judge by the comments of several members of the Select Committee in the media this morning, they simply do not seem to have understood the implications of the paragraph as it is drafted. They believe that it in no way brings into question the integrity and honour of the Attorney-General. However, one member of the Select Committee understood how damaging the statement was and that was the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) who has been vocal in his criticism of the Attorney-General. He seems to have launched an unjust and unjustifiable one-man crusade against him.
I have two serious criticisms of the way in which the Select Committee has gone about its business in the paragraph containing the accusation against the Attorney-General. First, as a matter of natural justice, the Committee was wrong to assert that the Attorney-General must have known that the leak was authorised, unless it had first put that question to him and asked him for his explanation of the allegation. Secondly, the Committee has drawn the wrong conclusion about the Attorney-General's action and his thinking from the evidence in the report. If the Committee had only thought a little more carefully before it leapt into print with that contentious paragraph, it might have realised that its astonishing conclusion is only one of several possible conclusions that could be drawn from the evidence submitted to it.
Attorneys-General, like anyone else, are entitled to a fair hearing and treatment before a Select Committee before it passes a censorious judgment or writes words which could be, and which have been, interpreted as a censorious judgment. Fair treatment, at the very least, means that the Attorney-General should have been asked about the matter for which he has been criticised. He should have been invited to give oral evidence, or, like the Solicitor-General, he should at least have been invited to submit answers to written questions. However, that did not happen. The Attorney-General was condemned in his absence and the paragraph in the report appeared with total and involuntary silence on his part. I am reliably informed that paragraph 195 came as a complete surprise to him.
The House should recall that, in the past, Select Committees have been severely criticised by the House for censuring people on grounds on which they have never been properly questioned. I remind the House of the Select Committee report on the conduct of hon. Members in the
668
Poulson affair. When we debated that report in 1977, the House clearly believed that the late Mr. Reginald Maudling had been unfairly treated because questions had not been put to him and the grounds on which he was criticised were grounds on which he had never been questioned. For that reason, as much as any other, the House refused to go along with some of the recommendations of that Select Committee.
From the natural justice point of view, the Committee handled paragraph 195 badly. I hope that the Attorney-General will take up the invitation in paragraph 240 to answer that point. I have no doubt that the unfair inferences drawn would have been differently answered had the Attorney-General had the opportunity to do so.
More important than the point about natural justice is the fact that the Select Committee has drawn the wrong conclusion in paragraph 195. The House knows that I have some experience of being a central figure in a leak inquiry which involves the Official Secrets Act. Perhaps because of that, I understand that, when an Attorney-General has to decide whom to prosecute and to whom to give immunity, there are certain considerations on his mind which are not always obvious to the outside world. The main consideration on any prosecutor's mind, when deciding whether to grant immunity, is whether he is likely to get a conviction.
I suggest that the Attorney-General said that in no circumstances would he prosecute Miss Bowe, not because he knew all along that this was an authorised disclosure, but because he realised that he would not get a conviction. I think that because the evidence is set out in the Committee's report. Paragraph 158 makes it quite clear that Miss Bowe believed that she had been instructed by Mr. Ingham to take the action that she did, even though she had grave reservations about it.
In paragraph 174, there is further corroboration of the fact that Miss Bowe did not want to do what she did but that she felt that she had to take orders from two higher civil servants. If the Attorney-General had known that, the doctrine of mens rea being what it is, there was no possibility of his getting a conviction on behalf of the Crown under the Official Secrets Act. It is not that he knew all along that this was an authorised leak, but the simple legal fact that he would not get a conviction. He obviously discussed with the Secretary to the Cabinet the possibility of bringing in the police. That is not the action of an Attorney-General who is part of a cover-up. It is the action of an Attorney-General who is genuinely seeking the truth about who did what, and taking a perfectly realistic decision that there was not a chance of Miss Bowe being convicted. His actions were justified on that basis alone.
I have highlighted two fundamental flaws in the report. I dare say that others may have been traduced in it. I believe that the Attorney-General most certainly has been, and the report is badly flawed for that reason.
8.12 pm
Dr. John Gilbert: I shall deal later with the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). First, however, I should like to pay tribute to my colleagues on the Select Committee for the extremely amiable atmosphere in which our proceedings were conducted. I congratulate Conservative members of the Committee, for whom certain passages in the proceedings must have been extremely difficult. They

669
maintained a magnificent spirit of independence, which is a great tribute to them and this place. I also want to pay tribute to our Chairman, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins).
The House will know that the report is unanimous. More than that, every line, adjective and comma was agreed without division. I intend to concentrate on only two issues. The first is that which the hon. Member for Thanet, South mentioned. One of the crucial questions which we had to consider was who knew that the selective disclosure of part of the Solicitor-General's letter was authorised. Paragraph 196 says quite unambiguously that that must have been known before the inquiry began by, among others, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), Sir Robert Armstrong, Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell. The Committee's judgment is unambiguous in that respect.
Hon. Members will want to know that, last night, I gave the Attorney-General notice that I would raise the subjct of his involvement and paragraph 195 in today's debate. Paragraph 195 deals solely with the Attorney-General's role in this affair. It does not say that he knew that the disclosure had been authorised by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but it says that he must have known that the disclosure was authorised.
There was a short list of people who would have been able to authorise the disclosure. There was the person who sent the letter, the person who received it and those to whom it was copied. That is a class of six. I think that we can take it for granted that the Solicitor-General, who wrote the letter, did not leak it. I think that we can take it for granted that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who received it, did not leak it. We are now down to four. Of them, I have yet to hear anybody suggest that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury leaked it. I have yet to hear anybody suggest that the Foreign Secretary leaked it.
We are now down to a class of two. The other two recipients were the Prime Minister and the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Committee is saying that the Attorney-General knew that the disclosure was authorised, and that he must have been a blithering fool if he did not know that it was one of those two who authorised it. That is the sense of paragraph 195.
The hon. Member for Thanet, South has tried to erect a defence for the Attorney-General. I prefer the Attorney-General's own defence. He was good enough to tell me yesterday that he would today answer a written question tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner). The hon. and learned Gentleman
"asked Mr. Attorney-General if he will make a statement on those aspects of the Fourth Report from the Defence Committee on Westland plc, the Government's decision-making, which fall within his responsibilities."
The Attorney-General answered:
"The Select Committee state that if, when I authorised an offer of immunity from prosecution to one of the officials concerned in the Head of the Home Civil Service's inquiry into the circumstances of the disclosure of the Solicitor-General's letter of 6 January, I was able at that stage to say that under no circumstances would I have prosecuted the official concerned, I must have known, and must have learned from the Head of the Home Civil Service, that the disclosure had been authorised.
I wish to make it absolutely clear that at the time when I advised that an inquiry be instituted, I did not know by whom
670
the disclosure had been made or that it had been authorised by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or at all.
At the time when I granted immunity to the official concerned, while I had reason to believe that the disclosure had been made by the official concerned and that the official concerned had acted in complete good faith, I was not aware of the full circumstances. It was important that the inquiry should discover as fully as possible the circumstances in which the disclosure came to be made, and should provide those concerned with the opportunity of giving their accounts of their part in the affair. It was clear that the testimony of the official in question would be vital to the inquiry, and I judged it right that possible impediment to full co-operation in the inquiry should be removed. I was and am satisfied that that in no way interfered with the course of justice: the facts as disclosed in the inquiry confirmed my judgment that there would have been no question of proceeding against the official concerned.
As the Select Committee recognise, I was not told of the direct involvement of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry until 22 January."
That was the Attorney-General's opportunity to defend himself. Not one word in the parliamentary reply from the Attorney-General contradicts a syllable in paragraph 195 of our report. I shall demonstrate that later.
We accuse the Attorney-General of knowing that the disclosure had been authorised at the time that he was asked to grant immunity to Miss Bowe. He said that he did not know,
"at the time when I advised that an inquiry be instituted".
That is a very different matter indeed, with a vital time lapse in between.
The Attorney-General is a very able man, but I am beginning to wonder whether one should accuse him of trying to throw sand into the eyes of the House. Naturally, I believe every word that he says, but I think that his answer will bear very close examination. I shall repeat the words of paragraph 240 of the report: if the Attorney-General does not like the judgment—if he feels traduced —let him come along and give evidence to us, in public or in private, orally or in writing. If he does not, it is up to him, but the offer is there. The Committee is willing to have hearings — that is a unanimous view — and, if necessary, issue a further report.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I give notice, so important have been the comments of my right hon. Friend, that in tomorrow's Adjournment debate I shall repeat what he said by referring to Hansard, and shall expect the Minister who is replying to the Adjournment debate to respond to the very important statement made by my right hon. Friend.
Dr. Gilbert: The question remains, why is it important that the Attorney-General might have known that the disclosure was authorised? It is important, because if the conclusion was known in advance, the inquiry was a charade. If it did not relate to such a serious matter, one might be tempted to say that the inquiry was a farce. However, it was serious because five named officials went through an ordeal in which, as the head of the Civil Service said, their careers, their reputations and their lives were involved. That is not my language, it is the language of the head of the British Civil Service. He knew, and paragraph 195 says that the Attorney-General knew, that the ordeal of those officials was unnecessary. Our report also shows that the Attorney-General urged that the inquiry be prosecuted and the head of the Civil Service carried it out.
Incidentally, those are the words of the head of the Civil Service, who should have been protecting his officials, and

671
who compounded his hypocrisy—there is no other word for it—by praying in aid his inquiry as the reason why his officials should not appear before our Committee. That is a piece of cheek which takes some beating.
Finally, in parts of the report, the Committee has used some fairly forceful language about the conduct of the officials who did not appear before us. It is not our fault that they did not do so. We called it discreditable, improper, disreputable and outrageous. Four times today, the Prime Minister endorsed the activities and attitudes of those individuals. That tells me all that I need to know about the atmosphere at No. 10 Downing street which lies behind this sorry tale.
This is not the end of the matter. The Government are under an obligation to reply to the Select Committee. We shall consider that reply and may have further hearings. We may issue a further report and there will be a debate in this House. It will he a long time before this sleazy ghost is finally laid to rest.
8.24 pm
Sir Ian Pervical: I am glad to have the opportunity of following what I regard as one of the most deplorable speeches that I have heard in this House, which would do well to remind itself that one of its proudest traditions is that the Law Officers of all parties pride their integrity, independence and honour above everthing.
Mr. David Winnick: What about the Prime Minister's integrity?
Sir Ian Percival: I shall ignore that.
It is regrettable that the Committee was not more careful in the language that it used. It is deplorable that the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) has abused this occasion. I shall support those comments quite shortly. The right hon. Gentleman's whole argument is based on the false premise that it can be assumed that "authorisation" means authorisation by a Minister. It means no such thing.
Suppose that, in accordance with all the best traditions, the Attorney-General — I am glad that the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) recognised that to be the case—was considering whether there should be an inquiry and suppose that he was told by the Cabinet Secretary: "I need immunity for Miss Bowe because it is clear to me that she was told to do what she did. I need to find out who told her to do it, and she will not tell me unless she is assured that she will not be prosecuted." Let us suppose that this is what happened —and it is a scenario that I have seen myself as a Law Officer. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the scenario was any different from that.
The House must remember that immunity means only an assurance that she will not be prosecuted — [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will listen to the argument. I am putting it briefly and treating it very seriously because this is a serious point. Immunity means an assurance that there will be no prosecution. Sometimes that is a very difficult assurance to give, because sometimes it means that one is agreeing not to prosecute somebody who is guilty of a very serious offence. In such a case, as in the Blunt case, it is a serious step to take to give an assurance that one will not prosecute somebody who has been guilty of a very serious offence—[Interruption.] I
672
wish that hon. Members would stop muttering and listen; they might conceivably learn something from someone who has been in that position.
Supposing the scenario is as I have described. The Attorney-General's position was not difficult in this case because in any event he could not prosecute. If the evidence was that the lady had been told by her superiors to do what she did, then there was no question—
Mr. Alan Williams indicated dissent.
Sir Ian Percival: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. He should accept what I say just for the moment, because I have been in such positions. The assumption that "authorised" means authorised by a Minister has no substance whatsoever in law; I have checked that today. The right hon. Member for Dudley, East is proceeding to make the most appalling accusations based on a false assumption.
Dr. Gilbert: Nothing would make me happier than if the Attorney-General would come along and tell us that that is precisely what he meant. However, the consequences of that would be very damning indeed for the officials who forced Miss Bowe, if that is the scenario erected by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, to do something thoroughly improper and against her better judgment. In that case, there would be no need for an inquiry.
Sir Ian Percival: The right hon. Gentleman is now trying to escape the point. I am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's direct accusation of the Attorney-General of disgraceful conduct. He has no grounds on which to make that accusation. He knows perfectly well that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has no opportunity today to defend himself. What he will do later, I do not know. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not like what I am saying and I am not surprised because it knocks the bottom out of their case.
The assumption that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General must have known that the leak was authorised by a Minister is wholly without foundation. I wish that hon. Members would stop muttering. I am saying that as a matter of law there is no basis for that assumption. "Authorised" does not mean necessarily authorised by a Minister.
Mr. Williams: I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. Armstrong's revised rules, which he circulated to civil servants recently, make it clear that authorisation of this type of activity needs the approval of a Minister, not of another civil servant. There is an appeal procedure to a senior civil servant if a civil servant thinks she has been wrongly instructed by a Minister, but only a Minister can give the initial approval.
Sir Ian Percival: The right hon. Gentleman is forgetting that what is talked about in paragraph 195 is unauthorised disclosure which amounts to a criminal offence. Those rules about which the right hon. Gentleman is speaking have nothing whatever to do with criminal offences. I am talking about whether it is right to assume that there was a criminal offence here.
Authorisation by a Minister is not necessary to provide the accused with a defence in law. It is sufficient if a person is accused of an offence under the Official Secrets Act 1911 to show that they were authorised by a superior. I have no hesitation in saying that and no fear of anybody being able

673
to contradict that in law. That is the law and that is why I say that those who, like the right hon. Member for Dudley, East, read more into paragraph 195 than I thought was meant in it by the Committee, are doing so on a completely false hypothesis, and that is a disgraceful thing to do.
On the hypothesis that I have put to the House, and looking at paragraph 195, everything that the Attorney-General said, as quoted there, was perfectly proper, in order, and in accordance with the best traditions of his office, if what he was told was that the lady was authorised by somebody else to do what she did. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to jump over a gap there and say that that means that she was authorised by a Minister.
Dr. Gilbert: In that case, why did not the Attorney-General avail himself of this opportunity to deny the language of paragraph 195?
Sir Ian Percival: My right hon. and learned Friend will speak for himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "We wish he would."] It is always the last resort of a person who does not want to hear the argument to giggle about it. I hope Labour Members do not think that that casts any doubt on the argument. My right hon. Friend will speak for himself.
In a cooler mood, everybody here, including the right hon. Gentleman, would know that my right hon. and learned Friend has not as yet had the opportunity—
Mr. Tam Dalyell: He will tomorrow, officially.
Sir Ian Percival: That is for my right hon. and learned Friend. What is deplorable is the apparent complete unwillingness of Labour Members to consider that they might have made a false assumption even though I have put before them a scenario that is not only possible and which they should have thought of, but so probable that most people here would put more money than they can afford to lose on the proposition that that is in fact what happened.
Whether that is or is not right, what is so wrong here is that some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have put the worst possible interpretation on what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General did in order to launch a disgraceful personal criticism of him, and that is deplorable.
8.34 pm
Mr. Terry Fields: This place will close down tomorrow for three months, but thousands of ordinary people including Members of the House, will be affected by the growing crisis brought about by the Government's policies within the National Health Service.
In my Liverpool district health authority, we face the prospect of cuts of £2· million over the next two years. That will amount to the loss of a further 120 jobs in an already stretched service in our area and a 12·5 per cent. reduction in the hours and pay of those working in the industry.
Redundancy payments for those job losses must come out of the overall budget. That budget should be there to provide nurses, ancillary staff and decent conditions for those in the hospitals dependent on services. Instead, they are using that budget to pay for the redundancy of other workers. In turn, that will mean further cuts in services and
674
the loss of more jobs. Patient care will be affected because of the growing inability to finance the NHS. That is a vicious circle which has been created by the Government, aided and abetted by their placemen, the managers, whose only concept is of cuts. Those cuts, in the name of so-called efficiency, mean that the care of ordinary people is affected.
The conditions prevailing as a result of the cuts are already been seen in the Liverpool area. [Intervention.] In the Olive Mount psychiatric hospital, I have spoken to cooks and ancillary staff, some of whom are female and are the sole breadwinners of their families, who are suffering a £32 a week reduction in their wages plus a cut in the hours that they work within that industry. [Interruption.] That means that mentally handicapped people reliant on those cooks and ancillary staff—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I am trying very hard to listen to the hon. Gentleman and I hope that the House will give him a proper hearing.
Mr. Fields: Thank your for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mentally handicapped patients dependent on ancillary staff and cooks are geting their meals half an hour late and a reduced range of meals available. Equipment is not being replaced and that further reduces the range of meals that can be provided for these people in need.
In the Fazakerley hospital, ancillary staff fell for the con of the in-house tender. In effect, they cut their own jobs, reduced their hours of work, and consequently, their take-home pay. They put the lowest bid in but the contract was given to one of cleansing firms which are now so prevalent within the NHS.
It is little wonder that the Government are so supportive of contract cleaning firms in hospitals. The report of the trade union co-ordinating committee says that 15 Conservative Members of Parliament have a declared direct interest in firms hunting for contracts in areas privatised in the NHS — cosmetic, laundry and catering services. Three of those Members are named, and another four act as consultants in the NHS. It is little wonder that they are the dailies on the Conservative Benches out to make a quick buck from the cleansing services, ancillary staff and the decimation of the NHS.
The job descriptions that have been drawn up and the rotas that have been issued are an insult to decent people seeking work in the NHS. On one questionnaire, potential workers were asked whether they were capable of carrying a two gallon bucket of water without straining themselves. For those who do not know, one gallon of water weighs 101b, so two gallons weigh 20 lb. A further question asked whether the applicant could work four hours without becoming unduly fatigued. It would be little wonder if someone who carried around one and a half stones in weight for four hours was affected.
A more sinister questionnaire was one which has been withdrawn because it asked women if they were on the pill and if they suffered from period pains. That is the length to which these gangster firms supported by Government Members are prepared to go in recruiting staff to work in areas that were previously staffed by the National Health Service. The tasks being given to these people are impossible, and that is creating low morale which affects patient care. They have no time to spend with patients. In the past they have been used as barrier nurses between

675
overstretched medical staff and patients. They are now skivvies if not navvies in the hospitals. Their numbers have been reduced and they have been given additional work, and the effect on patients and on standards of cleanliness are there for all to see.
Addenbrooke's hospital has had experience of blood and bones being left in the theatre, and it is no exception. Two years ago Fazakerley hospital lost three cleaners and now its operating theatres have been closed because of steam flies. That is a scandal. In that hospital in-patients who are in need of care and medical attention after treatment are having their recuperative period interferred with because clinics are being opened up, having been transferred from other parts of the hospital because of lack of space. That is having a deleterious effect on the patients.
Sefton general hospital in Liverpool increasingly has to rely on agency nurses. There are reported cases of people doing day staff duties in one hospital and reporting as agency nurses in other hospitals to do night shifts. That means they are working virtually 24 hours a day and that is because of the low pay and poor conditions offered by the agencies. The Government pays a great deal of attention to the Royal teaching hospital. It offers low pay and has cut its staff, and those things have a demoralising effect on staff and on the care of patients. People are leaving their jobs and are not being replaced and the health of patients is suffering.
The scandal of our waiting lists needs to be exposed. The College of Health inter-area comparisons show that in 1985 the Liverpool area health authority had on its waiting list for over 12 months 1,822 people. That means 23 per cent. of people treated in hospital have been on a waiting list for over 12 months. In south Sefton where I live, 800 people waited for more than a year, that is 12 per cent., and on the outskirts of Liverpool one health authority reported that it had a 72 per cent. patient waiting list for over a year.
As if that is not bad enough, to compound the crime the Tories and their henchmen are fiddling the figures of people on waiting lists. When a patient goes for his first interview and even before he has any in-patient treatment, his name is removed from the list of those needing hospital treatment. We know that the Tories massage the unemployment figures and now we know that they also massage the figures for hospital waiting lists while patients, many of them in pain, wait for operations and treatment.
We constantly hear from the Prime Minister and from the Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Services the myth that they are spending more "in real terms". That has been exposed by the experiences of those patients and workers at the sharp end of things. I do not know what other people will be doing during the recess, but I shall be campaigning with those hospital workers, introducing them to shop stewards in private industry and acquainting them with the real horrors and the prospects for the future of our National Health Service. We shall campaign for more resources for the Health Service. We will seek to get the Government to change their mind and will fight the proposals by the Government to cut finance to the Health Service.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am listening to this nonsensical diatribe by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields). He may disagree with the priorities decided by the district and regional health
676
authorities, but it is quite undeniable that more funds are being provided by the Government for the Health Service. In the seven years that the Government have been in office a 20 per cent. increase in real terms has been achieved for the Health Service. Perhaps more is required, but the hon. Gentleman should direct more of his criticism to his own regional and district health authorities and give credit to the Government for the additional resources that they have provided.
Mr. Fields: It is fairly obvious that the resources in the constituency of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) are not too good because he should have treatment for his ears. I have spelt out why the finance that the Government gloat about is not finding its way into the Health Service, and I have detailed the effect of cuts on people in the NHS.
The Opposition and the national executive of the Labour party do not hand down tablets of stone. At last year's annual conference, the Confederation of Health Service Employees tabled a resolution which did not get support and was remitted to the national executive. For my part and on behalf of those who are active and worried about the Health Service, I can only put forward as a solution to the problems of people in need of hospital treatment part of that resolution, which we will fight democratically to have included in Labour's programme. The resolution called for the deprivatisation of all privatised services in the National Health Service and for all lost jobs to be replaced. It also called for the abolition of all charges for health care, the abolition of the private health sector and the nationalisation of the pharmaceutical industry, placing it under democratic control and management with compensation to be paid only on the basis of proven need. Those things are the only solution to the problems of the Health Service, and I shall be campaigning for them while Tory Members will be sunning themselves all over the globe.
8.46 pm
Mr. Patrick Ground: Before the House adjourns, attention should be focused on the threat to the environment of west London contained in the utterances during the last few days of the newly appointed chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. Previous Governments have sought to strike a balance between the interests of the aviation industry and the comfort of people living in west London. They have sought to achieve that balance by limiting expansion at Heathrow airport.
When planning permission was given for construction of the fourth terminal, the Government gave two pledges. First, they pledged that when it opened, air transport movements would be limited to 275,000 a year, and secondly that there would be no fifth terminal. When the fourth terminal opened earlier this year the position had changed. The Government had had the benefit of the Eyre report and decided that in place of the balance provided by the limit of 275,000 movements and the pledge about the fifth terminal, there should be a completely new package of protection for people living in west London against the nuisance of noise.
One of the fundamental parts of the package set out in the inspector's report was a recommendation that there should be a complete ban on night movements of aircraft at Heathrow. The Government followed that report by accepting the benefit of additional air movements beyond

677
the limit that had been fixed. They followed the report by recognising the possibility of further expansion by way of a fifth terminal and set in train studies to implement in the best way possible the protection against noise that was recommended in the inspector's report.
Within the last few days the newly elected chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority has recommended that there should be an increase in night movements at Heathrow. He said that it did not matter if there are more movements if there is what he describes as quieter aeroplanes. These recommendations are completely at variance with the Eyre report. They are completely unacceptable to people in west London whose sleep is being disturbed by night flights. It is not too much for people to ask that they should be able to sleep between 11 pm and 6 am without being disturbed by aircraft noise. The new chairman has made a bad start by threatening to shake and disturb the balance which has been recommended between the interests of the air transport industry and those living in the neighbourhood of Heathrow. I hope that someone will explain to him during the recess that that is completely at variance with the spirit in which the Government have acted so far on the basis of the Eyre report.
8.50 pm
Mr. Dick Douglas: There are many issues which we should be addressing on behalf of our constituents. Some of us were in the Chamber at 5 o'clock this morning addressing such issues, including Conservative Members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Some of us were here until 5.30 am.
Mr. Douglas: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are many issues to be addressed and, with the leave of the House, I shall be speaking in an Adjournment debate tomorrow on an issue that affects my constituency.
There is a link between the important report of the Select Committee on Defence and that which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) said in her excellent maiden speech. It is the responsibility of us all on both sides of the House to raise the tone of politics and political behaviour. The searchlight of the Select Committee's report casts light on the behaviour of No. 10 downhill street from 3 to 7 January.
I regret that the former Law Officer, the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival), is not in his place. He constructed a scenario of the Attorney-General's behaviour which suited his argument, but that is not what is addressed in paragraph 195 of the Select Committee's report. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's scenario is correct, it is possible that another official was culpable. Therefore, the Attorney-General would have had to address his mind to what action, if any, should be taken in relation to that official, but I do not want to enter into that argument now.
The Select Committee on Defence has been tested, the House, in its wisdom, having tested its competence. There are pluses and minuses in the report and there are pluses and minuses also in Select Committee procedure. It is not possible to understand the tone or the feel of this from the
678
Select Committee's report, but in my view Sir Robert Armstrong quickly grasped how to manoeuvre a Select Committee.
A Select Committee is not a court and when a witness is before one he is not necessarily subjected to intensive cross-examination. The members of a Select Committee —I have much respect for the able and fair chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins)—try to elicit views and evidence from a witness which they think will aid the inquiry, and Sir Robert appeared to be a competent witness.
I recall the press report that appeared in The Guardian, which suggested that the Select Committee had not done its job. Bearing in mind what it was trying to do and the report that appeared before the House, I suggest that it did its job. If nothing else emerges from the report other than the views that are set out in paragraph 214 on the head of the Civil Service, I think it can be said that the Committee has done its job. The paragraph states:
"It is to the Head of the Home Civil Service that all civil servants have to look for example and for a clear lead".
In the Westland instance, that lead was not given.
I am concerned—I trust that this is the concern of the whole House—that if Sir Robert Armstrong remains in his place, supported by the Prime Minister, the morale of the Civil Service will suffer. I know that it is difficult for Conservative Members to grasp. The major reason, however, for debating the Westland issue is to get to the roots of the interrelationship between the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the Civil Service. A man who has allowed himself to be used in such a fashion and who has abused his position should not remain in office. If he were a Scot and had a Scottish background — for example, an Armstrong or a Douglas and a man of honour — he would resign.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Alan Williams.
Mr. Alan Williams rose—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) has referred to abuse. Has not this debate been an abuse of the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Winterton: Please let me advance my argument for a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot advance an argument when he is raising a point of order.
Mr. Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this debate not an opportunity for Back Benchers to raise matters which they consider to be of importance prior to the House rising? It is a debate in which they can advance reasons why—
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been in the Chair for one hour and 55 minutes and I have not heard anything said during that period that has been out of order.
Mr. Winterton: This debate has been used as a rehearsal for a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Defence.
8.58 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) on her excellent and succinct maiden speech. I look forward to hearing her when she feels even less constrained than today to be noncontroversial. To respond to the point of order for the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), in answering the debate it would be difficult to do anything other than talk about Westland. The debate had been dominated by contributions from Back-Bench Members about Westland.
On that day after the leak, I went to No. 10 Downing street and handed in a letter demanding an inquiry into it. In that letter I congratulated the Prime Minister on turning an industrial relations problem into a constitutional crisis. The Select Committee's report has vindicated that assessment. It is a great pity that during our proceedings this evening we have not had the response of the main parties to the Select Committee's report.
It is a scandal to think that we have to wait three months before we have an opportunity to debate this subject. The Attorney-General should have been here today. In answer to my question he said that the first time he knew of the involvement of the then Secretary of State for Trade of Industry was 22 January. I accepted that. I am still inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt as I do not believe he would give an answer of that sort if he did not believe it to be true. However, I find that hard to reconcile with other things that have been pointed out.
The Attorney-General granted immunity, but he has never told us why. It is not as though the granting of immunity is normal in such a situation. Armstrong said that the only precedent—he has had a lifetime in the Civil Service—that he could recollect was in the case of Blunt. That is the only example which has arisen. In a written answer on 27 January—the Attorney-General had had time to consider it—he said:
"I was"—
not "I am", subsequently—
"also satisfied that there was in any event no possibility that proceedings would be instituted". — [Official Report, 27 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 357.]
The Attorney-General has not changed his position—he said the same thing in the answer that he released today:
"I had reason to believe that the … official concerned had acted in complete good faith,"
What does that mean? After all, this was not an ordinary leak and it was no ordinary letter—it was the Solicitor-General's letter. Law Officers' letters hold a unique position and only a Cabinet Minister could have given the authorisation to enable the official to say that she acted in complete good faith. At the very least, we would say that this peculiar judgment and the absence of a linking piece of evidence means that the Attorney-General should be here to explain his position. Otherwise we will be convinced that the whole leak inquiry was a time-wasting charade.
The former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should have been here. After all, he knew that the leak inquiry was requested on 7 January, he knew that it was set up a week later and yet 15 days later he still had not owned up. Why did the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) not do the honourable
680
thing? He is an eminent barrister and he should have confessed at that stage and thus avoided all the difficulties which he built up for himself and the Prime Minister.
Today, the Prime Minister has behaved in a typical fashion. She has been faced with questions which she has refused to answer and indeed she has answered in parallel. She has set up blocking positions to enable her to refuse to answer future questions in the House as she did for five months concerning Oman. When the right hon. Lady met her son in Oman she did not ask him why he happened to be there and it seems it never occurred to her to ask her own staff about the leak even though the press was full of stories about it emanating from the press office of the Department of Trade and industry. The senior press officer of Government is a member of her office staff but it never occurred to her to ask him. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said that they live in commune, but it seems that they live in commune but not in communication. We have been left with a situation wherein we are bound to conclude that what we have had is a conspiracy of silence: Bernard Ingham knowing better than to tell the Prime Minister anti she knowing better than to ask. That is the essence of what went on.
The questions still outnumber the answers and the probabilities discredit the protestations. We should not be leaving for three months without this issue being fully debated. Propriety requires explanation and integrity requires a candour that so far has been glaringly absent.
9.1 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I have but a handful or minutes in which to reply to this debate, thanks to characteristic charity on my part of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). Therefore, I cannot deal with all the points as adequately and comprehensively as I would have wished.
However, there is one overwhelming responsibility which has been laid upon me by this debate and which I shall discharge at once.
I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) on her excellent maiden speech. Like many others, I am privileged to have known her father and her husband. Indeed, I was hut a Tory apprentice in the miners room which has now been desecrated into the families room. There, in the early 1960s, Tom Swain and the hon. Lady's father gave me many insights into the practices of Parliament. Above all, I enjoyed the hon. Lady's reminiscence of the by-election. I am sure that there are few in this House who did not feel for her when confronted by those who strike the high moral tone whilst employing techniques which trivialise and demean. We come into this place believing that there is more to public life than that — indeed, the House should be an elevation of debate.
I noted the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) about overseas aid. I appreciate the anxiety felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) regarding trucking charges at Heathrow and the threat to Manchester airport. He will also have heard my reply to the Leader of the Opposition regarding the Stalker affair.
I take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) said about the

681
recent acquisition of Distillers Company Limited by Guinness. He will be aware that the matter is now being considered within the context of self-regulation.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), aided by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), asserted the common Cornwall front. They are concerned about how matters will proceed in Cornwall and I am aware that all the hon. Members concerned have made representations to my hon. Friends in Government. I will certainly make sure that this evening's debate is drawn to their attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) made a thoughtful speech about unemployment and especially the problems which are implicit in the imbalance in our economy and the unreliability of unemployment statistics in revealing the true nature of the economy.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) gave us a view of the condition of the Health Service in Liverpool, but my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) reminded us that that was a controversial subject.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) has explained the understandable anxieties about aircraft movements in the south-east. All those points will be referred to my hon. Friends in government, as appropriate.
However, this debate was opened by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who suggested in an amendment that we should perhaps defer the proposed recess arrangements to all intents and purposes to enable an instant debate on the fourth report of the Select Committee on Defence. I note the right hon. Gentleman's speech. It seemed to me that his anxiety was that if we went away this topic would wither— [Laughter.] I felt like laughing, but I was not so hostile as the hon. Member whose scornful and derisive comments put the matter exactly in this context. This issue will not wither.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), said that it would be with us in the autumn, and when joined by the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Right hon. Member."] I apologise. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very keen for status in the autumn of his life, and will get that way. However, there is no remote prospect of this issue sliding into obscurity. Therefore, the question is how we now best proceed to have it properly discussed and considered in a way that is appropriate to the work that has been undertaken by the Select Committee and the customary procedures of this House.
The first challenge must be the Government response when that has been received. The matter can then be further considered, and at questions this afternoon I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that we would have all the facilities of the usual channels to reflect on how best the House can consider these things in a mature way rather than in that sleazy sense of gimmick whereby the Opposition hope to go off on a reasonably high note to their buckets and spades.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 230.

Division No. 280]

[9.07 pm

AYES

Anderson, Donald

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Kirkwood, Archy

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Lamond, James

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Leighton, Ronald

Barnett, Guy

Litherland, Robert

Barron, Kevin

Livsey, Richard

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Bell, Stuart

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

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

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Bermingham, Gerald

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Blair, Anthony

McTaggart, Robert

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Madden, Max

Boyes, Roland

Marek, Dr John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Martin, Michael

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

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Buchan, Norman

Meacher, Michael

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Meadowcroft, Michael

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Michie, William

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Mikardo, Ian

Clarke, Thomas

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Clay, Robert

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

Nellist, David

Cohen, Harry

O'Brien, William

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

O'Neill, Martin

Corbett, Robin

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Corbyn, Jeremy

Pavitt, Laurie

Dalyell, Tam

Penhaligon, David

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Pike, Peter

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Powell, Rt Hon J. E.

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

Randall, Stuart

Deakins, Eric

Raynsford, Nick

Dixon, Donald

Redmond, Martin

Dobson, Frank

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Dormand, Jack

Richardson, Ms Jo

Douglas, Dick

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Dubs, Alfred

Rooker, J. W.

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Eadie, Alex

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Rowlands, Ted

Ewing, Harry

Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

Fatchett, Derek

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Flannery, Martin

Skinner, Dennis

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

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

Forrester, John

Snape, Peter

Foster, Derek

Soley, Clive

George, Bruce

Spearing, Nigel

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Straw, Jack

Godman, Dr Norman

Taylor, Rt Hon John David

Golding, Mrs Llin

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Gould, Bryan

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

Tinn, James

Hardy, Peter

Wainwright, R.

Harman, Ms Harriet

Wareing, Robert

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Weetch, Ken

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Wigley, Dafydd

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Heffer, Eric S.

Winnick, David

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Woodall, Alec

Home Robertson, John

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Hoyle, Douglas

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Janner, Hon Greville

Mr. John McWilliam and

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Mr. Chris Smith.

Kennedy, Charles

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Ancram, Michael

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Ashby, David

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

Aspinwall, Jack

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

683

Batiste, Spencer

Hayes, J.

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Hayward, Robert

Blackburn, John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Heddle, John

Bottomley, Peter

Hickmet, Richard

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Hicks, Robert

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Brinton, Tim

Hind, Kenneth

Brooke, Hon Peter

Hirst, Michael

Bruinvels, Peter

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Buck, Sir Antony

Holt, Richard

Budgen, Nick

Hordern, Sir Peter

Burt, Alistair

Howard, Michael

Butterfill, John

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

Chapman, Sydney

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Chope, Christopher

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Clegg, Sir Walter

Hunter, Andrew

Colvin, Michael

Jessel, Toby

Coombs, Simon

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Cope, John

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Corrie, John

Jones, Robert (Herts W)

Couchman, James

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Crouch, David

Key, Robert

Dorrell, Stephen

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Dover, Den

King, Rt Hon Tom

Durant, Tony

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Dykes, Hugh

Knowles, Michael

Eggar, Tim

Lang, Ian

Emery, Sir Peter

Lawler, Geoffrey

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Lawrence, Ivan

Favell, Anthony

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Lester, Jim

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Forth, Eric

Lightbown, David

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lilley, Peter

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Freeman, Roger

Lord, Michael

Fry, Peter

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Gale, Roger

Lyell, Nicholas

Galley, Roy

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Garel-Jones, Tristan

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Glyn, Dr Alan

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

McLoughlin, Patrick

Goodlad, Alastair

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Grant, Sir Anthony

McQuarrie, Albert

Greenway, Harry

Major, John

Gregory, Conal

Maples, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm 'th N)

Marlow, Antony

Ground, Patrick

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Mates, Michael

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mather, Carol

Hampson, Dr Keith

Maude, Hon Francis

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Harris, David

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Haselhurst, Alan

Merchant, Piers

Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Hawksley, Warren

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

684

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Miscampbell, Norman

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Moate, Roger

Speed, Keith

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Speller, Tony

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Spencer, Derek

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Moynihan, Hon C.

Squire, Robin

Needham, Richard

Stanbrook, Ivor

Neubert, Michael

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Newton, Tony

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Nicholls, Patrick

Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

Norris, Steven

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Onslow, Cranley

Temple-Morris, Peter

Oppenheim, Phillip

Terlezki, Stefan

Osborn, Sir John

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Ottaway, Richard

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

Thome, Neil (Ilford S)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Thurnham, Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Twinn, Dr Ian

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Pollock, Alexander

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Portillo, Michael

Viggers, Peter

Powell, William (Corby)

Waddington, David

Powley, John

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Price, Sir David

Wall, Sir Patrick

Proctor, K. Harvey

Waller, Gary

Raffan, Keith

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Rhodes James, Robert

Warren, Kenneth

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Watson, John

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Watts, John

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Wheeler, John

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Whitfield, John

Rowe, Andrew

Whitney, Raymond

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Wiggin, Jerry

Ryder, Richard

Wilkinson, John

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Winterton, Nicholas

Sayeed, Jonathan

Wolfson, Mark

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Wood, Timothy

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Yeo, Tim

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Shersby, Michael

Silvester, Fred

Tellers for the Noes:

Sims, Roger

Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and

Skeet. Sir Trevor

Mr. Gerald Malone.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 25th July, do adjourn until Tuesday 21st October and that the House shall not adjourn on Friday 25th July until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

Building Societies Bill
Lords amendments considered
9.21 pm
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Opposition Front Bench would like to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 14, 83, 127, and the amendment to the Lords amendment, and 146.
Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 13 agreed to.
Dr. Oonagh McDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the Lords amendments, we have another 200 amendments to the Bill which were considered in another place and now have to be considered by us. I feel that that is excessive in view of the fact that on Report we considered about 700 Government amendments after the Committee stage. This does not strike me as the most competent way in which to frame legislation, especially in view of the fact that the consideration of the amendments we are now dealing with was completed in another place only late last night. That means that the Third Reading debate is not yet available in Hansard, so we cannot take that into account as we consider the Lords amendments.
I put firmly on record the fact that the Bill seems to have been incompetently drafted at every conceivable stage. It is disgraceful that we should have another 200 or so amendments before us tonight.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ian Stewart): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Lady, like myself, will have found it difficult to deal with the great number of amendments to the Bill at various stages. However, the amendments mostly result from the Government's response to matters raised during the course of the Bill. Many of them are for the sake of good order in the legislation. For example, 33 of the amendments before the House tonight, as I have advised the hon. lady, are purely a consequence of consolidations of other legislation which has taken place this year. I am sure that she would not want the Bill to be enacted with inconsistencies of that sort. I accept that here have been many amendments and I regret that as much as the hon. Lady does. However, I equally think that it is right to get the Bill in good shape before it passes to the statute book.

Building Societies Bill
  Clause 12

    CLASS I AND CLASS 2 ADVANCES: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS.
    Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 19, line 5, leave out subsection (5).
    Mr. Ian Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Dr. McDonald: The amendment focuses our attention again on the issue of the development of the secondary mortgage market. The Minister in the other place made it clear that the Government were not averse to the development of that market, and the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction said in this House that they had set up a study group to look into the implications of the development of that market. Although that announcement was left open ended in the House, it
    686
    appears that the working party will report in the autumn and take into account as only part of its considerations the protection of consumers.
    On Second Reading, in Committee and on Report the Government seemed to express the view that it was extremely important to protect consumers because with the development of this market a mortgagee could find his or her mortgage sold on from the building society to some financial institution or, indeed, a wealthy individual. In the past when a mortgagee has been in difficulties over the payment of his mortgage building societies have always gone out of their way to discuss those difficulties with the mortgagee and to rephase payments so that the mortgagee is not turned out of his or her home and does not find that the mortgage had been foreclosed. Now it appears that the study is more wide ranging than it had first appeared, that the Government have as only one consideration the need to protect consumers, and that they are not averse to the development of the market.
    I remind the Minister that in the United States the market has been extremely well developed but not without difficulties, especially for consumers. The announcement was only given in the form of a written answer in this House whereas in the other place more information was given. I hope that the Minister will explain why the consideration of consumers' needs seems to be less important than they appeared to be from the Government's response earlier.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: First, amendments Nos. 14 and 225 merely rearrange the text of the Bill and do not relate to the business of a secondary mortgage market.
    It was perfectly fair of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) to raise the points. Indeed, she raised them on Second Reading when, because I was hard of hearing, I thought that she was referring to second mortgages. Since then we have discussed the matter extensively.
    As the hon. Lady knows, I have had meetings with the Building Societies Association which, in relation to the potential transfer of mortgages granted by building societies, is anxious to arrange for a code of practice which would preserve the rights of existing mortgagors and those who take out mortgages on similar terms in future so that any type of mortgage for which there might be a transfer in the secondary market in future must contain explicit conditions. It must be evident and made clear to borrowers when they take out such a mortgage that the ownership of the right of mortgage might be transferred.
    The hon. Lady is right. My hon. Friend the Minister of State announced that he would be instituting a wide-ranging study of this question. One reason for that is that it concerns not just building societies. I think it is quite clear that other lenders in the market are more likely to be providing funds on the basis that there would be an expectation of possible transfer than in the case of building societies, themselves. As she knows, a main reason for that is that, at least for now, most building society mortgages are based on the society's own rate of interest rather than an objectively determined market rate such as something connected with the London inter-bank offered rate or some rate of that kind independent of a particular institution.
    She suggested the fact that other considerations needed to be taken into account somehow downgraded the interests of consumers. I would not want her to feel that

    687
    that is the case because that is not the Government's purpose. We have to bear in mind the fact that there are market aspects that need to be taken into account in provisions to deal with this area. It may or may not be the case that at some stage legislation would be needed. There is no presumption that it would be. I hope that it may be possible to regulate the market without that because it is often more flexible, but there is an open mind on that. The fact that other matters are taken into account in no way diminishes the concern of the Government to look after the consumer, the borrower, who pledges his or her house, which is often the person's main asset with, therefore, a very proper interest in ensuring that, by having it as security against the loan, the borrower is not in fact entering into a special arrangement with a different lender without being aware of the fact.
    I shall direct my hon. Friend's attention to what the hon. Lady has said, and I am glad that she has had another opportunity to discuss it this evening.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 83: In page 84, line 6, at end insert—
    "nor does subsection (1) above prohibit further disclosure of the information by the Secretary of State or the Department with the consent of the Commission."
    Mr. Ian Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    9.30 pm
    Dr. McDonald: I have selected, I must say somewhat arbitrarily, one of the amendments to clause 53 because the point relates not only to this amendment but to other amendments in the group. I hope that it will be all right for me to comment a little more generally.
    Clause 53 is concerned with the disclosure of information by the commission. Since the commission serves as the supervisory or regulatory body for the building societies and since now the building societies will be engaged in other activities besides those of financing house purchase, those other activities will obviously be regulated by other supervisory bodies.
    There is some difficulty here in that although some of the bodies referred to in clause 53 and the amendments have already been established—for example, the Bank of England—a number of other supervisory bodies that will have to regulate some of the new activities of building societies have not yet been established since they fall under the Financial Services Bill, which has not yet completed all its stages.
    The point that I want to make concerns this problem, that obviously disclosure of information will be possible from the commission to the other bodies that are already in existence. I should like to know exactly what the proposals are, concerning the relationship of the building societies commission to regulatory bodies that have yet to be set up, and what details will be included in the Financial Services Bill. In the other place, concern was expressed about that point in relation to clause 53 and the various amendments that we are now considering. I should like to know exactly how much information will be passed to and fro, from one to the other. Under what sort of confidentiality and rules will it be passed from one such regulatory body to the other?
    For example, in certain circumstances such information could be considered defamatory. There are such problems
    688
    to be considered. Not all the self-regulating organisations that have yet to come properly into existence have been given legal immunity, so there is an enormous range of problems, which are not dealt with adequately in the Lords amendments to clause 53.
    The Minister should explain to us how the clause, together with the amendments, is to relate to the Financial Services Bill. This also requires justification, although it is a more general point. Financial institutions now all engage in exactly the same range of financial activities, whether selling insurance, being responsible for the personal equity plan, selling mortgages and so on, yet each of those activities is to be supervised by bodies that are allegedly independent of each other. Now, not surprisingly, that independence is to be broken down by the exchange of information.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: What the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) says is right. There will be provisions for the exchange of information between supervisory bodies. She said that she had chosen one amendment out of the group. Let me explain that the group itself consists of amendments Nos. 79, 83, 84, 86, 87, 94, 98, 102 and 104.
    Those amendments are designed to provide a framework governing the onward disclosure by one supervisor of information received from another. Following the passage of the Building Societies Bill, the Financial Services Bill and the banking legislation that was foreshadowed in December's White Paper, there will, as the hon. Lady says, be a range of financial supervisors at work, with a range of powers.
    In this country, we have chosen to have a supervisory structure that is based on the activity rather than the company or institution being supervised. It is done the other way round in the United States, where there is a supervisory authority in relation to a particular institution, sometimes more than one because they overlap and have both state and federal institutions. The Americans do it by institution whereas in the City of London we are doing it by activity.
    It is therefore right to say that there will be a number of supervisors in some cases involved in dealing with the affairs of a particular building society or other institution in the City. As has already been announced, in each case there will be one supervisor who will fulfil the role of lead supervisor to ensure that all the activities of an institution are looked at together. The commission will be responsible for the great bulk of the business of building societies, but other matters will fall to be dealt with by the different supervisory bodies that are to be set up under the financial services legislation, when enacted.
    Regulations will be made under clause 53(8) to designate at the appropriate time the Securities and Investments Board and the SROs to receive information as part of this network of supervisory authorities.
    The basic principle of the system that these amendments describe is that when one supervisor passes information to another, the second operator should not be inhibited from using if for his own supervisory purposes. In some cases this may involve further disclosure—for example, to an appeal tribunal or to a professional body with which the first supervisor has no dealings in the normal course of events. However, information would have been supplied to the supervisor, on the understanding that it would be subject to strict confidentiality restrictions.

    689
    A potential problem therefore arises when the second supervisor wishes to disclose the information in a way which would not be open to the first supervisor who originally supplied it. The amendments to clause 53 are designed to deal with this problem by providing that any information supplied by the commission to another supervisor may be disclosed by the recipient, but subject to his own confidentiality restrictions and provided that the commission gives its consent. That is the way in which the matter is designed to be controlled.
    This should work out satisfactorily in practice. The amendments to clause 54 provide for a reciprocal arrangement for disclosure by the commission of information obtained by the Bank of England. Further disclosure by the commission would be possible, again with the consent of the Bank of England. The power being framed in general is to allow furtherance of the commission's own functions.
    I hope that I have sufficiently explained the points that the hon. Lady raised.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Clause 82

    AUDITORS' DUTIES TO COMMISSION AND RELATED RIGHTS
    Lords amendment: No. 127, in page 128, line 39, at end insert—
    "(9) The Treasury, may by order impose on the auditors of building societies an obligation to furnish to the Commission, in such circumstances as may be prescribed in the order, relevant information available to them of such descriptions as may be prescribed in the order; and it shall be the duty of any auditor to furnish information to which the obligation extends notwithstanding any obligation of confidence incumbent on him.
    (10) The power to make an order under subsection (9) above is exercisable by statutory instrument but no such instrument shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
    (11) In subsection (9) above "relevant information" means information relating to the conduct of the business of building societies or their subsidiaries or associated bodies."
    Mr. Ian Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I want to raise only one point on amendment No. 127, which is another expression of the Government's approach to their attempt to stamp out fraud. That applies to the proposals relating to both banking supervision and the building societies. Amendment No. 127 places a duty on the auditor
    "to furnish information to which the obligation extends notwithstanding any obligation of confidence incumbent on him."
    The following subsection in amendment No. 127 provides that the power to make an order has to be
    "laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
    That provides us with an opportunity to debate this issue on a future occasion. However, before we reach that stage, I trust that the Government will consider again their approach to auditors. Auditors have a primary responsibility to the institution concerned to inspect the accounts. In the case of a company the obligation is
    690
    primarily to the shareholders. A conflict of interest could therefore arise between the duty of an auditor to carry out the work that he has been hired to do and this particular duty that the Government seek to impose upon auditors. I refer to the auditors of building societies and to the auditors of other bodies. I stress again that, apart from the most obvious and blatant instances, it is not the duty of an auditor to act as a kind of detective. That should be the job of whichever regulatory agency supervises the financial institution. In this case it is the commission rather than the auditor.
    9.45 pm
    Therefore, I trust that before the Government introduce an order such as this they will reconsider the matter, since I know that they have been approached by auditors as individuals and companies and by auditors' organisations. It is wrong to expect auditors to be detectives on the cheap for the Government. In their efforts to stamp our fraud, the Government should ensure that proper regulatory bodies are set in place with proper staff to equip them to carry out the task.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) has mentioned another important area of the Bill which is worth further discussion. I remind the hon. Lady of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 9 June. He said:
    "I have given especially careful consideration to the … circumstances in which an auditor should be expected to report on his own initiative to a supervisor." — [Official Report, 9 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 45.]
    He went on to say—this was said in the context of the Financial Services Bill—but the general principles apply equally here—
    "I have concluded that there should be no general duty placed on auditors in the Bill to report to supervisors. The particular circumstances in which a report should be made need to be carefully defined. I believe that this is best achieved by professional guidance and I look to the professional accountancy bodies, in consultation with the supervisors, to draw up such guidance. But an amendment to the Bill will be brought forward to give the Secretary of State a reserve power to lay down rules obliging auditors to report in certain circumstances to the supervisors. Such a power would be invoked only if suitable professional guidance was not issued."—[Official Report, 9 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 45.]
    My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State added that a parallel measure for banks and building societies was being considered by Treasury Ministers. That is the case. The Government believe that this same reserve power would be desirable in the Building Societies Bill because of the great importance of effective communication between building society auditors, who must visit their societies regularly and may be the first to detect danger signals, and the commission as the supervisor.
    It is not just a question of fraud. The stability of the institution may be at risk and so therefore, may be the funds of depositors. The Government believe that, in the case of building societies and other financial companies, such matters are best dealt with by the auditors and the professional bodies involved. We intend that the power should be exercised only by the Treasury if the profession fails to produce an effective code of practice. It is much better for the whole matter to be dealt with in a more informal fashion. The accountancy profession now recognises that that is our intention and welcomes it.

    691
    Equally, we cannot foresee in detail how supervisory needs may develop, as the institutions change in a fast-moving market place, so it is right that the exercise of any power in the Bill should be available, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In saying that, I assure the hon. Member for Thurrock and the House that we would give the most careful consideration, before introducing such a measure, to whether to introduce it and in what form. We do not intend to introduce such a measure now. We believe it is right, however, in view of potential uncertanties, that there should be such a power in the Bill. Whether it must be implemented later would have to be considered at the time, but we would think most carefully about it before introducing it, and would not do so without consultation.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Clause 98

    REGULATED TERMS ETC.: DISTRIBUTIONS AND SHARE RIGHTS
    Lords amendment: No. 146, in page 151, line 18, at end insert—
    "(7A) Where, in connection with any transfer, rights are to be conferred on members of the society to acquire shares in priority to other subscribers, the right shall be restricted to those of its members who held shares in the society throughout the period of two years which expired with the qualifying day; and it is unlawful for any right in relation to shares to be conferred in contravention of this subsection.
    (7B) Where the successor is an existing company, any distribution of funds to members of the society, except for the distribution required by subsection (2)(b) above, shall only be made to those members who held shares in the society throughout the period of two years which expired with the qualifying day; and it is unlawful for any distribution to be made in contravention of the provisions of this subsection.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree, with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Dr. McDonald: Fortunately, my comments on both parts of the Lords amendment will be brief. It appears that the amendment is designed to make it even more difficult for building societies to convert into public limited companies. I do not disapprove of that intention because I do not believe that building societies should be able to convert from mutual organisations into pies. Perhaps the Minister would like to explain why the amendment appears at this late stage and what it is intended to do.
    Mr. Stewart: Conversion has been a matter of difference between the two sides of the House, but there has been no difference about how it should he done. We agree that it should not be made easy for people in the market place to move funds from one society to another in the hope of being able to influence the conversion of a society into a limited company. It should not be easy for them to vote for that process and obtain short-term benefit from doing so, while expecting to move their funds off to another society. Such a risk was clear from certain events in the United States and we have been anxious to ensure that it should not be possible when the Bill is enacted.
    The hon. Lady asked me why the amendment is needed. It is a technical matter. Lords amendments Nos. 146 to 150 would add an additional limitation on cash distributions in a conversion. They are designed to apply to transfers to existing companies—if an existing deposit taker receives the business of a building society which is undergoing conversion to corporate status. Cash distributions in such circumstances must be limited to members who hake held shares throughout the two-year qualifying period.
    Like the Opposition, the Government are anxious that there should be adequate safeguards to ensure that conversions happen for proper reasons of commercial development and are not decided by the prospect of possible short-term financial gain such as I have described. We have made it clear all along that we regard it as important that conversion provisions should prevent speculative flows between societies on rumours of an impending conversion.
    Clause 98 already contains a considerable number of limitations on cash distributions and other benefits to members at the time of conversion. However, as the Bill stands without these amendments, it does not cover one particular area—it does not put a limit on who may be paid a cash distribution in the event of a transfer of a business to an already existing society or body. It is clearly important that it should. Otherwise, for example, one society could try to tempt investors into it in order to obtain new members who would then vote in favour of a conversion with the promise of an immediate cash bonus. Obviously that would be highly undesirable and the amendments would put it beyond doubt that they would not be able to qualify for a bonus in those circumstances.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maude.]

Civil Protection
9.55 pm
Dr. John G. Blackburn: During my many years of service to my constituency in the House this is the first occasion on which I have had the good fortune to be drawn first in the ballot for the Consolidated Fund debate. In fact, it is the first time that I have ever won a ballot since I have been in the House. That is the result of fortune but it certainly is the result not of fortune but of a reasonable, responsible and constructive viewpoint that my deliberate choice of subject, which I commend to the House, is that of civil protection.
This is a subject which has occupied the attention of the House on several occasions recently. I take this opportunity of placing on record a warm and generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who, with such skill, presented the comprehensive measure, the Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986. He has been ably supported by Members of all parties. However, if you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the opportunity to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) for his dedication to the subject. That reflects the greatest possible credit upon him and the constituency that he serves with such distinction.
In recent years, civil protection, after a period of relative quiet, has become universally acclaimed as an issue which commands support on both sides of the House and among the electorate whom we serve.
I was particularly pleased that the Government's decision to introduce regulations in 1983 was as a result of the failure of several local authorities to take reasonable action to promote this vital service and introduce the training which was required. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) is in his seat and he, in particular, has taken great interest in that aspect of civil protection.
It is my considered opinion that the main thrust of the proposals was to place an obligation on local authorities to do a number of things. First, they should establish and keep under review plans for the continuation of essential services in an emergency. There is a genuine need to arrange a comprehensive training schedule. Before I came to this House, I attended several courses on civil defence training. They were useful in all sorts of ways when facing crises such as one might find on a motorway or in a more local difficulty. Such training should be arranged for the staff of local authorities, because in a state of emergency the local authority staff would be the lifeblood in maintaining services.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Civil Protection

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Motion for the Adjournment in the name of the Prime Minister may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Eight o'clock in the morning.—[Mr. Durant.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
  Dr. Blackburn: Local authorities and their staff have a vital role to play, and we have a responsibility to ensure that they are trained in these matters. However, that is not
  694
  enough, because we have a vital role to play in making arrangements in the organisation, control and assistance of people who come forward as civil protection volunteers. We should have a positive policy of not only providing but designating centres for civil protection.
  I would welcome the comments of the Minister of State who is to reply to this debate about the present position. That would be helpful to all hon. Members interested in this subject. I am sure that the entire House will salute the manner in which the Minister of State has undertaken his civil protection duties.
  I also place on record my pleasure at the publication this month of a most excellent document entitled "The Planned Programme for the Implementation of Civil Defence, General and Local Authority Function Regulations 1983". I commend this publication to the House because it is saturated with common sense and excellent ideas. If those ideas were implemented it would be a tremendous step forward.
  The programme that we wish to see would not come about unless adequate finance were made available. During my research into this subject I was pleased to note that the Government have supported such a programme. I understand that the present commitment to civil protection exceeds £1 million. In addition, some £12 million has been allocated to local authorities to implement these proposals.
  I had the privilege to serve as a local councillor for 12 years before I was elected to this House and I am always cautious about local authorities being given grant aid, especially for something like civil protection. I am anxious to learn from the Minister of State that we are getting value for money from this £12 million investment, because I attach great importance to that.
  The Government's case for civil protection is overwhelming. I am confident that if they present their arguments to the public boldly and with confidence they will get a wonderful response and that there will be considerable support from all reasonable and responsible people who are anxious to exercise their responsibility to society.
  It is with pleasure that I tell the House that the finances are available. Having established beyond question the need for such protection, it would be valuable for the debate if we were to determine what dangers we face as a community for which these services are vital beyond words. One area which could cause concern is a major industrial accident. I speak with some feeling on this aspect because I have the honour to serve a constituency in the heart of the industrial west midlands. Industrial technology continues to probe the frontiers of knowledge. As elected Members of the House, we have a solemn responsibility to take positive action.
  Industrial safety techniques often follow in the wake of a disaster. We must not allow that to happen. Far too often a disaster occurs and eventually a report is presented explaining the safety measures that could have been taken. I read too many reports on industrial accidents which are probably written by people with first class honours degrees in hindsight. Hindsight is not good enough when confronting an industrial accident. Within the last few weeks in my constituency a major explosion occurred at a factory.
  Hon. Members serving their constituents are responsible for taking positive action. It would be irresponsible in the extreme not to take measures designed for the safety

  695
  of us all. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) feels particularly strongly about this, and his contribution to the debate on the Civil Protection in Peacetime Bill was outstanding. We shall all remember it.
  There is also the possibility of a major climatic disaster in which the service of civil protection would be of value. My detailed research of the records available has revealed to me that in the United Kingdom we are not free from major climatic disasters. Our essential services are highly vulnerable to snow, flood and storm damage. Only a few days of blizzard conditions are necessary to disrupt large parts of open country in the north, Wales and the southwest.
  Some conclusive evidence was produced when Devon, to its advantage, discovered that the presence of trained and organised civil protection volunteers can be vital in saving lives and reducing suffering. That is the hallmark of a caring society. I seek to promote it through the medium of this debate which I have the privilege of introducing tonight.
  Positive planning for disasters involving industry, climate and, dare I say, terrorism is essential. I remember the excellent service following the Birmingham bombings in 1974.
  I must now clearly show that a risk exists to a significant part of the United Kingdom's population. Any government or local authority which fails to take adequate measures to protect its people fail in its responsibilities. This, I say with some conviction, I would condemn.
  There are councillors, elected by the public, some of whom have perhaps fallen in their standards by the acceptance of one-sided propaganda, and they are failing in their duties. The Government must use their resources simply to ensure that the truth is equally presented.
  It would be unfair beyond belief if I did not take a moment to pay a tribute to all the men and women who give their time, services, gifts and talents in support of civil protection in this country. They deserve the commendation of this House, and I salute them for their efforts.
  We must not allow a disaster of the magnitude of Bhopal or a terrorist attack to bring home to the Government and the public the reality of the threat which, God forbid, could confront us as a nation. Action now, with the wisdom of experience, could save hundreds of lives and casualties and could reduce considerable suffering. It is my prayer that positive action will be taken, and I look to the Minister for a positive and enthusiastic response to this debate which I have had the honour of promoting. For that fact alone I have discharged my responsibility, because we must reveal the caring attitude that is part of the deep and well-proven philosophy of the party of which I am a member. I commend this debate to the House.
  10.11 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) has raised an interesting subject. I want to examine the term that has been used to describe the debate. He refers to civil protection, which I understand to mean protection of the civilian population.
  The hon. Gentleman has raised the local authority aspects of civil protection. I want to raise the security services aspects, particularly the activities of MI5 in this area. It, too, would justify its existence on the basis that
  696
  its function is to pursue policies of protecting the wider population from what it and the Government believe to be external and unreasonable influences.
  Much of my case is based on the excesses of the security services, particularly the reported activities of Catherine Massiter. This matter has already been alluded to in a number of articles in the media—certainly last year—and I wish to comment on it, especially in relation to the whole question of protection of the civil population and civil rights.
  Miss Massiter tells us that, from 1981 until December 1983, she had the task of conducting the service's investigation into Communist and other forms of so-called subversive influence and activity in the peace movement, including in particular the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. During this period she became concerned that the task that she as an intelligence officer had been called upon to perform, and the use to which the information that she had gathered was being put, were guided by considerations not solely related to the defence of the realm. She felt that the scale and nature of the investigations that were being undertaken into the peace movement, and into the CND in particular, were determined more by the latter's political importance than by the real security significance of subversive elements in it.
  Miss Massiter now tells us that, in the gathering of information about movements, contacts and activities of persons classified as subversives, files have been opened on people who came to the attention of the service as subversive.
  This information came to hand in a number of ways —for example, through a police report of a meeting of such an organisation, mention in a publication produced by such an organisation in a context which suggested that the person was a supporter, or through a mail or telephone intercept on a known subversive individual or organisation from which it appeared that that person was a supporter. Once a permanent file was opened, notification of that fact was normally sent to the special branch attached to the subject's local police authority. On occasion, but not invariably, the police may have been asked to make an investigation to clarify or supplement available information otherwise they would just he asked to report—
  Mr. Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you could clarify the matter? I thought that this debate was on civil protection — that is, protection of the civilian community from peace-time emergencies. The speech of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) appears to be related to the totally different subject of civil liberties. I therefore seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is any Member of the House now at liberty to raise matters to do with civil liberties at large or is the debate, as I understood it, to be kept within the narrower confines of civil protection against peace-time emergencies?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): As the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) is aware, the subjects are listed but we are on the Adjournment, as it were, so I am bound to allow a fairly wide debate. I am sure the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will relate what he is saying to the subject that has been chosen for discussion.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is precisely correct. I commenced my speech by commenting on the nature of the short title of the debate. It provided me with the opportunity that I wanted to raise this matter. If the hon. Member for Dudley, West had wished to confine his debate more specifically, I am sure he would have lengthened his short title to ensure that people such as myself could not raise in this debate the matters which I intend to raise.
  Unless the police had been asked to make an investigation they would only be asked to report to MI5 if the subject came to their attention. In the normal course of events, the opening of a file would not lead to active investigation of the subject. Information relating to the subject would be recorded on the file if it came to hand through the usual sources available to the service —police and agent reports, intercepts and publications.
  The principal reason for assembling information was for the purpose of vetting for employment in Government service which involved regular access to classified information. From the files, the service would also prepare periodic reports, for example on CND, which would be circulated to interested Government Departments and police forces.
  During the later 1960s and until the mid-1970s, CND was classified as subversive by virtue of being a Communist-dominated organisation — known members of the Communist party had a large measure of control over CND. In consequence, anyone joining CND was assumed to be a Communist sympathiser and a file would be opened recording them as such.
  In the late 1970s it was recognised, within the service, that the leadership of CND was no longer dominated by members of the Communist party and it could no longer be reasonably regarded as subversive in the manner described. From then on it was regarded as a Communist-penetrated organisation. In consequence, MI5 studies should have been limited to those members who are also members of the Communist party or to other persons recognised as subversive. Although existing files were not to be destroyed, action would henceforth be taken on existing files only in respect of people who fell into one of those subversive categories in their own right.
  Nevertheless, once CND began to grow in the late 1970s, MI5's study of it increased. Investigation of it virtually became Miss Massiter's whole task — indeed, that was the postion by the time she left the service. Miss Massiter found that, in order to do her job properly, she had to collect information on CND as a whole and be aware of what CND as an organisation was doing. The ostensible purpose for that was that she could analyse what were and were not the effects of subversive influence.
  It was suggested to the service that CND had adopted policies which were also espoused by certain subversive organisations. That was itself evidence that the influence of subversives over CND was greater than the number of their members within the organisation might suggest. Miss Massiter's studies of CND and its members had to take account of arguments of this nature.
  Similarly, it was felt within the service that officers were likely to be questioned about the true political affiliation of Mrs. Joan Ruddock, who became chair of CND in 1983. It was fully recognised by the service that she had no subversive affiliations and therefore should not be recorded under any of the usual subversive categories. In fact, she was recorded as a contact of a hostile intelligence
  698
  service after giving an interview to a Soviet journalist based in London who was suspected of being a KGB intelligence officer.
  In Joan Ruddock's file, MI5 recorded special branch references to her movements—usually public meetings—and kept press cuttings and the products of mail and telephone intercepts obtained through active investigation of other targets, such as the Communist party and John Cox. There were police reports recording her appearances at demonstrations or public meetings. There were references to her also in reports from agents working, for example, in the Communist party. These would also appear in her file.
  Other individuals such as Monsignor Bruce Kent, CND general secretary, and Barbara Eggleston, national organiser of Christian CND, were already recorded as Communist sympathisers when CND was classified as a subversive organisation in the mid-1960s to mid-1970s. MI5 continued to record information on its files. As time went on, MI5 perceived it as more than ever necessary that it should be able to answer precisely whatever questions were asked about CND and its subversive penetration.
  One of the means used was the introduction of an agent, Mr. Harry Newton—this has already been made public—who found his way into CND's headquarters. He joined CND in 1982 and his first job for MI5 was to attend CND annual conferences. MI5 regarded it as important to know as soon as possible after a conference who the new people on the national council were so that it could make its usual breakdown of how many subversives were on it and pass the information along to the interested parties in Whitehall. Apart from providing a list of members of the national council, the agent would also give his impressions of people he had met at the conference and notes would be put on their files.
  After the 1982 conference, Mr. Newton became a volunteer at CND headquarters. He carried out odd jobs such as addressing envelopes. He would provide MI5 with general information about the activities of CND headquarters and the people he met there. For instance, he had quite a strong opinion that Bruce Kent might be a crypto-Communist. That sort of information would have been noted in Bruce Kent's file, although MI5 had its doubts about its accuracy.
  Mr. Newton also provided MI5 with copies of CND literature. On one occasion he provided a diagram of the layout of CND's offices. His brief was to report on the Communists and Trotskyites in CND. He knew very few of them personally, however, because most of them were much younger than he. Despite this, it was still thought valuable to have someone with access to CND headquarters. This was all in the name of civil protection by Britain's security services. They call it civil protection.
  When the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) became Secretary of State for Defence—
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fail to understand how the speech of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) relates to the subject that we are considering. I hope that you can guide me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman's remarks can possibly be within the terms of the Adjournment debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is the usual practice to keep to the subject that is listed. This is an Adjournment debate and, as long as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) relates his remarks to the subject of the debate, I cannot rule him to be out of order. He should, however, in fairness to the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn), who was fortunate in the ballot, come a bit closer to the subject that has been listed for debate.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I note closely what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am doing precisely that. I am making every effort to keep specifically to the short title, as it were, of the debate, which is civil protection. The hon. Member for Dudley, West approached the matter from the local authority position and I am dealing with it from the security service position, which I think is most relevant to the proceedings.
  When the right hon. Member for Henley became Secretary of State for Defence in January 1983, the director-general of MI5 requested a lengthy briefing paper on CND as he, the director-general, anticipated that the Secretary of State would ask him questions about CND when he came to brief him. Such briefing of a new Minister on security matters relevant to his Department takes place as a matter of routine.
  In March 1983, the right hon. Member for Henley established a special unit within the Ministry of Defence called the defence secretariat — DS19 — whose task was to combat CND propaganda on unilateral nuclear disarmament. Miss Massiter's branch director was approached by a senior official from DS19 who requested information about the subversive, political affiliations of leading members of CND, including members of the national council and people working for CND.
  It was decided by the director-general or his deputy that MI5 could not give information from any secret or classified sources. Accordingly, Miss Massiter was instructed by her superiors to go through MI5 files and extract non-classified information from published sources on any extreme Left-wing affiliations of CND leaders. She prepared a report, which was passed to DS19.
  The criteria used by successive Home Secretaries governing the interception of telephone communications are set out in the Birkett report of October 1957. I do not intend to go into that. I am sure that hon. Members who are interested in the matters will examine the report, which is in the Library.
  In or about February 1983, Miss Massiter received a message via the branch director that the deputy director-general of MI5 was prepared to consider favourably an application for a telephone intercept on a member of the Communist party within CND. John Cox, a vice-president of CND, was selected, since he was well known as a member of the Communist party and had been involved in CND practically since its inception. Also, he lived in Wales and would need to be in frequent telephone contact with CND headquarters.
  However, MI5 had absolutely no evidence, as required by the guidelines, that he was concerned in any criminal activity or that he was engaged in any major subversive or espionage activity that was likely to injure the national interest. On the contrary, nothing from MI5's coverage of the Communist party and its peace committee gave Miss Massiter and her colleagues grounds to suspect that they were manipulating CND.
  700
  Miss Massiter's application for a warrant to monitor Mr. Cox's telephone communications was made in April 1983. It simply stated that Mr. Cox was a long-term member of the Communist party, and prominent in CND, and that it was desired to investigate his activities to ascertain whether the Communist party was manipulating CND in a clandestine way.
  In August 1983, the Home Secretary signed the warrant. It was renewed after one month and was still in force when Miss Massiter left in December 1983. Perhaps the Minister of State, Home Office, in his reply to this important matter of security services and responsibilities for civil protection, can say whether those warrants are still in force. Perhaps the Minister would care to check with the civil servants so that we may have a well-considered reply. I should prefer a reply tonight from the Dispatch Box rather than a letter.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): I do not wish to prolong the hon. Gentleman's speech on that point. I assure him that I shall not be replying to the points that he has made.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: That shows those who observe our proceedings what importance the Government give to such matters. Perhaps that is why hon. Members such as myself must raise them in the House of Commons. Very little seems to be happening in this area. It is about time that we in Parliament drew the teeth on the question of MI5 activities. The public demand that some action be taken.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that we should not have services that ensure the protection of citizens. The function of MI5 is to ensure that subversives do not spring surprises on us.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but with one proviso—within the law.
  As I have said, the warrant was renewed after one month and was still in force when Miss Massiter left in December 1983. Pursuant to the warrant, an intercept was placed on Mr. Cox's telephone in about August 1983, and Miss Massiter saw the products of the intercept in the form of transcripts of recorded telephone conversations. As Mr. Cox lived in Wales, there was a fair amount of telephone communication between him and CND headquarters. He would routinely be in contact with the office and., for example, with Bruce Kent and Joan Ruddock. Accordingly, without intercepting their telephone communications, MI5 obtained a fair amount of information about their attitudes on a wide range of topics concerning CND.
  MI5 obtained very little information about Mr. Cox that it did not already have, although it was perhaps a little more detailed. Miss Massiter's own assessment before the check would have been that he worked with CND because he was a committed CND member rather than because he wanted to further the interests of the Communist party. Of course, that was not the view expressed by those in the security services who take decisions in these matters and who wish to pursue people in the way that these people have been pursued.
  Something is wrong. I have never doubted the need for a security service. We live in a democratic society and we all know that we have a duty to protect that society in

  701
  every way and that we must use whatever mechanisms will ensure that—but always within the law. I have drawn the attention of the House to a series of incidents which do not fall within the law. MI5 has been involved in excesses. The other day I used parliamentary privilege to break an injunction in one case, which effectively I believe I have done. This case is one of probably many.
  Miss Massiter broke ranks. Probably many people in the security services who see illegality every day want to speak but feel that they cannot do so. I put it to the House that we need far more control over these matters. I am no longer confident that the state is carrying out its responsibilities in the way that it should. Civil protection means protecting the civilian population. It does not mean provoking them by interfering with civil rights. That is wrong.
  The Minister of State has two options. He can reply to the debate and assure me that all these matters will be looked into, although he refuses to reply in respect of one matter on which I requested a reply. Alternatively, he can say, "I intend to ignore what the hon. Gentleman says." If he does that, he will only create more suspicion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman takes the former option. If he takes the latter, people will know where he stands on the question of civil rights and the excesses of this organisation.
  10.31 pm
  Mr. Neil Thorne: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) on coming first in the Consolidated Fund ballot and on his sensible and humanitarian attitude in choosing civil defence as his subject. Civil protection is a question which is particularly close to Conservative Members, and in this regard I am talking about the replacement for civil defence.
  I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on his concept of civil protection, which is rather different from that accepted by most of us. The CND's role is of some notoriety.
  There is no doubt that it is the public's right and the Government's duty to provide proper civil protection. For the first time since 1945, the public have taken on board the importance of civil protection, especially arising out of the Chernobyl accident. Until then, a number of local authorities were able to bamboozle their electorates into believing that, by erecting notices declaring nuclear-free zones, they would somehow escape such a problem. Of course, the Chernobyl accident has clearly shown what rubbish that concept is.
  The local authorities' campaign is not carried out on a shoestring. They go to vast expense to indulge their interest in "nuclear-free" attitudes. The Greater London council — lamented by some — spent over £250,000 on producing "London Under Attack", simply to delay the need to address itself to the civil defence and protection requirements of the London population.
  I would like to congratulate the Government on taking a stand in relation to civil protection which is long overdue. Very little had been achieved until 1979 and that we have to thank a previous Government — I hardly need say Labour Government — who set about dismantling civil defence many years ago when they relied
  702
  upon a policy of mutually assured destruction. They felt that because anyone was able to send nuclear weapons to any part of the world there was no need in future to provide any form of civil protection or civil defence for the population. Therefore, they set about desmantling this important aspect of local government.
  The criminal irresponsibility we have had in recent years in the way in which local authorities have quite blatantly tried to push their obligations to one side has cost the Government a good deal of time and expense in trying to redress the balance. Of course, the balance has to be redressed, because if one part of the country conscientiously disharges its duty by providing adequate civil defence, that it is all very well. It costs the local ratepayers money. However, if the need to use it arises, what would happen to all the people living in areas where no provision had been made? Would they stay where they were or would they pack their bags and flood into the areas that had made provision demanding that they should be looked after? I think that the latter would be the case. They certainly would not stay at home and say, "We did not pay for this in days gone by so it would be wrong for us to take advantage of the preparations sensibly entered into by others". For that good reason the Government have to take the matter up and ensure that there is an even level of provision throughout the country. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West say this evening that the figure for investment now exceeds £100 million.
  One of the first major milestones achieved by the Government was in 1983 with the civil defence regulations. A large measure of responsiblity was placed on local authorities. It was made absolutely clear what was required of them and why they were required to make preparations. The skeleton staff of officials that local authorities had carried forward over the previous 17 years desperately needed the boost that the Government gave in 1983 to show that their efforts were appreciated and that they were an integral part of the community.
  The question of the adequacy of civil defence has been of particular interest to me over the past four years. Over those years I have had the honour to be the chairman of the National Council for Civil Defence. During that time we have had a list of 16 objectives. I am pleased to say that most of them have been achieved by the Government. I shall go through them.
  We asked the Government to support openly and positively the case for civil defence. That was done in the manifesto for the previous election and gave rise to the support given to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) in preparing and achieving the Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986.
  We asked that more information be given to the public on the effects of nuclear and chemical weapons and protective measures, and that the code of secrecy be lifted from civil defence. Since then, no fewer than six sets of publications have been issued which is a major advance.
  We asked for additional funding to be made available for civil defence. I have already said that the figure now exceeds £100 million a year, and I hope that it will rise further. We should compare our expenditure on civil defence with that on defence, on which £17,000 million a year is spent. I always remind colleagues that, when we ask our service men to fight on our behalf, we retain responsibility for their wives and families. If we are to provide adequately for their dependants we should take

  703
  greater care of them than we have in the past. We must ensure that the type of facilities made available to service men to deal with problems likely to arise abroad should certainly he provided for their families. We cannot possibly expect them happily to fight on our behalf, if we do not look after their families who are left behind. That is an important issue which we should emphasise to those who believe that civil defence can make do with the funds at present made available.
  We asked that local authorities be given a statutory duty to raise, organise and train civil defence volunteers at community level. That was provided for in the 1983 regulations. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will encourage expansion in that sphere. He will remember that in the past I have suggested that deputy lieutenants should be enrolled to that end. He knows, as I do, that there is no one like a volunteer to bring pressure on his elected representatives to take due note of what he is doing. It would be a major advance in the interests of civil protection if we were to encourage a considerable expansion in the recruitment of civil defence volunteers.
  We asked that modern radiation monitoring equipment be made available for issue down to community level and for training civil defence worthies. Much improved equipment has recently been issued, and today at question time my hon. Friend the Minister promised to consider the possibility of making available to the public an easy comparison of the type of radiation doses from x-rays, aeroplane travel, the sun, living in a granite house, eating ordinary food, and from many other sources. That has been done effectively by the Japanese and I commend it to him. It can be illustrated extremely effectively in pictorial form to show exactly what levels of radiation are inclined to emanate from an accident of the Chernobyl type and how that compares with everyday life.
  We asked that centralised guidance be given on training civil defence volunteers and the production of training materials. That is being prepared at the civil defence college at Easingwold.
  We asked that planning assumptions be revised to take account of a substantially reduced warning time for the outbreak of hostilities. That has been reduced from three weeks to seven days.
  We said that planning for peacetime emergencies should be included in local authority civil defence responsibilities and that the all-hazards rationale for civil defence should be accepted. The latter is a main platform of Government policy. We asked that the name of the Home Defence college be changed to Civil Defence college, and that was conceded. We said that civil defence resources should be concentrated on planning for survival at community level, a major start has been made in that area.
  We asked for the wartime home defence executive to be re-established. We have not yet succeeded in persuading the Government to take action on that, but we remain hopeful. We asked for a comprehensive and effective shelter and evacuation policy to be adopted. Again, that is subject to a survey. We hope that, as a result of the survey, the Government will see the wisdom of and need for such a policy. We said that the Government should make advances in the propaganda war on civil defence by presenting their case better. Among other measures, we said that they should consider changing the name of civil defence to civil protection. That has been answered with
  704
  a new, major programme which will begin in October. Of course, the term "civil protection" is moving towards general acceptance.
  We said that it should be assumed that chemical weapons would be used against the United Kingdom and we contended that measures should be taken to protect the civil population. That has been conceded. We also asked that the international civil defence emblem, as approved in the Geneva convention, be adopted in the United Kingdom, and that has been accepted. We asked that the 100 per cent. grant, outside the rate support grant, be approved for local authority civil defence expenditure. That has been conceded for some items. We shall continue to press the Government for that concession, which is an essential ingredient in an effective, nationwide civil defence plan.
  Therefore, we have some reason to be satisfied with our work during the past four years and with the positive response, not only from this Minister of State, but from his two predecessors. We are delighted with that response.
  Several items remain outstanding, one of which is the introduction of a civil defence inspectorate. To have a proper and effective overall system, we must have an inspectorate that can say who measures up to the Government's requirements and who does not. Such a system is readily accepted in the Territorial Army, which used to be funded at local level but it is now funded nationally. The Territorial Army expects uniform standards and has its own inspectorate.
  Whatever happens, this important subject must be taken seriously. The Government have taken some major steps along the right road. We shall press them to continue in that direction. In doing so, we hope to carry with us not only the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), who supports the need for civil defence, but some Labour Members. One can have an effective system only if one has all-party support. I am sorry that civil protection is considered by some in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament as an area in which they will take a less than humanitarian role. They are completely misguided, and I hope that they will see sense sooner rather than later.
  10.49 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bowden: 1, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) on introducing this subject for debate. The Government and their agents in the local authorities have a humanitarian duty to provide civil protection for their citizens.
  It is significant that in the last few years we have seen a distinct change of attitude towards civil defence. It is also interesting to see the way in which in the past civil defence has been the target or focus for protests of the CND whereas nowadays it is seen in its all hazards approach as a way of dealing with problems that arise not just from nuclear threat but from other hazards that occur in the community. This has made it a matter of some public interest and generates more public confidence in the approach. In this way civil defence can in future be directed towards all hazards, thus depoliticising it from the party political line that is drawn round it.
  I recognise that the threat is wider that we have hitherto accepted. It is sad that we have had to experience the disaster of Chernobyl to draw our attention to the need to make this provision.

  705
  It is a matter of great irresponsibility, I think, that certain local authorities have pretended to be able to declare themselves to be nuclear-free zones. In this way they seek to bamboozle those whom they exist to serve. In pretending that the threat does not exist, they hope that it will go away. However, I think that this has now been rumbled, and that in future there will be a more positive approach.
  In this respect, one welcomes the approach on which my hon. Friend the Minister has given a lead. We need a positive approach to the threats and disasters facing the community and a way of presenting what is being done in a credible and positive fashion so that those who need to be protected can have faith in what is being done for them. This requires not only that there should be an inspectorate such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) but also a wider range of discussion and research into the whole question of the threat and how it might be avoided.
  I believe that we are still technically unaware of the impact of NEMP, and the way in which electricity throughout Europe could be killed off at one throw and the consequent disaster. These are areas of technicality that need to be researched with a greater understanding of how to deal with the threat that will arise.
  We should approach this matter from an all hazards aspect rather than limiting consideration merely to the threat of nuclear war. We should recognise also that in future the threat of terrorism may involve the use of such instruments of destruction as nuclear weaponry. We should accept too that climatic and other natural disasters may occur. It is part of the duty of a local authority to be concerned, and to take care of the citizens in its charge. In my view the all hazards approach has taken the question of civil protection away from the CND protest area. I hope that it will also be depoliticised so that all parties can come together in a common approach. I commend the Opposition to view this from an all party position rather than to focus on party political division. I trust that this approach will have the full confidence of all hon. Members.
  10.53 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) on raising the important topic of civil protection.
  I was rather saddened when I heard the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) reading from lengthy documents. I think that he tested us a little because there is no doubt that, when the subject was tabled for debate as civil protection, one did not expect to have that type of liberty taken. However, it was within the rules and, therefore, it was in order for him to do so. It is unfortunate, nevertheless, that he decided to do it in that way. Although the hon. Gentleman is not in his place, I hope that he will read my remarks and will note that I know Monsignor Bruce Kent extremely well, that I have debated with him on many occasions, that I have never doubted his integrity and that I am sure he has not doubted mine.
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree that when people from the peace camps near our submarine bases take part in public debates and one finds that the
  706
  spokesperson for the peace campers is not a Scot —indeed, is not even from the United Kingdom—one is bound to wonder what such people are doing here. I should be greatly concerned if we were not being properly protected by, for example, such individuals — who should have to explain what they are doing in that part of the United Kingdom, a country which allows such freedom — being examined in depth by the security services.
  I do not doubt the integrity of local authorities which declare areas to be nuclear-free zones. If they oppose the presence of nuclear weapons, they are entitled to hold that view. But Scotland is the last place where such a view should be held.
  Before the 1939–45 war, Clydebank council thought that Anderson shelters were not necessary because the council, being against war, said that it would not be involved in war. As we know, many of our citizens survived the blitz because of the protection provided by Anderson shelters. Because Clydebank was a major seaport area which received many of the American provisions which kept Britain going during the difficult early war years, it was blitzed and thousands of people lost their lives unnecessarily — unnecessarily because people in areas outside Clydebank with Anderson shelters survived.
  Often well-intentioned, but in fact irresponsible, action must be seen for what it is. People in power who ignore threats that could make disaster a reality act irresponsibly. We must make adequate provision to respond to natural as well as man-originated disasters, and the latter include any type of threat that could result in a real problem for our people.
  We in Scotland have a number of petrochemical complexes. On a ratio of risk, they are likely to present more of a problem than nuclear installations, first, because there are more of them, and, secondly, because the likelihood of a man-made error at one of them is greater.
  Volunteers play a vital part in the rescue services. Most people are aware of the activities in Scotland of the mountain rescue teams. They are comprised of part-time volunteers co-ordinated by the emergency services—the police, fire and ambulance services. The lifeboats, of which we have a substantial number in Scotland, are manned by volunteers. There is no end of volunteer potential available, but it needs managing and co-ordinating, so providing people with the opportunity to serve the nation. There is no shortage of willingness. Civil protection embraces much more than protection against nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, adequate provision must be made to protect ourselves against such an attack.
  That does not mean that we want to become involved in a nuclear war. I hope that I never have to witness such an event. But we must organise our defence, in just the same way as we organise our mountain rescue services and our lifeboat services. No real cost is involved, other than when the rescue services have to go into action; and plenty of people will do it for nothing. All they want is the opportunity to be trained and properly equipped and the necessary organisation to back them up. That calls for proper nerve centres and headquarters and adequate and effective communications. But that is now being attacked.
  There are those who, for political reasons, suggest that this is a ghastly attempt to fight a war. That is nonsense. It provides sensible protection. I commend the Government for the action that they have taken so far. I

  707
  know that they plan to do more, and I look forward to that. The Government will continue to have my support, and I hope that what has been said this evening will spur them on to do even more.
  11.1 pm
  Mr. Alfred Dubs: In any approach to civil protection or civil defence it is important to distinguish between myth or propaganda on the one hand and reality on the other. Some of this evening's contributions have not made that distinction clear.
  Underlying the Government's approach is the view that civil defence is an integral part of their defence strategy. That is where the Opposition part company with the Government. I distinguish clearly and firmly between protecting our population from peacetime accidents and disasters, some of which have been enumerated by Conservative Members, and civil defence that is intended —or which purports, according to the Government—to defend our population, should there be a nuclear war. The distinction between the two will form the main part of my speech.
  It is a snare and a delusion to say to our people that a nuclear war can be survived. The belief that it might be possible to survive a nuclear war is a factor which could make people less keen to prevent nuclear war. It is a very dangerous myth. A large proportion of the population could not survive a nuclear war. Civil defence against a nuclear war is a delusion, because it would not work. However, it might lull people into a false sense of security.
  Some years ago I was shown an advertisement for fallout shelters. I do not know in which publication the advertisement appeared, but it contained a series of questions and answers. The question was asked by the individual and the reply was given by the firm. The question was:
  "Can I honestly survive a NBC war?"
  I believe that "NBC" means a nuclear biological chemical war. The answer was:
  "Yes — you can, given the correct advice and protection."
  The next question was:
  "Can" the firm in question "do anything else for me?"
  to which the firm replied "Yes". The firm in question
  "are committed to a superb after sales service, including ancillary equipment."
  If that advertisement is a reflection of the Government's attitude to fall-out shelters and the possibility of nuclear war, we are a long way from giving our people sensible protection. Instead we are giving them the impression that they can be defended when that is not possible.
  I also have a Home Office circular which says something about the information in it not being communicated directly or indirectly to the press or to any person who is not specifically authorised to receive it. It is some years out of date, so I am sure that that does not apply. Under the heading "Collapse of the Monetary Economy" it says — we should remember that it is intended as a briefing manual for wartime controllers:
  "A large scale nuclear attack on this country would completely disrupt the banking system on which the whole monetary economy is based … It will be an essential part of the policy for national recovery to re-establish a new monetary system as soon as possible. This might take a year or more."
  Is that the basis of the Government's policy? I am sure that the present Minister is not responsible for that document,
  708
  but does it represent the type of policy and protection that we are trying to provide, for such protection is a snare and a delusion? That is why several local authorities have developed nuclear-free zones. That is their way of saying that they will not connive in persuading people that they might be safe when they are not.
  Dr. Blackburn: As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned a document which he suggests represents Government policy to protect the banking system in the event of a nuclear war, will he have the courtesy to tell the House where it came from and its date of issue?
  Mr. Dubs: Yes. I said that it was issued some years ago. It came from the Home Office about 10 years ago. The hon. Gentleman is at liberty to have a look at it if he wants. I was talking about the type of thinking that underlies the approach that some Conservative Members have displayed tonight.
  One of the difficulties about the Government's approach to defending the population in the event of a nuclear war is that we are never told of the assumptions on which they work. We are never told, for example, about likely targets and what areas must be protected. We are never told anything about the size of bombs and the scale of likely damage, all of which information is necessary if local authorities are to do anything in terms of the Government's policy.
  Without some planning assumptions, it is hard to know how to develop a defence policy for a nuclear war. We have such assumptions regarding civil accidents. I emphatically support any action to protect the population against peacetime disasters. We must have a range of contingency arrangements. Some have been mentioned. Potential disasters included major oil spillages off coasts and accidents involving aircraft, trains and on motorways. There might be accidents where explosives are stored. There have been some dreadful chemical accidents. Bhopal was only one. People must be protected from them. Trains which carry nuclear waste go through our cities. A regular train service goes through my constituency from Balham and Clapham junction up to Sellafield. Only recently, anxiety was expressed in the press about the danger of a train carrying casks of nuclear waste having an accident in a tunnel. There is a possibility of accidents at nuclear power stations. Britain is not well protected. We have only to think of the confusion that overtook us following the fall-out from Chernobyl. We were told that water supply from rainfall might not be safe in some parts. Then we were told something about our milk supplies. Then, several weeks after the event, we were told about the dangers of eating lamb from certain areas.
  If we are to have any protection for our people, one of the things that we should have is a decent monitoring system which should be made public so that our people know early on what is happening. If rumours overtake events, that gives rise to much greater fears.
  The National Radiological Protection Board, in its bulletin in June, said that it had less cash year after year to provide the safety measures that are necessary. Of course we need adequate protection nationally—where the Government have fallen short of protecting our people in the case of nuclear fall-out from peacetime catastrophes in power stations in any country—and we need a system of monitoring that; and locally with a policy to provide adequate protection for other peacetime accidents.

  709
  That is where the main thrust of the debate should be, and that is where we demand more action from the Government. Despite their words about civil defence in wartime, the Government have not provided our people with adequate civil protection measures in times of peace.
  11.10 pm
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn), and I congratulate him on raising this topic, which I fully support. I also support the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) and those of my other hon. Friends.
  However, in some ways, they have been a little kind to the Government, because, although I welcome the initiatives that have been taken, if I had more time I would speak passionately for a much more radical extension of our civil protection effort. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to do that, but I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister of State replies he will give a more positive commitment to the whole concept of civil protection, particularly with the new all-hazards approach which has been discussed this evening. We can do a lot more to encourage the concept of service among our people through this medium.
  It is rather sad to see the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) adopting the usual approach of trying to rubbish the whole concept of civil protection or civil defence, by implying that in some way all this activity is a waste of time. That negative approach has occurred over and over again, promulgated by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and others, and has led to the confrontation between many local authorities and the Government over the issue.
  It is particularly sad in my constituency where one district council is taking a positive attitude and is trying, with Government encouragement, to provide training for volunteers and for people who want to help to provide good civil protection measures, and, the other, Norwich city council, under its Left-wing leadership, has adopted the nonsensical approach of a nuclear-free zone, which has been spoken about over and over again this evening. Everyone knows that that is nonsense. To use the words of the hon. Gentleman, it is a snare and delusion. That is not the right approach. The right approach is that which has been put over tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West; and that is why I am pleased to support his remarks and those of my other hon. Friends.
  11.13 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): I join my hon. Friends in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) for introducing the debate and congratulating him not only on winning the ballot for the Consolidated Fund but on winning the first place in the ballot. That is an achievement which I would relish. I am very pleased that he was successful.
  The discussion of civil protection is highly timely because, as all hon. Members will know—I see the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Mr. Corbett) in his place and he will know particularly well—this has been a week in which the Government have announced a
  710
  further move in the requirement to be placed on local authorities to implement the civil defence regulations of 1983. It is based upon the essential need for all those who have responsibility for civil defence to take it seriously.
  I shall shortly return to the implementation programme, but first I should like to take up the challenge put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) to strengthen the claim for the all hazards approach. I unreservedly accept that challenge, recognising that during this year we passed a Bill, thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), which will allow the civil defence grant that the Home Office administers to deal with the capital staff and training costs in relation to civil defence preparations also to be used for peacetime purposes. That is a dual approach and the right approach and is increasingly commending itself to local authorities.
  In answer to a question this afternoon from the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields) I inadvertently said that 100 per cent. grant would be available for the construction of civil defence emergency headquarters. That is not the case, because that grant applies to communications equipment. I shall write to the hon. Lady to correct that. The grant for construction is 75 per cent. Grant at the rate of 100 per cent. is available for a wide range of items, and grant expenditure now is treble what it was when the Government came to office in 1979.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West said, expenditure generally on civil defence is now £100 million. Grants are important and, as I said in previous debates, we are still reviewing the prospect of increasing the 75 per cent. grant. My hon. Friend rightly stressed the importance of training and of getting value for money. With the grant aid that we have at our disposal, it is our intention to see that plans are properly drawn up within which the expenditure can be made. My hon. Friend was quite right to say that we must ensure that grant aid is correctly spent.
  Part of the programme that we introduced this week will provide for a rolling targeted programme agreed between local authorities and the Home Office. That will ensure that not only are the plans correctly laid, but that they are implemented by a given date. By 1 April 1987, there should be clear specification of objectives and organisation; by 1 October 1987 resources and implementation details of plans for collection and distribution of information on the results of attack should be ready; the target date for resources and implementation details of plans for accommodation and the prevention of disease and matters of that character is 1 April 1988; by 1 October 1988, resources and implementation details of plans for rescue should be ready; and 1 April 1989 is the target date for resources and implementation details and plans for shelter and other essential services.
  I give those examples to the House to dramatise the fact that we intend to see that those plans and target dates are met. In order to earn the civil defence grant, local civil defence authorities and joint civil defence authorities will have to lay plans in that degree of detail.
  The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) chided me for the paucity of planning assumptions. I say to him that, first, the original planning assumptions are being updated and in the documentation issued this week he will find a further resume on planning assumptions for the guidance of local authorities. Second, it is impossible to deploy in logical argument every eventuality which a local authority

  711
  might come across. We are suggesting that local authorities should make preparations not just for the nuclear option that he seems to favour as the most likely thing, but for the range of disasters, military and civil, that could occur.
  The conventional risk is infinitely greater now than the nuclear risk and after 40 years of peace and a committed NATO Alliance based upon our nuclear deterrent, there is little doubt that the risk of a nuclear option has substantially receded under this Government. Long may that remain the case.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) spoke about a nuclear-free zone. Surely a nuclear-free zone is the tattiest argument in the Opposition repertoire. It is not only irresponsible but illogical to believe that somehow or other a wish to deploy a protection argument which says, "Do not touch us, we are free," is a sufficient insurance policy with which to protect their citizens.
  If the Opposition were logical, every nuclear-free authority would have to deploy arguments against nuclear energy, which is of great importance to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) because the Sellafield plant is in Cumbria. Between 17 per cent. and 19 per cent. of our energy is generated from that source. We might also have to consider shutting the radiography departments in hospitals to avoid the use of the most concentrated and professionally handled form of nuclear device—X-rays.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South asked about volunteers. That will be part of the planned implementation programme which we announced this week. The public information campaign based upon a new film and new written material which will be available in the autumn will deal with civil protection. That is why I welcomed the choice of this topic by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West. This will be the platform and persuasion within which we shall work.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) said, many questions have still to be researched. The electro-magnetic pulse is one such matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North referred to major industrial problems and the complexes which could create a hazard. Emergency planning officers must have that problem within their competence. Already,
  712
  adequate provision is made under the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations to deal with industrial consequences. I can assure hon. Members that the new implementation plans will apply to Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be making similar provision for Scotland's civil defence authorities.
  The intentions that we have announced this week are the second phase in forcing local authorities, somewhat reluctantly, to operate the 1983 regulations. The assessment made at the beginning of this year in response to the questionnaires was that the majority of local civil defence authorities have provided some returns —although three have not. However, the majority of returns were not adequate in planning for this vital public service. So we think it right not only to update and refine objectives for local authorities, but to set a targeting programme. We shall do that through consultation and by regular inspection, checking each civil defence authority's progress each year against the targeted dates which I have disclosed. We shall not hesitate to whithold civil defence grant from those authorities which fail to keep pace with the implementation programme.
  Three authorities failed to produce any plans in relation to the civil defence regulations—Avon, Mid-Glamorgan and South Glamorgan—and they are in danger of their grant being held back this year. No final decison has been taken, but it is possible that Avon risks the loss of £38,900 in grant; Mid-Glamorgan £31,700 and South Glamorgan £45,500. Those local authorities face penalties for failing to carry out their duties in relation to the civil defence programme.
  We regard civil protection as a humanitarian response to what could be a disaster within a community. It could be on a small or large scale. It could be of military origination or of civil or industrial origination. It is clear that, post-Chernobyl, authorities should take seriously the need to protect their citizens. I can conceive of nothing more important than to ensure civil protection in emergency. For that reason, the Government are determined not only to put civil protection firmly on the map but to ensure that regulations are implemented according to a time scale and to a quality which will lift the standard of protection throughout the land.

Housing
11.25 pm
Mr. Robin Corbett: Everyone knows that there is a crisis in housing. The Church of England's report "Faith in our Cities" said that, and the Commission chaired by Prince Philip said the same. Hundreds of thousands of homeless and badly housed people say that and know that.
I said that everyone knows that there is a crisis. There is one exception, and that is this Government. Since they took office, they have cut spending on housing by 47p in the pound since 1979–80. This week the Institute of Housing reports that only 39,000 houses and flats were built by councils and housing associations in 1985, against 162,000 10 years earlier. Over both sectors there has been a drop of 40 per cent. in the decade from 1975, from 313,000 to 188,000 last year—not because new homes are not needed but simply because this Government seem to prefer to leave £3·5 billion washing around the banks and 400,000 building workers jobless instead of putting both money and manpower to work.
The crisis in housing is the worst in 20 years and growing. It is evidence of the lack of freedom and fairness under this destructive Government. Millions of people are denied real choice over where and how they shall live. For those with cash there is a chance of private housing in pleasant well-laid-out areas, increasingly around the far edges of Birmingham and our other great cities. For those without cash, because of unemployment or low pay, there is the squalor of many of our crumbling run-down estates and tower blocks with almost non-existent repairs and little real hope of a move.
That is easy to say. It is harder to appreciate, because that misery is there hour by hour, day by wretched day. It does not go away. It gets worse as vandalism and unsolved crime are piled on top to produce hopelessness and despair among people who feel abandoned, unheard, neglected and forgotten. In the public sector there is both the squalor of many board and lodging houses and the insults and mysteries of the so-called private rest homes where some unscrupulous owners make money out of the age an infirmity of those whom councils are prevented from properly helping because the cash has been stolen from them by this Government.
A Government cannot cut rate support grant, for example, from 61p in the pound to 46p in the pound, have rate-capping multipliers and the rest and be surprised at the growing squalor in private and public housing.
Ten years ago, 44 tenants in every 100 in Birmingham got help with their rent and rates because of low pay or joblessness. Now that number is a staggering 77 in every 100. In recognition of that fact, housing benefit is now to be cut, and people in poverty are to be forced to pay 20p in the pound of their rates, having then to choose between food, heat, light and so on, or face the miseries of a summons for non-payment of rates. That is housing in Tory Britain 1986.
As the Institute of Housing argues, the present level of restriction of publichousing investment is not simply mean; it is short-sighted. Without more money for essential repair work next year, the deterioration will accelerate and soon we may truly be unable to afford the kind of housing standards that we expect in a civilised society.
714
Nowhere is that more true than in the city of Birmingham. Last year's return on the repair and improvement of local authority housing stock showed a need—not a wish—to spend £715 million on repairing and improving the council's present stock. At the present rate of tackling that job, it will take more than 600 years to achieve.
In July, a housing committee report to the council showed that housing need is outstripping supply in Birmingham, despite a falling population. It argued that a minimum of 1,270 new homes were needed each year for the next five years. These should be built by the council and housing associations in an attempt to cope with the demand. Yet, not one new family home has been built in Birmingham in the past four years because of Government cash cuts.
It is the same with improvement grants, but this, in many ways, is the greater idiocy. The Government encouraged thousands to apply for improvement grants, but a few months after the 1983 general election they suddenly switched off the funds. The housing committee considers that because of this neglect an extra 26,000 substandard homes will get too bad for repair and the bulldozers will have to be called in. We have been this way before, but we and the Government seemingly learn nothing.
There are also the infamous tower blocks. We have 492 in Birmingham. I am delighted to say that eight in my constituency must come down within the next 10 years, I wish it was in the next 10 months. It is only a start. There are 1,400 Boswell system built homes in Pype Hayes in my constituency. About 400 of them have been sold to former tenants. People scraped together to find the cash to buy these places at discounted rates, but now there is a question mark over their future. Until the Minister decides to designate them under the Housing Defects Act 1984, the whole area is blighted. These people have an urgent right to know what will happen and I appeal to the Minister to speed a decision to designate.
Birmingham, along with other cities and towns, has paid the price of the neglect of housing because of having cash stolen from it by the Government. It matters in ordinary and everyday ways. Some 30,000 low and medium rise blocks and maisonettes in the city are without an adequate cleaning and caretaker service. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) had a hand in this matter during her benign days as chairman of the city housing committee.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Malign.
Mr. Corbett: Yes, indeed. If the caretakers are taken out, the vandals are allowed in. Lifts are fouled, graffiti blossoms and security locks are smashed as fast as they can be replaced. In many blocks in the giant Castle Vale estate in my constituency, doors and door frames, let alone the security locks, have long since disappeared. The vandals are joined by vagrants and dogs.
In 1986 people should not have to live like this. It insults their self-respect. It adds to the misery of life on low pay or on the dole. It also denies others work and in turn costs more and more in the direct and indirect taxes paid by people at work.
Yet there is an answer. It is to unlock the cash in town hall vaults derived from the sale of former council homes. It is to find ways to use the £3·5 billion in the banks to get

715
the 400,000 jobless building workers back to work. That turn will stimulate further work in the industries which supply the building industry.
The answer is obvious. The trouble with it is that it collides with the Government's dogma. They do not care a damn about wretched and worsening housing conditions. It is sad to say that it is no good appealing to the Government to change course and do what is suggested. Our appeal must be to the voters to change the Government and allow the next Labour Government to start rebuilding Britain and ensure a real and wide choice of housing for all our people. It is a job that will not wait.
11.35 pm
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on his luck in the draw and on being able to raise such a vast subject. I hope that my constituents and those of other hon. Members will not have to wait for the return of a Labour Government; many houses will have fallen down long before that happens.
It should be understood that there is a difference between houses and homes. It is unfortunate that over the past 40 years the distinction has not always been clearly delineated in the minds of administrators in local government and central Government. In housing there is immense variation — possibly more than in any other service that is provided by local government and central Government— between what people want, what people are provided with, and what people perceive as being progress.
There is immense variation between what is perceived to be good housing and good houses that make good homes. What was once thought to be progress is now seen not to be. I do not subscribe to the malign school of politics that suggests that certain things are done with evil motives and with intent. I believe that things are done with the right motives and from idealistic concern. If they turn out to be wrong, the wrong was not intended. That is my view. Unfortunately, we have malign politics now, and it is all too easy to attack previous Governments and say that they should have known better, should have acted differently, or should have tackled something in an entirely different way. That approach serves no useful purpose when we address ourselves to housing.
If we were to go along that road, we would succeed only in placing a smokescreen between ourselves and the problem, and perhaps even inhibit some of the help that our constituents and constituencies require. The supposed answers to the provision of housing in the past are now the problems. All of us, especially those who represent city seats, are well aware of the problem of deck-access housing. We were all shown marvellous pictures of streets in the sky and told how wonderful it would be, but we are aware of the problems of those who are still condemned to live in deck-access housing. The problems are illustrated vividly in my constituency. A block that is known to some as Hunslet Grange is known as Alcatraz to others. Leek street is known as Bleak street. The block was demolished some years ago, but the Leeds city council will be paying £590,000 a year until 2028 for those dwellings. That is the sort of problem that we face. The properties were thought to constitute an improvement on the housing in which people were then living, but they turned out to be a nightmare.
716
I am not anxious to attack others left, right and centre, and I acknowledge that hindsight makes the problems and the answers more obvious, but with foresight we could have seen things differently. Perhaps it would have been possible to have initiated different housing policies. The right decisions were not always made when houses were demolished. Some were fit and others were not. I shall quote a Liberal chairman of what was called in 1906 the Unhealthy Areas Committee, perhaps accurately if somewhat unfeelingly. He reported that high multi-storey dwellings in Leeds would be bad for people because young children would be imprisoned in them as would the elderly. It seems that no note was taken of that opinion during the "progress" that was made later in the century.
It is all too easy to attack councils and Governments. In so many of our cities the housing problem is self-caused. In the past two decades about 10,000 more houses have been demolished than built. There is pressure on housing waiting lists and a lack of choice for people. That has come about, to a large extent, because there are fewer housing units.
I have stood with a public health inspector — no doubt other hon. Members have done so—at the lop of a hill and have seen the rows of terraced, back-to-back houses. I have seen the inspector wave his arms imperiously over those houses and say that they must be demolished. Hundreds of homes were demolished simply because some public health inspector believed that they were slums.
The folksiness of people in those dwellings came through to me. One man told me that his home had to be demolished because it was a back-to-back house and, therefore, in the view of the inspector, a slum. He was put in a flat that he said was not only back-to-back but also top-to-bottom. He could not understand that, and rightly so. We have destroyed, we have built, and we have not improved.
I had hoped that the hon. Member for Erdington would have covered the more practical problems. How do we cope with the vast problems we face, which are peculiarly capital problems? The Government have a narrow-minded accountancy attitude. They want to stifle local authorities from doing what they perceive will remedy the problems. The Government have limited the amount of capital receipts that local authorities can use. They cannot spend those receipts in ways that they consider beneficial. While that narrow-minded accountancy attitude continues, the problems get worse.
There are a number of Reema blocks in my constituency. Recently the tenants of those blocks were told that, even though the flats were safe, they must not use the balconies. At a recent meeting of those tenants — a representative from the housing department attended—a woman said:
"If balconies won't stand 8½ stones shouldn't we be moved out immediately?"
The official replied:
"They could be unsafe. We won't know until each one is inspected.
The housing department does not wish to alarm people unnecessarily, partly because it has nowhere else to put people. On the other hand, it does not want to be liable if someone falls through a balcony. It is ludicrous that people were told not to use part of the flats although they were still safe. That is intolerable.

717
Another tenant said that a crack had appeared in the wall. The council filled it in. Eventually, after it had been filled in a number of times, the tenant refused to have it filled in again. She employed her own structural engineer who said that there were no angle irons and no fire stop. The council said that it was unaware of that and that it would, rightly, check the reports.
People who have bought Reema and low-rise dwellings cannot afford to undertake the necessary renovations. They could cost between £18,000 and £21,000 —considerably more than the dwellings are worth. Yet they cannot sell them. Leeds council has interpreted the Act concerning buying back extremely strictly.
I mean no disrespect to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who is present in the Chamber, when I say that I am sorry that the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction is not here. The Minister visited Leeds recently. As a member of an all-party group, he looked at some houses. He took lumps of concrete off the walls of inhabited Duo Slab flats with his own hands.
Mr. Corbett: Vandals.
Mr. Meadowcroft: I would not mind that if it led to a positive result, but it did not in this case. Yet, two months later, the Minister has refused to designate those houses under the Act. That is ridiculous.
The DOE's survey came to the conclusion that Leeds needed upwards of £400 million to solve its housing problems. When the local authority submitted a claim for a £68 million grant, it was allocated £24 million, which was less than it received the previous year. The problems get worse. That was not a high enough capital allocation to cover normal or programmed housing stock maintenance. In addition to the ordinary stock maintenance problem, we have a system-built housing problem. More problems are coming to light week by week and month by month, and that is bound to place an extra burden on local authority expenditure. No additional allowance is coming from central Government to meet that.
The Government should note that capital investment in housing could lessen unemployment. Many schemes which have much lower costs than the cost of simply letting buildings deteriorate have a beneficial effect as well. Voluntary bodies, such as Anchor Housing, and building societies, such as the Abbey National, are involved in "staying put" schemes. Mortgages available to those in council houses or on waiting lists provide three loans for the amount needed for one new build; yet again we cannot switch resources to that aspect of housing because of the cost of covering emergencies. There is a lack of money for repair grants, but people will happily repair their own homes, given some incentive. Some years ago, when the grant for housing improvements in Leeds decreased from 75 per cent. to 50 per cent., there was an immediate decline in the numbers taking it up. Housing stock continues to decline.
We face an exceptionally serious problem. I am deeply concerned about the problem in my city and my constituency. Unless the problem is attacked within the next few months, the social and economic consequences will be immense. The Government do not appear to realise the scale of the problem. There is no doubt that it is
718
worsening. There is no point in expecting local authorities to cope within their present capital allowance limits. People cannot sell; the council will not buy back; and people cannot improve their properties. The Housing Defects Act 1984 has many good points, but it does not cover nearly enough properties. So far as I am aware, only one new type of system-built house has been added to the list. Other houses, such as Caspon houses, are not covered by the Act. People face the same situation with those types of houses as they would with PRC houses.
I beg the Government to take note of the problems and to be aware that, unless something is done to resolve the problems this year, they will increase next year and people will be living not only in squalor but in fear. We should not tolerate that in this century in this country.
11.46 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist: It is a shame that a debate on such an important topic can produce only one Tory Back Bencher sitting at the back of the Chamber, the Minister and his minder to represent the Government.
Six weeks ago, a survey was published by researchers who spent three years analysing data and statistics and examining all the major towns and cities in Europe. They drew up a league table of the least attractive towns and cities. Coventry came 93rd in that league of 102. Nine other British towns and cities were in the bottom 15 on the list, Liverpool being at the bottom. The list was based on employment figures, the numbers leaving the city and those wanting to make it their home—that is why this is relevant to the debate — the demand for travel to the area, and so on.
The environment and the condition and quality of housing are central points. Cities such as Liverpool and Coventry share the housing problems which have played a major role in inspiring the politics of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) and me.
The researcher from Reading university responsible for collating those statistics used this quote:
"Coventry is one of the British cities that have deteriorated the most since 1970".
I know that for a fact because, for 15 of the 16 years since 1970 Coventry has been my home, and I have seen that decay take place. For most of this century, Coventry has been seen as a prosperous, working-class city with high wages, low unemployment, an increasing population and award-winning estates. For many Coventry people, that was always a myth, but it was the reputation. Thirty years ago 2,000 private houses and 2,000 council houses were built each year. This year, not a single family house is being built by the city council. In fact, in Coventry, for the past five years, we have not had the money for the council to build a single family house. The only spending on specialist accommodation — sheltered housing for the elderly—finishes next year.
We have been unable to find the money necessary for repairs and modernisation and, unfortunately, the city council has chosen a strategy which I strongly disagree with for the privatisation of parts of estates, including the Pondfield within the constituency of Coventry, South-East. Plans for such privatisation have been extended to other areas of the city such as Wood End, Stoke Aldermoor, Henley Green, Willenhall and Hillfields. I cannot see that being the solution to the crushing problems of housing facing working people in Coventry.

719
One in six of all the houses in Coventry, public and private, requires major attention. Most of the 20,000 or 21,000 houses — 15,000, according to statistics of a couple of weeks ago—require at least £5,000 to be spent on repairs and modernisation. Nine hundred and forty-four houses are officially classed as unfit for human habitation and almost 5,000—4,935 to be precise—lack one of the five basic amenities such as an inside toilet, hot and cold running water, a shower or a bath and so on. There are 327 people officially classed as homeless. That figure was "only" 76 when the Government took office in 1979, so it has increased almost five times. There are 9,644 families and individuals on the waiting list.
Those are cold statistics. What do they mean? My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) and I have been dealing with the case over the past couple of days of a young lass, a single parent with a three-year-old daughter, living in a bedsit. She is on the housing waiting list and hopes to be moved into a one or two-bedroomed flat by the council when one becomes available. However, she telephoned me and I telephoned my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East. What fear or panic made her do that? It was the announcement last night that by 11 August the provision of household equipment and furniture from the Department of Health and Social Security for those moving out of furnished into unfurnished accommodation will end. The only thing she owns in the single room is a bed. If she does not get her claim in by 11 August, she runs the risk of not being able to afford the basic requirements when she moves.
I am glad to see that the Minister for Social Security has arrived. Perhaps he can contribute to the debate on the subject of supplementary benefit needs grants affecting one-parent families in furnished accommodation transferring to unfurnished council accommodation. Coventry has an urban renewal programme to try to repair and improve the sub-standard council and private housing in the city. It is no surprise that the areas the council is trying to tackle with the urban renewal programme, the poorest areas for housing in Coventry, are the areas of highest unemployment such as Hillfields, Foleshill, Willenhall and Stoke Aldermoor to give just a few examples. In Hillfields, an area I represent, official male unemployment is 45 per cent. Add the fiddles to that, such as the lads over 60 who do not count in the figures, the kids on the schemes and the women who are not allowed to claim and we are talking about 50 or 60 per cent. unemployment rates.
The council say they cannot do much about repairs and modernisation because of the cuts over the past seven years. It is clear that the majority of owner-occupiers who are unemployed do not have sufficient cash in their pockets to improve their homes without grant aid. Where do they get the grants from? The present rate of distribution of grants in Coventry means that it will take more than 30 years to deal with known owner-occupied housing problems. We have residents who will not live long enough to see their houses repaired at the present rate of grants from the Tory Government.
Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the hon. Gentleman going to comment on the inadequacy of the Housing Defects Act 1984, because, as far as I am aware, in Coventry only about 358 houses are designated under that Act whereas
720
in Leeds there are 7,000? The way in which the hon. Gentleman is speaking suggests that there is a huge problem which is not even touched by the Act.
Mr. Nellist: I suspect that I will not have enough time to develop the major problem which is "No fines" construction. It relates to the mix of concrete used in the 1950s and 1960s for the construction of council estates. Damp soaks up it like up loo paper or, if Hansard prefers it, blotting paper.
The other major problem is that some council estates are built on shale from closed pits in areas such as Binley. With the shifting and settling of foundations cracks appear. Those problems will not go away because the grants are inadequate and are often given not for full improvements, but only partial improvements, and further treatment will be needed in future on houses that receive grants.
I am tempted to offer the Minister a chance to visit Coventry and see the problems that I have already outlined, but the offer is a bit tempered because the last Minister who came, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), came four years ago and graced Wood End estate, which has major problems, with his presence for only 12 minutes. After his great investigation, he said that the housing was some of the worst he had ever seen, yet he returned to London and cut housing grants to Coventry, as the Tory Government have done in every year of their seven-year term of office.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I visited Coventry two months ago at the invitation of the city council and saw one such estate. I was able to announce a grant to finance some badly needed improvements which was welcomed by the local authority.
Mr. Nellist: The Minister came to Hillfields in southeast Coventry, and I received a letter to say that he was coming. He provided an additional £1·8 million to renovate the lifts in the tower blocks and for double glazing. If he wants to read through the council documents I have with me tonight, but which I shall not have time to deal with, he will find that that is not even 1 per cent. of the money we need to begin to tackle the problems. It is all very well being featured on the front page of the Coventry Evening Telegraph, for that £1·8 million grant, but when on 12 July housing improvement submissions came through we put in for £27 million for this year, as we have done for the past three years. In the past three years we have received £7 million or less, and this year it is predicted that we shall receive £5·8 million. In other words, the Minister gives with his left hand the £1·8 million which gave him his publicity for caring capitalism, which he then takes with his Right-wing monetarist hand from our housing improvement programme application.
Mr. Corbett: Beware of Ministers bearing gifts.
Mr. Nellist: My hon. Friend is right.
Unless we receive the full £27 million, rents are predicted to rise by £1·70 a week later this year. The rent for a run-down council flat in a hard-to-let area in Coventry is £33 a week, which is equivalent to a £17,000 mortgage. Tenants and owner-occupiers in Coventry alike need help, not further grant cuts. The longer renovation and repairs are left undone, the worse they become. Obviously, that is not a problem to be found in a Prime

721
Ministerial retirement home in Dulwich costing £400,000 and built by Barratt, but it is a horrific problem in the areas I represent.
I now wish to deal with the Tory's hoary old solution of home ownership. That is seen as a sick joke among the unemployed of Coventry. The Government plan to cut by half for the first six months the housing benefit to pay the mortgage interest of unemployed people, and 90,000 families throughout the country will be affected. I estimate that between 700 and 1,000 families in Coventry will be affected from this autumn. Since 1979, 50,000 families nationally have been evicted and had their homes repossessed by banks or building societies. It is now running at 16,500 families a year. If the mortgage interest benefit for unemployed workers is cut, that figure will rocket. In 1985, 50,000 families were in that pipeline, being more than six months behind with their mortgage payments, and the number will rise if that proposal goes through.
Mr. Greg Knight: If the hon. Gentleman is being fair, will he also give the House the figures for the families who are in arrears with their council house rent? Are not his comments a gross distortion of the facts? Are there not many thousands of families in the east midlands who welcome the opportunity to buy their home provided by the Government?
Mr. Nellist: Given the level of council house rents, many families would rather take out mortgages. The Government have cut so much money from the rate support grant during the past seven years that councils, to avoid making cuts in services, have had to increase the rents and rates charged to those who live in council accommodation. On the surface, people welcome the change, but the 50,000 families who are already six months behind in their mortgage repayments and who face eviction and repossession do not welcome the change.
As for rent arrears, about £11,000 million has been cut from supplementary benefit during the past seven years, which has forced many workers to choose between feeding the kids and paying the bills. The increase in rent arrears was caused by that. Where rents are paid directly by the DHSS, the staff cuts in that Department have led to rent arrears not from tenants, but from the DHSS offices. They canot pay the rents because of the problems caused by the changes in housing benefit during the past three years.
The Tory vision of a nation of individual capitalist homeowners was nonsense from the start. They eased lending restrictions and pioneered early loans, but they have also been responsible for mass unemployment and declining living standards. In the immortal words of the chairman of the Tory party, the solution to unemployment is, "Get on your bike. There are plenty of job vacancies in the south-east." The average sale price of houses in the west midlands is about £34,000. The average sale price of houses in greater London, where all the jobs are supposed to be, is £61,000.
That is the beauty of a market economy. The Government tell people to get on their bikes and find jobs, but they cannot afford somewhere to live when they get there. One sees advertisements for one-bedroomed, pre-1914 flats in "cheaper" areas of London which sell for more than £28,000. In The House Magazine, Members of Parliament see advertisements for houses priced at
722
£100,000 or £150,000. The spiral of low housebuilding and high interest rates will be stopped, and we shall finally have enough places in which working people can live and work, only with radical Socialist solutions, such as the public ownership of banks and building societies and the cancellation of the debts of millions of workers who are caught in the mortgage web.
Indeed, we should go so far as cancelling the debts of local authorities. The city of Coventry owes £284 million to the banks; that is £910 for every man, women and child in the city. The figure has increased by about £22 million since last year. The reason is that, mainly to finance building programmes, councils borrow from banks on 60-year loans, but, no matter how they try to pay off those loans, interest rates increase the total debt at the end of the year, even though they may have paid off £20 million or £25 million. If we cancelled that debt, we could halve all the domestic rents and rates in Coventry and have more than £10 million extra a year for repairs, modernisation, central heating and other environmental improvements.
Of course, the Minister will say, "What a utopian this bloke is. It is absolutely impossible to talk about the restructuring or cancellation of debts." But he should have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Department of Trade and Industry. It is not impossible to restructure the debts of industries before privatisation. When they talked about privatising the water industry, they began the discussion with the restructuring and cancellation of the industry's large debts. When we have a Labour Government who are prepared to consider the public ownership of banks and the cancellation of local authority debts, that drain on local authority resources will be ended once and for all.
I shall end now, because other comrades may wish to speak in the debate. I have used many statistics in my speech, but housing is not a question of cold statistics. I regularly visit the homes of my constituents, personally witnessing the mould, the wallpaper hanging off, the kids with constant coughs and colds, families with damp clothes and furniture, the generally deteriorating health, the bronchial diseases and the depression that comes from living in overcrowded, inadequate accommodation in Coventry. The same is true of other major cities.
Not many of the people who live in council or private homes in Coventry, South-East which desperately need modernisation and improvement could have afforded £35,000 to buy a wedding dress, as the Duchess of York managed to do yesterday. They could not afford £600 a metre to buy the cloth to make that dress. If they had £600, they could do their own decorating to bring their houses up to scratch.
There are 6 million people in this country living in damp accommodation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington said, match that with the 400,000 building workers who under this Government are lying idle at home, denied the chance to use their skills to build, or improve, housing and accommodation.
What the country needs is a crash national housebuilding programme of repairs and modernisation. I believe that that will come only when we get a Socialist Labour Government who are prepared to pursue a programme firmly embedded in public ownership of construction and finance firms.
The Government's own figures show that £19,000 million would crack the problems of repairs and modernisation in the country. Is that too much to ask—

723
what is £19,000 million between friends? Cancel Trident and stop the stupid torpedo programme. The Government are spending £5,000 million to develop three types of torpedo; only two of them have been fired, in the Falklands and they both missed. Withdraw for two years the tax concessions given to company directors for their company cars, and there is £19,000 million at the drop of a hat. If the will were there, the finance could be found.
The Tories pretend to be the party of caring, particularly one or two of the Ministers who turn up at these debates, above all in the run-up to general elections. They talk about promoting democracy. They define it sometimes as a share-owning democracy when they want a fig leaf to cover privatisation — or, more accurately, privatisation exercises. Sometimes they define it as a home-owning democracy. That is a callous confidence trick. The largest percentage of public expenditure cuts in the last seven years has come in housing. The number of new home starts in the country is 33 per cent. less than in the last year of the Labour Government. Council building has been slashed by 70 per cent. under this Government, and is down to 39,000 new council houses according to last year's statistics.
I want to see a country that gives a guarantee of a well constructed family home with a garden to every family in the country, not for them to be trapped on the 15th floor of a tower block, such as the Minister visited in Hillfields a couple of years ago. These people are trying to bring up families who will never see a garden or swing in a swing. We will never get that under this Government. For that we need a change of Government and the transformation of society along Socialist lines.
This has not been the best attended of debates, but, when workers outside the House read some of the speeches made from the Labour Benches, they will understand that the best hope that they have of changing housing conditions is to chuck out the Tory Government as soon as possible and return Labour to office.
12.7 am
Mr. Nick Raynsford: I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on raising this extremely important issue tonight.
There is, without doubt, a severe housing crisis in the country at present, one which has been deepening in recent years and which the present Government show little or no sign of even recognising, let along taking the necessary steps to tackle.
There are acute problems of shortage of housing in many areas of the country, hitting particularly those people on low incomes who cannot afford to buy homes but depend upon the supply of rented housing. Many people in many inner-city areas, not just London, are desperate for homes and have no prospect of finding them. They cannot afford to buy, and there are no homes for them to rent in their price range.
Secondly, there are the problems of bad conditions in all sectors of the housing market, not just in the private rented sector, which used to be the area in which the worst conditions were concentrated. Indeed, they still are, although the private rented sector has much declined and there are now fewer homes in that sector. However, many are still in appalling condition and in need of some action.
724
There are problems in the other sectors. We have growing problems of structural decay and lack of maintenance and repair in the public sector. Let us not be too pessimistic about this. There has been a tendency recently to take the view that everything in the public sector is wrong. That is not so. Council housing provides the prospect of a deent home and an escape from the slums for many millions of families. Without it, they would be living lives substantially worse than they are. The achievements of the public sector should be recognised.
The public sector, which has been denigrated in recent years, starved of funds and not given the encouragement and assistance to tackle its worst problems, is in some ways falling short, and there are problems.
There are problems in the owner-occupied sector, traditionally an area thought to have relatively few problems. More elderly and poor home owners do not have the means to maintain their houses and are finding increasing difficulty in meeting their mortgage repayments.
So in all sectors we have problems, and the symptoms of those problems are obvious to anyone who takes an intelligent interest in housing conditions in Britain. We see the evidence of decaying homes and estates, of overcrowded waiting lists, of people with a desperate need for housing — hon. Members witness this problem in their surgeries—who have been told that they have no prospect of being housed because their local authorities and housing associations cannot afford to provide homes.
We also have the evidence of empty homes, many of them empty because the authorities and housing associations do not have the money to put them into decent condition or because private owners keep them empty for speculative reasons.
We have record levels of homelessness. More people were recorded as being homeless in the last year than at any time since records began shortly after the last war. That is a chilling fact, of which the Government should be deeply ashamed. About 94,000 households were last year accepted as homeless.
Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the definition of "homeless" has been restricted still further? More people are being regarded as intentionally homeless, which was never the intention of the measure introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). In other words, many of the homeless would not be recognised as being homeless under the present legal definition.
Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I was talking this morning to the Minister who will reply to this debate about the unfortunate result of legal definitions following the Pulhoffer judgment. That has created a restrictive interpretation of "homelessness" and has had the effect of penalising homeless people, but I shall not pursue that matter now.
Perhaps the most shameful of all the Government's actions is to be found when we consider where the homeless people are going. It is the symbol by which the Government's housing policy will be judged.
The homeless are going into bed and breakfast hotels. They have become the homes for many thousands of people, whether they are placed in such establishments because the authorities have nowhere else to place them or

725
because they are young, single people on supplementary benefit who end up there because they do not have proper homes.
We have seen the rise of squalid, expensive board and lodging accommodation instead of proper, decent homes. It is a tragedy that so many people are having to live in such places. The cost is enormous. I am pleased to see the Minister of Social Security here. He often quotes the huge escalation in social security payments to people in board and lodging accommodation.
Consider the cost to local authorities which place people in such establishments. Figures placed recently in the Library by the Department of the Environment showed that the net cost of such accommodation—after recovering money from families, housing benefit and so on — had risen from £8 million in 1982–83 to £15 million in 1984–85. We do not have the figures for 1985–86, but I suspect that they will show a further enormous increase, with a further escalation in the current year.
This money is being poured down the drain. Worse, it is being poured into the hands of private hotel and bed and breakfast owners who are providing a shoddy, nasty product and are charging far too much for it, and the state is subsidising it. If people had their own homes, they could live in them at substantially less cost to the state.
We are seeing the economics of the madhouse—the result of capital cuts leading to Revenue expenditure escalation. Any economist examining the DHSS and Department of the Envionment expenditure on bed and breakfast and board and lodging would agree that madness lies this way and that there is no logic in what is happening.
It is not just a question of bed and breakfast and board and lodging. The Government's policy is to promote home ownership. They have sought to increase the home ownership option for many people. They have encouraged council tenants to buy their council homes. However, when problems have arisen, the Government have shown extraordinary insensitivity, with the result that an increasing number of home owners have found themselves in trouble.
During the lifetime of this Government the number of mortgage arrears has risen dramatically. According to the Building Society Association's figures, in 1979 about 8,000 households were more than six months in arrears with their mortgages. By 1985, that figure had risen to 60,000 —an enormous increase—and it is escalating very fast. In the last two years the figure has doubled. That is the result of the promotion of owner-occupation, coupled with an economic recession. Many people have lost their job, or have suffered a cut in income and have therefore been unable to meet their mortgage repayments.
Has this problem resulted in co-ordination between Government Departments? Has a positive approach been adopted? Not in the least. The Department of Health and Social Security says once again, "Oh, the cost of meeting these debts through supplementary benefit is going up so much that we must cut it." Therefore we witness the appalling spectacle of the Department of the Environment encouraging home ownership and the Department of Health and Social Security saying that if people are in difficulties over their repayments the benefit will be
726
reduced, thereby removing the safety net that is necessary to help low-income home owners or others who are in difficulties. Homelessness is the inevitable result.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Did my hon. Friend see the recent television programme in which the Minister for Social Security, whom I applaud for being here, castigated local authorities for lending money to people who were not good mortgage risks, although Government legislation requires local authorities to be lenders of last resort who cannot take into account the fact that somebody had been a bad rent payer?
Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his extremely helpful intervention. We see once again the inconsistency of the Government's policy, the lack of coordination between Government Departments and the sheer hypocrisy of encouraging people to get into this position and then cutting off the option that would save them from falling into difficulties.
Housing benefit is another example. During the early years of this Government we heard again and again that rent levels were not high enough, that they should be increased and that the poor would be protected by means-tested benefits. However, as rents rose, there was an inevitable increase in the cost of housing benefit. The DHSS responded again in exactly the same way. Instead of realising that the logical result of a cut of more than £1 billion in general subsidies to council tenants would be an increase in means-tested benefits, for which the DHSS meets the bill, the Department said, "The bill is too high, the benefit must be cut."
Again and again during the last three or four years, we have heard that housing benefit has been increasing too fast and that it must be cut. We heard it again last night. The Government are incapable of co-ordinating the policies of the two Departments, although they have an extraordinary identity of interest, the overlap between housing and social security is so obvious.
Mr. Nellist: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is not so much an inability to co-ordinate the Departments as a perfect ability to co-ordinate? The strategy is to say, "Don't worry, everything will be OK," thus lulling people into a false sense of security, and then, as the bills increase, to cut, since the real aim is to cut benefits? There seem to be no problems at the top end of the scale, in that the top 5 per cent. of the population are given tax cuts and everything is done to ensure that, year after year, their position improves.
Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I was about to come to that. I should like first to illustrate the extent to which the Government are without a serious and intelligent policy towards housing and how they are floundering. There has been a huge escalation in homelessness. When the Government are asked to give their estimate of the likely level of homelessness this year —they must have such an estimate to plan provision—what is the answer?
"Since such estimates would depend on individual local authorities' policies, the housing stock position in their areas and other factors, too many assumptions would be involved for them to be reliable."—[Official Report, 23 July 1986; Vol. 102, c. 261.]
That is evidence of a Government who are clearly without a housing policy, who are failing to plan and who are

727
failing to consider needs. There is a shameful record of massive homelessness and the worst housebuilding record for many years.
Housebuilding is relevant. In 1975, Britain was starting about 174,000 new public sector homes each year. Last year, we managed to start just 33,000—a cut of some 140,000 in 10 years. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said yesterday at Question Time that the private sector is expanding its provision and meeting the gap. We should examine that claim.
Ten years ago, there were 149,000 private sector starts. Last year, there were 161,000. I will give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt and say that there has been an increase—of 12,000 over 10 years. That should be compared, however, with a drop of more than 140,000 public sector starts. Overall, we are talking of a reduction of 128,000 homes. That is a measure of the failure of the Government's policy. The private sector has broadly kept in line with previous performance and even increased it, but the public sector cut has been dramatic and resulted in a drastic overall reduction.
The Government have crowed a lot about increasing improvement grants. That was true, to a degree, until 1984, but what has happened since then? There was a 26 per cent. reduction in improvement grants in 1984–85 because the Treasury turned off the tap, and compared with 1984, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of improvement grants. What has happened to the much vaunted review of improvement grant policy—the Green Paper that was published a year ago and which was supposed to herald a new policy? Heaven knows, one is needed to bring some order and logic to the chaotic state of improvement grant policy. There are different criteria and different grants, grants do not go to people in greatest need, and there are unmet needs. There has been silence on that. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's response, to learn what will happen to improvement policy. We hope for some new and positive policies which will meet needs more effectively. Why is there silence from the Department?
What a deplorable record! And the Government's response is pretty threadbare. Until the last year, we have consistently heard one line from the Government in defence of their housing policy. It is that they are promoting home ownership. They, too, I suspect, must now know that there are limits to how far home ownership can be extended, and growing problems — increasing mortgage payment arrears, for example. We are therefore beginning to hear a different tack, and we hear it more and more. It is that, if only the Rent Acts were abolished, private dwellings available for rent would burgeon. We should consider that claim.
The history of private renting shows that, for the past 80 years, the private rented sector has been in decline, irrespective of the degree of security afforded to tenants. In 1957, when a Conservative Government reduced security of tenure, there was an acceleration in the decline of the market as landlords took the opportunity to get rid of their tenants to sell their properties. That led to the era that is associated with the name of Peter Rachman. The Government are pursuing exactly the same line, but they have not got the courage of their own convictions and are not prepared to do it before the next election. They are saying that they may do something after the election. If they really believed what they are saying, they would bring in now their proposals to reduce security of tenure for
728
tenants and take the electoral consequences at the next election. There would be a massive reaction against them by tenants.
Against that appalling record, that lack of policy, there is a growing housing crisis and no evidence that the Government are prepared to do anything about it. It gives me great sadness to see the enormous unmet needs, the lack of any coherent Government policy and the lack of co-ordination between Departments. I can only express the same view of other hon. Members who have spoken tonight, that there is a need now for an entirely new approach which will require a change of Government.
12.24 am
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on opening the debate and on getting second place in the ballot for the Consolidated Fund. It is a tribute to his diligence in serving his constituents. I have to take into account the fact that he is also my Member of Parliament.
I want to raise two points that go a little outside the points that have already been raised. Earlier this week I met a delegation of local authorities from the north-west organised by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. They came to see me and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) as Opposition spokesmen on this subject because Ministers refused to meet them. They were concerned with an argument about the way in which housing investment programme allocations and the general needs index are worked out.
We opened that meeting to all Members of Parliament for the north-west, and the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) turned up, representing one of the few Conservative constituencies in that part of the world. I was extremely grateful to him for his approach and I know that he will have made an approach to the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction if not to the Under-Secretary.
I want it put on record now that the Opposition want the Minister at least to meet Members from both sides of the House from the north-west even if they continue to refuse to meet the local authority representatives. There is a case to be made and Ministers should find the time to listen to the case put by hon. Members from both sides, whether separately or together. I do not expect a response to that tonight, but we shall do so in due course.
The other point that I want to raise concerns what has been going on down in Tower Hamlets since the change of control after the local elections. It has been put to, me only in the last couple of days that the local authority is proposing to organise boats moored on the Thames to house homeless people. Yet there are 3,392 empty dwellings in the borough—a figure which has increased since May.
I am not saying that everything was rosy in Tower Hamlets before May, but for a local authority to ring round the London Docklands and the shipping companies to find out what ships are available and what technical difficulties there might be in putting ships on the Thames to house people is a thundering disgrace. Has the Department been contacted about that, and, if so, what is its response?
Mr. Meadowcroft: I do not know the details of this, but the hon. Gentleman is surely not suggesting that local

729
authorities should be castigated for putting people in bed and breakfast accommodation, as if that were their fault. Whether one method is an improvement on another is like trying to determine whether someone should be suffering by one method rather than another. Surely the key question is how to house people properly rather than deciding whether they should be in bed and breakfast accommodation, in boats on the Thames, or anywhere else. It is all equally appalling.
Mr. Rooker: I shall come back to that, but I did refer to the number of empty dwellings in the borough, and that point cannot be ignored.
Every hon. Member who has spoken has referred to homelessness. We are talking about people, their families and relatives. Last year the legal figure for the homeless reached over 100,000 for the first time. There seems to be a ratchet effect and the figure goes up every year under the Government. The first quarter's figures this year is over 25,000, so we are on the way to a further increase. That is unacceptable to everybody. I cannot believe that it is part of the Government's policy to create an enormous number of legally homeless families. They will certainly reap the whirlwind from that, although the homeless families are not usually well represented on the electoral register. I warn the Government about the consequences of a policy that is leading to so much homelessness when there are hundreds of thousands of empty dwellings in the country.
In round figures the total is 600,000—some 545,000 in the private sector and 144,000 in the public sector. I was given those figures in an answer to a parliamentary question. We all know that in proportional terms the Government are the worst landlords for keeping the biggest proportion of their property empty—over 6·5 per cent. but at 19,000 the figure is still piffling compared to the other figures for empty properties.
Earlier this year the Audit Commission produced a report on the management of council housing which gave the number of empty dwellings. Empty dwellings are one thing, but empty dwellings available for letting are something else. It is wicked to have empty dwellings available for letting when people are in need of housing. The audit Commission said that at 31 March 1984 there were 27,700 empty dwellings available for letting and it said that of those 1,900 had been empty for more than a year. I do not know where those figures come from, because when I ask parliamentary questions about them I am told by the Minister—the last time on 19 May—that:
"Information is not collected about how long local authority dwellings vacant at any date have been available for letting."—[Official Report, 19 May 1986; Vol. 98, c. 82.]
Apparently the Audit commission has access to that information. That situation is unacceptable. I do not care which local authorities are to blame or which political party is in control, and I do not care that I am told by housing professionals that parliamentary spokesmen do not understand local housing problems. That is wicked and something ought to be done about it. If something were done about that, it would make a modest impact on the 100,000 families that become homeless each year. We have to get these figures out into the arena a little better than we are doing.
730
Another point which has to be made and about which we do not need to be defensive is that we need to speed up re-lettings. My hon. Friends are quite right when they talk about private sector landlords sitting on properties which, under the present law, they are not bound to let. They are holding on to those properties to make a speculative gain and at present the Opposition are powerless to do anything about that. However, it is possible to do something about speeding up the letting of public sector properties. The Audit Commission suggests three weeks. I do not understand that and, of course, I am told that I know nothing about the subject.
If it is possible for ower-occupiers to move out in the morning and for someone else to move in in the afternoon or on the next day, why can that not happen in the public sector? [Interruption.] They may lose their keys. One of the reasons is the policy of some councils — a policy which crosses party lines—of so-called normalisation. I have raised this before. The councils send in a team or teams of workers to rip out any change the tenant has made so that the dwelling is restored to a normal council dwelling. That takes weeks, and in the meantime properties are vandalised. I see that on a weekly basis in my constituency and so do my hon. Friends. There is no justification for such a policy.
I only have Audit Commission figures to go on, but they show that in the London boroughs the void period between relets is 18·7 weeks, that in the metropolitan districts it is 13·6 weeks and that in the shire counties, whose hon. Members lecture the Opposition, it is 9·8 weeks. Even if we got it down to three weeks, which is three weeks too long, the flow of dwellings available for letting would increase by 20,000 a year. That is a management thing and something could be done about it. I do not accept the argument that only money is necessary to solve the problem: it is an attitude of mind and the Government seem to do nothing about it. In local government these policies transcend the political parties.
The extra cost of repairs because empty dwellings are vandalised is enormous. When we get the HIP returns I have no doubt that we shall see more than two out of nine dwellings in England are unfit, lacking in basic amenities or awaiting substantial repair. That means that 4 million families in all kinds of tenures are living in great unhappiness.
Owner-occupiers, council tenants and private tenants comprise one hell of a coalition of interests. They are people with an axe to grind against policies which are not corrected by the Government. As my hon. Friends say, the Government have one central theme—owner-occupation at all costs.
I shall not repeat my hon. Friend's arguments, but it is fair to say that a local authority cannot refuse a mortgage even if the tenant applicant has a bad rent-paying record. That is a recipe for disaster, both for the tenant and the local authority. The tenants will have to pick up the bill in the end.
We are not spending enough on repairs and maintenance. The Government might argue that more is now being spent on improvements, but, if we do not spend on maintaining dwellings, the nation will lose. Properties will become beyond repair. It does not matter whether the annual shortfall is £700 million, £900 million or £1 billion, we must spend the money. If we do not, we shall hand to the next generation a bill of whopping proportions. That will be grossly unjust for the next generation.

731
I intended to talk about tenant power and control, but I shall leave that for another day. I was made aware of an example of the importance of repairs when reading in the Housing Centre Trust review last week about the effect of decentralising the repairs of local authority properties. Islington, an authority pilloried by Conservative Members, by using decentralising repair teams, has cut the time taken for repairs from between 10 to 15 weeks to one and a half weeks. The authority has achieved that by the massive decentralisation of repair teams. That achievement should be noted by other authorities.
I should have liked to address my next remarks to the Prime Minister, but in recent weeks questions about social policy would not have gone down too well at Prime Minister's Question Time. General price inflation is 2·5 per cent., wage inflation 7·5 to 8 per cent. and house price inflation between 12 and 30 per cent., depending where one lives. How can first-time buyers gain from that? A plot of land in the home counties costs £20,000 before building starts. We are told that all the jobs are in the home counties. How does that assist first-time buyers?
Many of my hon. Friends referred to the Housing Defects Act. Good intent was behind that legislation, but the necessary resources to make it work are not available. That type of legislation makes people bitter. The Minister has travelled the country, as I do in a modest way. I know of people in my own backyard in my constituency who have bought in good faith and find that they cannot sell their property. No one wants to buy it and no one can get a mortgage for it. This creates unhappiness on an unparalleled scale. The legislation does not even cover the demolition of tower blocks.
Yesterday I asked about the national housebuilding programme. I do not care whether homes are to buy or for rent, as long as they are available, where people want them and at a price that people can afford. In 1983, the best year for national housing construction under this Government, 217,000 starts were made, but that was 49,000 fewer than in 1978, the worst year under the Labour Government, when 264,000 starts were made. Couple that with lack of demolition of older properties that need demolishing—let us make no bones about it, because houses do not last for ever — and add unfit housing, second homes, vacancies and those in disrepair, and it is clear that we should be building more new homes. It is no good saying that we have enough homes for the present and forecast population. That is not so.
The money will not come from thin air. No one says that it will. We may not agree with the examples given by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), but at least he came with a package for equating the figures he used, and that is more than any Conservative Member has done.
The situation on capital receipts is ludicrous, and Conservative Members have voted to ensure that that is so. About £3 billion or £4 billion is locked in local authority bank accounts which everyone except the Treasury says should be recycled back into housing and the social infrastructure that housing constitutes. An enormous amount of capital is locked up in housing.
One of my hon. Friends referred to schemes such as Anchor to unlock capital so that it can be used, particularly for the elderly. We also have the absolute scandal of the housing revenue account being milked by local authorities because it has been manipulated in such a way that it is fictitious rather than notional. Frankly, one
732
day the Public Accounts Committee will call someone before it and we shall have a stronger report on housing revenue account than we have had on the Westland affair.
My hon. Friends have raised some useful and interesting points, and we look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
12.42 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on giving us an opportunity to debate housing. Many of us saw the recent survey of Members' correspondence, and housing was the most frequently mentioned topic. Therefore, this is a matter of primary importance, and it is right that we should debate it regularly.
I hope that it will not be thought mischevious if I say that I noticed a contrast between the open-minded and pragmatic approach of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and the rather more dogmatic speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). The latter indeed had a method of funding the improvements in housing expenditure that he wished to see, but that would involve local authorities defaulting on their debt. He wanted the interest paid by local authorities to banks, institutions and pension funds to be waived. He did not say how the pensions of those who depend on those institutions would be made up if they did not get interest on the money they had invested.
Nor did we hear from the hon. Member for Perry Barr exactly how much the Labour party would spend on the capital side of housing in year one, were it to be elected. I suspect that the hon. Member for Perry Barr is under strict instructions from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to say absolutely nothing on this subject, but at some point we are entitled to know exactly what increase in public expenditure the Labour party envisages on housing.
Apart from one or two passing references, not enough attention was paid to the role of the private sector in putting right some of the mistakes in the public sector stock. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) made a passing reference to the role of building societies and institutions, but the emphasis was almost exclusively on the public sector solution.
An impression was given that the problems that have been described have occurred almost miraculously in the last six or seven years, whereas in practice they have grown up over many years. They are due to inadequate expenditure on management and maintenance over a long period. The hon. Member for Leeds, West is correct to say that we have a problem on the capital account and that exists because the problems on the revenue account were not tackled earlier. We have a backlog of repair and maintenance to address.
Mr. Nellist rose—
Sir George Young: Many questions have been put to me, and I would like to make some progress.
I agree entirely with what was said about local management. My Department's urban housing renewal unit is promoting local management and a local repair base on the estates. Through the priority estate project we

733
have been promoting local management as an important ingredient in putting right some of the problems on the estates.
I was asked a number of questions on the Housing Defects Act 1984. With regard to Reema blocks, we have commissioned the Building Research Establishment to study the large panel system buildings and the research results, which are beginning to come through, should be helpful. Duo slab has not been found to be defective nationally but we are considering carefully Leeds' latest proposals. It may be that local designation or acquisition, with Government sanction, may be the answer.
Last year the hon. Member for Erdington kindly brought a deputation to see me and we have asked the BRE to study the Boswell system. As yet we have not had the report from the BRE, but when we do we undertake to publish it. It is better for the BRE to consider all the evidence, even if it means that it takes a little longer, and to provide the research needed to enable us to reach the right decision rather than to cut corners and reach the wrong one.
It is worth recalling that, before the Housing Defects Act 1984 was put on the statute book, there was no remedy for people. Although it is taking slightly longer to designate approved systems and although we are processing new applicants for designations, the Act has brought relief and peace of mind to many thousands of people, who otherwise would have been told, "Caveat emptor."
I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Conventry, South-East criticise his local authority for the approach which it has adopted on a number of estates. In Coventry an entirely pragmatic approach has been adopted—one can make faster progress in putting right some of the defects on these estates if one uses the additional resources of the private sector. If there are blocks which are difficult to let—vacant and vandalised —and the local authority has not got the resources to put them right, what is wrong with asking a private developer to put them right? The blocks can then be offered, in the first instance, to those on the waiting list or to sitting council tenants. Therefore, the local authority gets the benefit of the re-lets or reduced pressure on the waiting list. The local authority receives a capital receipt for disposing of the block. It creates work in the constituency for those who will refurbish the blocks and, at the end of the day, it provides homes for those on the waiting list, or those who want to buy and are sitting council tenants. It is sheer dogma to deny that solution.
Mr. Nellist: I am grateful to the Minister for finally giving way. The reason why I object to the privatisation of estates or parts of estates is that it will not solve the problem of the 9,000 waiting list in Coventry. Over the past seven years the city has lost over £100 million in grants. The Minister asks why we are not spending more time praising the private sector for coming in to put right the problems of the public sector. Those estates, of no fine construction—the Minister said that they are difficult to let because of vandalism—were built in the 1950s and 1960s by private sector constructors. The Wimpeys, Laings and other big construction companies in this country are responsible for building those estates. That is our objection.
Sir George Young: They were built by the private companies, but they were designed and commissioned by the local authorities. It is naive to blame the private sector for defects—many of which are defects of design. If the hon. Gentleman read the publications by Dr. Alice Helman he would see that she attributes—although I do not endorse everything she says—many of the problems on the estates to design rather than construction, management or anything else.
From all that we have heard, it could be thought that the Government's housing policies are unpopular, but that is not so. Many of our housing policies are so popular that Opposition parties are busy trying to adopt them. I am happy to say that the dogmatic opposition to the right to buy has now been abandoned. I am interested that the Labour party's policy is now to put people first. That has not been one of its housing preoccupations in the past.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr asked two specific questions. The first concerned the request from councillors in the north-west to meet Ministers of the Department of the Environment. This is open season for discussions of HIP allocations and, by and large, Ministers resist seeing deputations from local authorities. That is because, if we meet one, we must meet them all. If a deputation led by a Member puts in a request, we will consider it sympathetically. If we agree to see one local authority about its HIP allocation, we have to agree to see all 320. If the hon. Member for Perry Barr aspires to ministerial office, I ask him to exercise a little caution before he urges Ministers to adopt the policy of seeing all deputations.
I was invited to Tower Hamlets in April by the then Labour-controlled council, but it withdrew the invitation shortly before the local elections. I am trying to secure another invitation to visit the Isle of Dogs so that I may see what is happening in the area. We have had no inquiries from Tower Hamlets about housing people in a boat. Responsibility rests with the authority to discharge its obligations under the Act.
The urban housing renewal unit has shown that there are new ways of tackling problems on estates. I have been encouraged by the response from nearly all local authorities that we have approached through the unit. We have announced 40 schemes and many more are coming through. We have allocated £21 million so far and that will have an effect on about 25,000 properties. I am happy to say that the response of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) was untypical of the response of most of the local authorities with which I have been in touch.
I am conscious that many other matters have been raised than those to which I have responded. Unfortunately, I do not have time to deal with the remainder in the time that remains available to me. I shall reply by post to Members who have raised matters with which I have not dealt.
I shall now address myself briefly to homelessness, a subject which has been raised by a number of hon. Members. We have made it clear that the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for the homeless should be considered only as a last resort. Among other things, authorities should ensure that their own property does not lie empty unnecessarily. I commend the robust statement of the hon. Member for Perry Barr on that subject.

735
Authorities have wide powers to control standards of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The possibility of any extension to their powers can be considered in the light of research that we are currently conducting.
The homeless stand to benefit from a wide range of general Government housing policies, including measures to encourage the private rented sector. If only we could have some agreement between the two parties on an acceptable regime for the private rented sector, perhaps we could get the 500,000 houses in that sector back into use. We have facilitated the sub-letting of council dwellings and we have instituted a hostels initiative. Recently we have given further advice to local authorities on how to reduce the number of empty dwellings in their area. We have extended the housing association grant to council dwellings that are awaiting major repairs. We have also increased the resources available to voluntary bodies to give housing advice.
It is always useful for the House to have an opportunity to debate housing. I remain convinced that the broad range of policies that is being developed by the Government is the right approach to housing and that the solutions that we have heard offered this evening, especially from the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, would replicate some of the problems that we have been discussing.

Sheep (Radioactivity)
12.59 am
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am glad that we have been given an opportunity—it has been the only one—to debate the effects of the radiation ban on sheep movements since it was announced on 20 June. It is incredible that the Secretary of State for Wales has not made a statement on the Floor of the House in the five weeks since the ban came into force. It is equally incredible that the Secretary of State for Wales has not been to Gwynedd or those parts of Clwyd or Powys that have been affected by the ban, although he has attended many meetings in Wales. If he had visited those areas, he would have known of the feeling of the farmers, as we do.
Hon. Members who represent the area and have had meetings with farmers, the Farmers Union of Wales and the National Farmers Union, know full well the depth of concern. If it had not been for tonight's debate, which we have been fortunate to have, we would have left the House of Commons for the three-month recess without having aired the subject that is causing great concern not only in our part of Wales but in Cumbria and the south of Scotland.
I deliberately ensured that the title of the matter I requested for debate tonight was broad enough to allow hon. Members from Cumbria and the south of Scotland who wished to take part to do so. I know that the matter is of great concern to them also.
I congratulate the Government on their sudden awakening this week to the seriousness of the matter, and on today's announcement. We wonder whether it would have happened had there not been pressure this week from farmers who took part in the Royal Welsh Show, and without the focus that today's debate has provided for people to concentrate their minds.
I shall refer to the details of the announcement earlier today of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in a written reply and the comments made on it. First, I wish to place on record my dissatisfaction that the contents of the Minister's reply were available for press conferences in Wales at 4 o'clock this afternoon when they were not available to hon. Members. That is an abuse of the House and a discourtesy to hon. Members. It makes it difficult for the House to do its work properly.
In reply to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) today, the Welsh Office said that material was available in the Library. I checked a few moments ago, and the material is still not available. That is not good enough from both the Welsh Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The sheep sector in my county of Gwynedd is extremely important. It is the fundamental part of the agricultural scene. It is as critical to Gwynedd as the dairy sector is to Dyfed and the grain sector is to East Anglia. The farms in my area are largely family units, which often have a breadline economy. It is not the sort of economy of the large barley barons in other parts of these islands. It is interesting to note that a greater proportion of the agricultural fraternity receives family income supplement than does any other sector in Gwynedd. That shows how near the bone the industry frequently operates.
The months of June and July are critical months for the sheep sector. That is the time when the cash comes in to pay the bills—or it should. That is the crisis that people

737
have faced this year. As a result of the ban, the money has not come in. That is the time when farmers receive compensation for their sleepless nights during the critical lambing season in January and February. Many farmers have no other source of funds. They have no other income to sustain their families.
The Chernobyl accident was a tragedy of many dimensions. It has sown the seeds of early death for thousands of people in Soviet Russia. One must keep things in perspective. It has caused economic and health problems of an enormous dimension in many parts of Europe. No one would argue that the sheep problems in Gwynedd, Cumbria and the south of Scotland are more than a small problem compared with the enormous problems in other areas. None the less, they are major problems for the families whose livelihoods depend on the sheep sector.
The incident brings home the enormous dangers of the nuclear world in which we live, for there are no barriers to the cloud-borne radiation, and the rain falls where it will. The rain that fell during the weekend of 2 and 3 May in Wales, especially north Wales, caused a growth in radiation levels, and that led to the ban on the movement of some 900,000 lambs in north Wales. The ban has hit 4,000 farmers.
I am not criticising the Government for taking safety precautions. It is essential that everyone is aware that safety is of paramount importance. It is necessary for the public good. It is necessary that people, especially customers who buy lamb not only in these islands but abroad, know that the lamb on sale is clean lamb and is not affected by radiation.
The press statement issued by the Welsh Office on 7 May is a little ironic. Referring to radioactivity levels, it stated:
"They present no threat to human or animal health, and although it is at present inadvisable to drink fresh rainwater over long periods, it is entirely safe to drink other water and milk".
There is a certain complacency that, with hindsight, is perhaps regrettable.
A balance must be struck between avoiding panic and fostering complacency. I accept that it is not always easy to strike that balance. I accept also that, although the 1,000 bq/kg level is not a dangerous amount to eat, it was right to raise an alert when that level was discovered. I have been eating lamb in the meantime, as have many other people. We should have confidence in our products. None the less, questions must be answered. The safety mechanism had to be brought in. It is necessary for the good name of Welsh lamb that the world outside should have total confidence in it. We need, however, to learn as much as possible from the tragic experience in recent weeks.
If the ban was necessary, it is important to accept that in no way was its introduction the farmers' fault. They had no control over the fact that the ban was imposed, yet they are the ones who are in danger of suffering enormous losses, as are certain other services relating to agriculture, such as abattoirs, butchers, hauliers and auctioneers. If the ban was introduced as a necessary measure, why was it introduced in a chaotic and haphazard manner? I think that that is the genuine feeling in the industry, and it certainly is in my constituency.
738
Some difficulties must be cleared up. Will the Under-Secretary of State assure us that there have been no readings of radioactive caesium greater than 1,000 bq/kg in any meat slaughtered before 26 April? It is important that confirmation is given. It has been feared that radioactivity caused by factors other than the Chernobyl incident is being measured. The Irish sea near north Wales has recently been described as the most radioactive sea in the world. Sellafield is involved. It is ironic that south Scotland, Cumbria and north Wales are near that sea. There are two nuclear power plants in Gwynedd. The question is whether radioactivity has been measured in meat killed before the Chernobyl incident. That point must be nailed down firmly.
Why were no readings on radioactivity in lamb taken in north Wales before 2 June? In Cumbria, lambs had been tested on, I believe, 14 May and were found to have levels in excess of 1,000 bq/kg. It only takes three or four days for those readings to be analysed. Was the Welsh Office waiting for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to take readings in Cumbria before taking any initiatives on lamb? Did not the Ministry tell the Welsh Office, or was the Welsh Office supposed to be carrying out the inquiry itself but had not bothered to do so? The delay of between a fortnight and three weeks is incomprehensible in the sort of climate that led to the ban.
Why was there no more consultation in the weeks before 20 June with local authorities and those who were supposed to be in charge of civil defence? If there is no consultation on such an issue, what on earth is the point in having local civil defence functions? The Gwynedd public protection committee met on the Thursday, the day before the ban was announced, but no information had been given to it.
Why have no proper facilities for the monitoring of radioactivity been available? The nearest facility for monitoring carcases, other than the ad hoc facilities at the nuclear power stations and the university, is in Preston. Why is there no equipment available to monitor radioactivity in live animals without slaughtering? I understand that now, at last, one unit is available in north Wales and that animals can be put through and instant readings are produced. If such equipment had been brought in much sooner it would have saved a lot of heartache. We would have got results much sooner and statistical samples of greater accuracy would have been available.
Having decided to implement the ban on 20 June, very little information was available. The statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, and repeated by the Secretary of State for Wales, was very difficult to understand, especially the last sentence where it said:
"the Government will be prepared to discuss cases of compensation for severe loss in particular circumstances to specific farmers."—[Official Report, 20 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 1321.]
It will be interesting to know whether, in the light of today's announcement, the Government have rethought that statement and that we are not talking about "severe loss" now but about all losses. That is fundamental to our understanding of the position. I would like the Minister to clarify that.
There was a meeting on 26 June, the week after the announcement, in Caernarfon with representatives of the Farmers Union of Wales, the National Farmers Union and the Welsh Office. It was not possible for Welsh Office

739
staff to tell farmers what sort of information they should be keeping and recording on which they could then base claims. I hope that as the claims come in, when the forms are available in three weeks, as I understand they will be, no claims will be rejected because information was not kept at that time. Farmers were begging the Government to give some explanation as to what information was needed and no substantial reply was forthcoming from officers of the Welsh Office. I understand that the same was true in England with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in Scotland with the Scottish Office. As a result, farmers did not know what was going to happen. They knew that there, was no cash coming in from sales, there was great uncertainty, there was destabilisation of the industry and that was worrying the bank managers to whom the farmers were turning for loans to keep them going. That destabilisation was partly because of the lack of information available over the first three or four weeks of the crisis.
Until today there had been no certainty as to who would get compensation and what the basis and procedure would be. It is totally inexcusable and complacent to leave farmers in the lurch. Last weekend at Caernarfon and at Llangefni I found farmers who were seething at the situation. At last the message got through. If we look at one example given to me by a farmer from Anglesey who telephoned on Sunday morning, we get a feeling of the loss. He has about 1,000 lambs which he thinks will soon become too fat to be graded. He estimates a loss of as much as £20 for each lamb. That is a total loss of £20,000 for that one farmer. That sort of money is not easily available to farmers in Gwynedd. The resources they have are the capital assets of their farms such as the animals. The animals also represent the potential working capital on which farmers are totally dependent if they are to get any sort of cash flow.
That one example brought home to me the magnitude of the loss faced by those people. Many of them are facing the loss of a lifetime's work. Farmers were rightly concerned as to whether each farmer would be compensated for individual loss on a case by case basis. They were concerned as to whether the confidence of the bank managers would be ensured to secure loans. They were anxious to ensure that there was confidence in the future of the industry and that markets would not be lost as a result of the radioactivity.
They were concerned that payment should be made to enable sheep to be moved from hills to the lower pastures and that there would be a mechanism for that. I understand that today's announcement does give some lead on that matter, although it is far from clear as to how the mechanism will work. The farmers particularly wanted a maximisation of information to be forthcoming.
The lack of information throughout that period has stood out and added .to the aggravation farmers feel, in particular over the lack of detail about the compensation schemes. They wanted the scheme to take into account the long-term losses to the industry and to meet the short-term cash-flow questions. There may appear to be a contradiction in those aims, but both are essential to the farmers. They wanted the scheme to compensate for losses to the store trade, and for compensation to be available to make up for the loss of grading as lambs grew too fat and quality suffered. They wanted compensation for the cost of the extra fodder needed while holding lambs during the ban on movement. They wanted interest payments arising
740
from their failure to get their cash in on time, and to be able to claim compensation for an interim period, if the long-term effects were not altogether clear.
For five weeks farmers were unable to get any clarification from the Government. Last week the problem became particularly acute because, until then, during the first two or three weeks it was possible to let things ride in the hope that lambs would not grow too fat and that perhaps no more than 10 per cent. would pass their grader with a loss of quality or not be graded. But as the weeks passed, the crisis hit home. Moreover, readings of radioactivity over 1,000 bq/kg persisted, when it had been expected that that would disappear much more quickly. That continues to cause considerable worry. There was uncertainty about compensation and the impending problems caused by the period of the ban running into the time when the store sales should take place and, when, traditionally in Wales, sheep are brought down from the mountains to the lowlands for wintering. There was a danger that they could not move from the mountains, but there would be no fodder for them on the mountains. That is why there has been an upsurge of feeling on this matter during the past 10 days.
I welcome today's compensation package, but why on earth was it not possible to announce it sooner? It would have saved many farmers who have been sick to death with considerable worry over the past five weeks. A great deal of detail still remains to be worked out. In a written answer today the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food states:
"So far as compensation is concerned, the Government recognise that farmers who were prevented by the restrictions from marketing finished lambs at the usual time may have a higher proportion than normal rejected for variable premium because they will have become over-fat by the time they are eventually able to be sold; and that these animals may also attract lower than average prices in the markets. Where such losses have been sustained and can be substantiated, the Government will be prepared to meet them."— [Official Report, 24 July 1986; Vol. 102, c. 494.]
How are farmers expected to substantiate their claims? On what information are they expected to do that? Farmers will expect the Minister to spell that out in the debate. Will they depend on last year's grading patterns? Will those facts and figures be acceptable? Without that information the scheme is meaningless to farmers. The Minister must spell that out.
Will interest payments on the additional loans incurred by farmers be met by the Government under the provisions of today's announcement? Is the compensation cash-limited or will all substantiated cases be fully met? Will interim payments be made for farmers with cash-flow problems who may take a long time to prepare detailed answers? Will compensation be payable to cover any significant drop in the market prices caused by a glut when the ban is finally removed? Will there be help for abattoirs, hauliers, auctioneers and other associated services, which have suffered losses and may suffer even greater losses? How long will claims take to be processed and how will the bureaucratic delay be minimised? It seems that there will be a bureaucratic delay and, if farmers have had to wait three weeks for the forms, they cannot afford to wait much longer to get the forms processed and for the money to come in.
Can the Minister confirm that he has ruled out the possibility of buying up lambs, whether for slaughter or otherwise? What compensation will be paid to farmers

741
whose sheep have, for the past five weeks, been eating the grass and hay that was meant to be fodder for later in the year? Farmers will incur greater fodder costs because they will have to make up the deficiency. The answers to those questions are not clear from today's statement, but the farmers need answers to them very soon if the statement is to be meaningful.
May I deal with some other general problems that must be tackled. What is the position on radioactivity in fodder? If there is a level of more than 500 bq/kg in dry matter silage, is it safe to use? What tests have been made? Has the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service been asked to monitor the effect of radioactivity in fodder fed to cows? What will be the effect on milk? This must be known, especially since readings of that level have already been taken in Wales.
A parliamentary answer of 15 July showed that in the Arfon and Dwyfor areas of my constituency there were no readings in excess of 1,000 bq/kg for lambs in any of the 102 samples taken. On 16 and 18 July, further readings all showed levels below 1,000 bq/kg, so why are Arfon and Dwyfor still within the restricted area?
Why were not more samples taken more rapidly? Do we now have the capability of taking as many samples as necessary, and do we have the equipment and personnel to ensure that if this happens again we shall not get into a similar mess? What studies are being made into the genetic effects of the radiation? It will have a long-term effect. Serious questions are raised which would affect compensation, and the Minister must answer them. If there are ewes on the mountains with radiation levels of more than 2,000 bq now, and it takes three months for the level of radiation to fall by half, the serious implications are that the level will be 600 bq only by the middle of winter. How will the Government handle those sheep? There is no answer to that question in today's statement.
On the long-term prospects for the industry, will the Government undertake to put money into promoting lamb, which is so important to my area?
The effects of the Chernobyl tragedy have reached Gwynedd, Cumbria and the south of Scotland. We can imagine how much worse it would have been if there had been a similar accident at Trawsfynydd, Wylfa or the other nuclear power stations in Britain. We can imagine how much worse yet it would be if there was a nuclear war. I will not go down that road, but those who say that it would be survivable leave open many questions. There must be a much more open approach to the nuclear industry. Farmers and the entire community must be taken into the confidence of Government, with full information being made available. In six to nine months' time, there should be a review of how the events of this recent period was handled and, if necessary, a formal inquiry into the handling of the matter by different Government agencies.
What is important now is to obtain compensation for those farmers, who face destitution unless they get it. They must know how much they will get, how they will get it and how quickly they will get it. I hope that the Minister will answer many of my questions tonight.
1.18 am
Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn): I am greatly in accord with much of what the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said. This is a timely debate, and for my
742
constituents the most important debate that we have had this year, because they have suffered greatly. It can be said with common consent that the farmers of Anglesey have been hit the hardest of all by the ban. We are talking about small farmers whose livelihoods have been put at risk because of the ban. If some malign influence had been at work to find a time which would have had the most detrimental effect upon farmers, it would have chosen this month, for it is during this month that Anglesey farmers take their lambs to market. That has caused the most terrible problems for them. My hon. Friend the Minister will know of this, as I have constantly reminded my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about the situation.
What has caused particular concern for the farmers of Anglesey is the initial statements from the Government about lambs not being ready for market, as though this was a matter that would not have a particularly serious effect upon some farmers. That may have been true in respect of some sheep farmers in some parts of the United Kingdom who were subject to the ban, but it was certainly not true of the sheep farmers of Anglesey who, as I have indicated, were at that very moment expecting to be able to take their lambs to market. At that time, upon the imposition of the ban, farmers were telling me that they were expecting to take their lambs to market that week and for 200 lambs at about £40 a head, that has occasioned a loss of £8,000 or more. That is a lot of money to a small sheep farmer. With the normal expenditure that has to be met at this time, and with banks breathing down their necks and the absence of a reasonable expectation of income from the sale of lambs, their finances have been thrown into turmoil.
It is right to place on record that it is not just a question of compensation; it is also a question of the pride of farmers. They have spent many months rearing these lambs and take a pride in the way they are reared, with the expectation of going to market and achieving good prices in return for all the husbandry that has been put into the rearing; but that has been thrown into jeopardy.
Farming is a profession, a fact that we should acknowledge, and that too has been put into difficulty. South of the A5 on Anglesey and west of the Amlwch to Llangefni line has now been taken out of the ban, but there remains the eastern side of the island within the ban. That is the side where there have been the highest readings of becquerels per kilo in lambs. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales repeatedly whether it is possible now, with all the monitoring that has taken place, to project precisely when that eastern side of the island can come out of the ban. It is not good enough merely to extend the ban with no certainty of when those farmers will know they can take their lambs to market. A trend must surely now be established with the diminution and dissipation of the radiocaesium levels for people to know with a fair degree of certainty when the ban might be lifted.
Dr. John Marek: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) might have a point, of course. We live next to the Irish sea, which is radioactive, but the effects may not simply be the effects of Chernobyl; I sincerely hope that they are, but, since there has been a marked absence of sampling techniques hitherto, I do not

743
think that we can with certainty say that at a particular time we will he able to lift the ban. I hope that we can, but I do not think that there is any certainty.
Mr. Best: I know that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to be mischievous, but there is a great danger of interpreting more from the problems than is actually there. Having looked at this carefully, I am satisfied that the presence of nuclear power stations has had no effect on this crisis and that it is entirely due to Chernobyl. To promote any other idea without its being based on any evidence does grave damage not only to the nuclear power industry but to the farmers and to the Welsh lamb industry. I know that that would be the furthest thing from the hon. Gentleman's mind.
I pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, because he has assiduously taken the problem on board and has investigated it fully. After I had met in my house both farmers' unions and the butchers —and they told me that it was a unique event that the two farmers' unions and the butchers should come together and speak with one voice—I went to Bala for a meeting on 1 July with all the secretaries of the farmers' unions for the whole of the area affected and then came to the House of Commons. I left my right hon. Friend a four-page letter, and that evening he was good enough to discuss the subject with me for an hour and a half. During that discussion I asked him to meet the farmers to discuss the question of compensation.
A great deal of harm occurred because the farmers did not know whether they would even have an opportunity to make representations about compensation. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend met the farmers' unions on 7 July. They came away feeling that they had been able to put their case to him.
I accept the paramount need to protect the public health, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, but I fear that there may have been an over-reaction, as the hon. Gentleman demonstrated by the press release to which he referred. When it is known that one could eat lamb containing 1,000 bq/kg every day for a year and have a total ingestion of radiocaesium of less than half the dosage of one X-ray, the matter begins to come into perspective.
There must be constant monitoring, and I hope that the results of such monitoring will be made available. I agree with the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) that the public must be satisfied that the radiocaesium levels are due entirely to the tragedy of Chernobyl and have nothing to do with the nuclear power industry in this country. It is a coincidence that the ban was imposed in areas where nuclear power stations were sited. Any fears that the public have must be assuaged, and that can be done only by constant monitoring.
Let us consider the losses sustained by the farmers. There is the reduced variable premium, of about 20p per kilo, and on a 16-kilo lamb that comes to £3·20. For a farmer with many lambs to take to market, that represents a great deal of money. There are also the rejects of lambs that are over-fat. That means a loss of about 70p per kilo, which on a 16-kilo lamb is £11·20. There is also the loss of haymaking for winter forage. A farmer in my constituency will have to buy in 80 tonnes of hay at £60 a tonne, representing a loss to him of £4,800.
The Minister should announce not only whether interest will he paid on the loans made necessary and the compensation payments, whenever they are made, but
744
whether the fact that those losses have been sustained over a period of weeks will be taken in account so that the interest payments will be backdated to the time from when the loss was sustained.
Nothing has been said about losses sustained by butchers. I am sufficient of a realist to think it unlikely that butchers will receive any compensation. But a butcher in my constituency reckons that he has been losing about £800 a week as a result of the ban.
Following the natural concern that people expressed and their reluctance to buy Welsh lamb, I am pleased to note that not only have lamb prices been holding up in the markets — a development that might not have been expected—but that there is a good indication that the general public has not been put off Welsh lamb.
I welcome yesterday's statement about compensation. I regret that it was not possible to make it earlier. I fully understand the anger and concern of my farmers about the absence of any conclusive statement about compensation. One accepts entirely that the final basis for compensation could not have been worked out, but a statement could have been made that spelt out the kind of compensation that might be payable. The written answer of today says:
"the Government recognise that farmers who were prevented by the restrictions from marketing finished lambs at the usual time may have a higher proportion than normal rejected for variable premium … Where such losses have been sustained and can be substantiated, the Government will be prepared to meet them."
I hope that the written answer means what it says—that all losses that can be substantiated will be met — and that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm that.
Furthermore, what is meant by substantiation? 'What records will have to be shown? I asked for guidance from the Welsh Office from the very beginning so that farmers could be told by the Welsh Office what records they needed to keep and what documentary evidence would be necessary for the computation of compensation. Sadly, that advice has not been forthcoming. I hope that it will be forthcoming tonight.
The written answer also says that where it is found necessary to continue the restrictions, hopefully it will be overcome by enabling the movement of store lambs and draft and cull ewes off the holdings. The farmers' unions have also drawn the Government's attention to the fact that some of the farmers concerned are already faced with additional expenditure. We know that.
I am also glad to see that the written answer says that urgent discussions will be held
"with the unions about these problems and also about what compensation might be appropriate to cover the direct losses which the farmers concerned may thereby incur."—[Official Report, 24 July 1986; Vol. 102, c. 494.]
However, the statement contains nothing about the cash flow problems that farmers who are still under the ban are being faced with now. That is the gravest crisis. One can compute the losses for the farmers who are able to take their lambs to market. It seems that they will be paid compensation. I hope that that will be made clear tonight However, I have been pressing consistently, but so far without success, for some form of interim payment for those farmers who are still under the ban, especially if no sign can be given of when the ban might be lifted. Those farmers are suffering severe cash flow problems, because they are trying to pay for items which would normally be paid for by the income from the sale of the lambs. I hope

745
that something can be done for those farmers, otherwise they will be driven into bankruptcy. If something is not done to assist them, small sheep farmers in Wales will have to go out of business.
The percentage of over-fat lambs that are being rejected is far higher than I had been led to believe. Between 5 and 10 per cent. and sometimes as much as 14 per cent. of Anglesey lambs going to market are being rejected because they are over-fat. I have here a sheaf of letters from farmers which tell a harrowing story of the losses that they have sustained. One letter is a brief note setting out a few details of 100 lambs sold to Halal. Five were not graded; they were over-fat and will realise 146p a kilo, approximately £27. The 95 graded lambs will realise approximately 185p a kilo. Multiplied by 18 kilos a lamb, that is approximately £33. With a subsidy of approximately 33p a kilo, worth approximately £6, the total value is £39. That is £39 compared with £27, or a loss for the over-fat lambs of £12. Some 154 lambs were sold previously at an average price of £43.
This is an immensely grave problem. It has been fully recognised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I pay tribute to him for what he has done to try to help the farmers. There has, however, to be instant help now. We have got beyond talking about compensation. It must now start flowing by way of interim payments to farmers who are facing uncertainty and possible bankruptcy because they continue to be in the ban and have no knowledge of when it may be lifted.
1.35 am
Mr. Richard Livsey: I shall not speak for long, because some hon. Members present are more seriously affected than am I and my constituents. The livestock industry, and especially the sheep industry are, like me, worried for the affected farmers.
Farmers who have had the movement of lambs restricted because of the Chernobyl disaster must receive adequate compensation for losses from that man-made disaster. Sheep producers in north Wales, Cumbria and southern Scotland are the innocent victims. It is clear from what the Minister said today that he is beginning to think in terms of more suitable compensation. The problem with the statement, however, is that it does not spell out in anything like enough detail how he will tackle the problem.
Will all farmers whose normal marketing pattern has been disrupted be compensated? Will all lambs which genuinely fail to qualify for variable premium as a result of over-fatness be compensated for? All such lambs should have the sale price made up, by variable premium, to the guide price at the time that they would have been marketed, not now. Lamb prices slide throughout June and July. There is a tremendous drop which must be taken into account if farmers are to be compensated adequately. Will account be taken of the overall effect on farm cash flow, especially if farmers have to borrow to sustain themselves through a whole month of no sales? Will compensation take account of interest payments which arise through lack of sales?
A farmer might have had 200 lambs to sell at £40 in mid-June. Their value would have fallen to £30 by mid-July. If he had had a stop on all of his movements, he would have lost £2,000. That is a substantial sum of money. If he was running an overdraft of £10,000 on the
746
assumption that he would sell his lambs in mid-June for £8,000, he would have only a £2,000 overdraft by the middle of July. Those are serious figures which the farming community in the affected areas must assess.
Compensation must be paid soon. Interim payments are essential. But we do not know on what basis the record keeping of the farmers concerned will have to be judged. It is essential that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office take a realistic view if farmers in the affected areas were not instructed to keep records. Indeed, if they sell lambs on live weight rather than dead weight, those farmers will be in a difficult position on record keeping. Those who sell on dead weight will have better records, particularly if they have been selling on dead weight in the previous year.
We must look at 1986 overall. Lambs have been produced late due to the season and they have come on to the market far later in 1986 than they did in 1985 and previous years. That has tended to distort the marketing pattern anyway.
Will the Secretary of State consider assistance for abattoirs which have been having a rough time, not only in those areas where there have been restrictions on lambs, but also outside the restricted areas. In the south-west of England, North Devon Meat has virtually gone under recently and has had to be rescued by Hillsdown Holdings. That has this very week caused the FMC abattoir in my constituency to close because FMC is owned by Hillsdown Holdings and they are obviously having a rationalisation programme.
Dr. Marek: FMC has been having a rationalisation programme for some time and it would not be fair to blame that on the problems caused by the Chernobyl disaster.
Mr. Livsey: I understand the hon. Gentleman's reference to that, but I was merely pointing out that there is a crisis in the meat industry anyway and that has been compounded by the effects of the Chernobyl disaster in the effected areas. In other words, matters are becoming somewhat worse for the industry.
Those areas that are affected, whether they be in Wales, Cumbria or Scotland, to some extent produce store lambs, particularly the upland areas. If the levels of contamination in terms of bq/kg, continue at high levels, they will shortly be evident in lambs sold in the store season. The Secretary of State and the Minister should come up with answers for the marketing of store lambs in the near future.
In some coastal areas of north Wales — I do not know the position in Cumbria or southern Scotland—where silage making took place in mid-May, there is some evidence of contamination of silage. We have the opportunity not to feed that contaminated silage. If there is serious contamination of silage, is the Minister prepared to run a scheme so that the silage is not used for feed, and replacement fodder is brought into those areas? Farmers could be compensated accordingly.
1.44 am
Mr. John Corrie: I thank the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for raising this debate. It is appropriate that it should be held on the day when the Minister has announced compensation. I look forward to hearing more about that in future.

747
I hope that hon. Members from Wales will not mind if another Member from a Celtic fringe takes part in the debate. This matter has affected me personally and I have to declare a personal interest in the debate. My farm in the south-west of Scotland is in the worst affected area and we have a large number of lambs running on the farm that should have been marketed some time ago. The Ministry vets were there yesterday checking on our annual dipping, and when we examined the lambs we found that something like 80 per cent. are now far too fat for the market and will suffer a severe drop in price when the time comes to sell.
In an area close to my farm where the ban has been lifted, lambs ready for killing on 23 June at a weight of 1 kg would have made £49·30. They were sold in Stranraer market on Monday and made £29·50. That is simply the price of the lamb, but they have lost the premium payment and, as has been said, they have had a month of extra grazing, and bank interest has to be paid. I plead with my hon. Friend the Minister to ask the banks to take the pressure off farmers within the next week or two. They must know that compensation is coming forward and that the farmers have the capital asset of the lambs for which finance will come in in the near future. It would be an enormous help if something could be said to the major banks.
We are moving into another problem area in that there are many breeding sales, not only of old ewes but of lambs, coming off. In hill areas, certainly in the south of Scotland, farms cannot keep the lambs any longer and they will have to be shifted. I look forward to what the Minister has to say about breeding animals and whether it will be possible to sell them.
There is a strange situation in my constituency in that on the Island of Arran, 17 miles off the coast, there are extremely high readings, and yet on the Mull of Kintyre on the west side and on the east side of the mainland there are no significant readings. There is a nuclear power station on the east side and no lambs in that area have been affected. Arran has been dramatically affected and the farmers there have to get their lambs off the island because they do not have grazing for them. That means that over the next few weeks the animals will have to be slaughtered or moved off the island. They have just been brought down from the hills and, as other hon. Members have said, when that happens lambs eat into the winter grazing.
We have found in Scotland that the smaller the lamb the higher the reading. Is it necessary to go to the lower weights when carrying out these tests? After all, we are worried about lambs coming forward at marketable weight for killing, and if we continue to test the very small lambs, while they are growing it will stretch the time that farmers are affected. Those lambs will never reach the market because they would not be sent there at that age. I suggest that a weight of something like 22 kg should be the cut-off point and that no lamb below that weight should be tested.
Another of our problems is that we have no base norm from which to work. I do not know about the situation in Wales, but we certainly have hard granite mountains on Arran and in Scotland. There is no doubt that those emit a natural high background radiation all the time. I assume that never in the past have we had to do tests of this kind to see whether sheep or cattle running on that sort of ground have a different starting norm on the Becquerel readings during their lifetime. I hope that in future some work can he carried out along those lines.
748
For the next year or more, will we continue to conduct monitoring tests? I also wonder whether the residue has any effect on breeding sheep. Will it have a long-standing effect on our breeding stock? I understand that in Scotland tests have been conducted on hay and silage and that the readings are extremely low, something like 300–40() bq/kg, so it would appear that that will not be a difficult problem for Scotland. Farmers are having a tough time and in many ways this is the last straw and has broken the camel's back.
We had a viciously bad winter last year, preceded by a viciously bad autumn and summer. We struggled through and came to a reasonably good spring, at long last. But then, this terrible affliction hit us. Many small farmers, and many bigger farmers, will not be farming this time next year because of this last blow.
I hope that the Government accept that this is not just another short-term problem. It will linger because of the store markets and the store lambs still to come. I hope that compensation will be stretched and not simply paid off. This was a horrendously unfortunate accident. It shows how far the rain clouds spread. It would be pointless for us to do away with the nuclear industry at home if we can suffer from an accident 1,600 miles away.
1.50 am
Mr. D. E. Thomas: Experience has taught us that radiation and pollution know no national boundaries, so we need international action to deal with such a crisis. I speak as someone who represents not only an area with a power station, but the people in the Snowdonia national park and a large part of the hill areas north and mid Wales—the area where the highest level of radiation in lambs has been registered.
The whole incident could have been handled differently by the Government. I do not criticise the local officials, who worked extremely hard, within the information available, to reassure farmers. I do not criticise Department officials in Cardiff, who have been helpful to me about all my queries. I direct criticism at the political level. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said.
I do not expect the Minister to respond to every query tonight. I am sure that he will do us the courtesy of writing to us during the recess, since we shall not have the opportunity to question him again for some time —unless he and his colleagues face the farmers in our constituencies. My hon. Friend set out the parameters. We are unanimous in our criticism of the way in which the problem was handled.
I first discovered the effects of Chernobyl indirectly from employees of the CEGB, who will remain anonymous. They provided me with the radiation levels that would have been monitored around the power station in my constituency during the weekend of high rainfall and the cloud.
I am no expert in radiation, although for 13 years I have represented a constituency in which there is a nuclear power station, so I have developed some expertise. It should have been clear to anyone knowing anything about radiation, radiobiology and the half-lives of isotopes that levels of radiation of 4,000 becquerels would be experienced. We should have known that such high levels would he registered within that time.
I admit that this was a new experience. It was new for the agriculture departments. We had never experienced

749
such an event before. We did not know the need to monitor such an accident. We had always assumed that nuclear accidents would affect only the immediate environs of the power station. We planned for that. We thought that small-scale gaseous discharges would be the main source of radioactive pollution.
It was on those bases that we established our "worst case" scenarios and plans. However, much more serious contamination was spread over a much wider area than we anticipated. I accept that at that stage we did not have the capability of monitoring, but that is a criticism of the way in which we approach the whole issue of the existence of a nuclear power industry and a military nuclear capability. When one has these capabilities, one should plan for the worst possible contingency, and that did not happen.
Given the kind of information that was emerging that weekend, and given our knowledge about radiation, we should have been able to foresee what would follow. Therefore, the Government should have been ready as soon as high levels of iodine and other nucleides were recorded. They should have been ready with a statement saying that if there were—and possibly there would be — readings above the now much reduced margins of alert — the factor of 10 which after Chernobyl was reduced in the levels of becquerels per kg in lamb, for example— we would be able to respond to them. We could have done so in two ways: first, by advising the public of the impact; and, secondly, by explaining the implications of certain becquerels. This is a complicated issue, but there is a need for far better education of the public of the reality of the risks involved in exposure to certain levels of radiation.
The problem is that we do not know exactly what we are talking about in terms of the impact on human health. We do not know how many additional incidents of leukaemia or cancer will be induced. We may be talking of only 20, 30, or 100 at the most, but the facts should be put clearly to the public so that people understand the implications. In a sense, the people of my area understand the technical language more than others because they Me close to a nuclear power station, but there is a need for the Government to explain the position much more clearly.
In a situation such as this, the Government should have been ready with a clear statement of their intention to compensate those in agriculture who were affected by the need to restrict. Had they done so, the whole situation would have been different. Had they said from the beginning that there might be a danger to the public and that a trigger level might be reached—in much the same way as they gave warnings about rainwater—the whole atmosphere would have been better.
I discussed this with farmers earlier. We talked about whether people would have panicked more and whether there would have been an over-reaction. I spoke to those farmers as individuals, in committees and at mass meetings in Llanrwst market. They all told me that they would have preferred to have been warned much earlier so that they could have planned. Had the Government indicated from the beginning that there would be compensation in the event of restriction, this crisis—which in a sense has been of the Government's own manufacture during the past six weeks—could have been avoided.
I say that with hindsight on the morning after the anouncement of a compensation scheme. But it still must
750
be said that this could have been handled very differently. There was a basis in law for the payment of compensation. I put this to the Secretary of State at one of my earlier meetings with him, because if a Government impose a safety limit that results in restrictions on agricultural activity, there is a clear responsibility on that Government to take on board the effects of the order that they have introduced. The case is as simple as that, and it could have been accepted.
We have not heard from the Secretary of State for Wales. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary has the privilege of being the first Welsh Office Minister to speak on this subject in the House, and I congratulate him on achieving that honour. It illustrates the failure of the Welsh Office to make statements to Parliament on this subject, although, since the ban was first introduced, we have pestered for them. It was essential for the Government to come clean. If the wording from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had been different on the day when the ban had been introduced —if the Ministry had not talked about specific cases, specific circumstances and special hardship, or whatever the precise wording was —but had rather stated, "Where there is, within the designated area, a clear case for compensation, that compensation will be paid", life would have been much easier.
I wish to make a couple of points arising out of the present situation in my constituency and the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday. I am worried about the potential length of the ban and the effect on the movement of store lambs. Readings were published yesterday from the Aberconwy and Meirionnydd districts. I suspect that I know the farms from which the samples have been taken. Of the samples, 19 are above the level of 1,000 bq/kg in total radiocaesium. That is serious and it suggests that the ban will be effective in those areas for months rather than weeks, to reformulate a quote from Lord Wilson.
It is important for the Department to tell people what are the implications of the present levels and when reductions will occur. I am not asking that the Minister should tell us the precise date when areas will be clear but he must tell us the implications of such levels.
With regard to the statement yesterday by the Minister, we want to know what "substantiated" means. What kind of returns are required? I pay tribute to the members of the farming unions in my constituency and elsewhere who have advised people in the absence of advice from the Minister and the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. At the meetings that I have attended the ADAS people were in great difficulty because they did not have specific guidelines. They were not able to tell the farmers what was necessary. The Farmers Union of Wales issued a circular in which it called for—I am translating from Welsh, and as it is early in the morning I may slip up—the date and the number of lambs ready for market, the period for which the lambs had been kept back on the farm and the effect of this on the forage, silage and hay production. The reduction in the income compared with a similar period over the past three years.
Those were the guidelines which John Dyer James of the Farmers Union of Wales in Meirionnydd sent out to his members. The Department should have issued such guidelines straightaway when getting the farmers ready for the compensation applications. I agree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) that the

751
level of differentiation on the variable premium should relate to the guide price at the time when these lambs would have been sold. If that is not done, there will be a serious additional loss.
It is important that the Ministry should spell out, as soon as possible, how it will devise arrangements to permit the movement of store lambs and draft and cull ewes. We are reaching a crisis point when there will have to be a mass movement of sheep out of these areas. The Minister must spell out how that will be dealt with.
What is meant by the extra expenditure which it was recognised in the Minister's statement has been incurred by some farmers? What will be the substance of the discussions with the unions about compensation which might be appropriate to cover, as stated in the Minister's statement,
"direct losses which the farmers concerned may thereby incur." [Official Report, 24 July 1984; Vol. 102, c. 494.]
We need to know exactly how the Minister's statement is to be implemented in practice and the nature of the scheme on which the Department is working. The Department has had more than a month to consider these issues and proposals have been made to it directly. I made some proposals to the Minister's advisers on 20 June when I first met them following the imposition of the ban. Proposals were made on 25 June by the NFU in the area of Denbigh and Flint, part of which includes my constituency. Proposals were made—I relayed them—at the meeting at Llandrwst on 25 June. They were direct proposals from NFU and FUW members. Proposals were conveyed from an NFU meeting on 1 July, and from a further meeting of the FUW on 14 July. All these materials have been conveyed directly to the Department, including model schemes of compensation. It is a matter of regret that the Department was not able to respond earlier.
There is an important lesson to be learnt from this experience. If we have a nuclear industry, we have a moral responsibility to cope with the effects of the industry. If we have a defence policy that is based upon a nuclear deterrent, we have a moral obligation to ensure that the basic industry of society is not damaged as a result of any prospect of nuclear fission. We have failed in that moral responsibility.
2.6 am
Sir Anthony Meyer: First, I must pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for having raised this important matter at this hour of the morning. It is a fortunate coincidence that the announcement of effective measures of compensation should have been made so shortly before the debate. I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best), who has fought valiantly for the interests of sheep farmers in his constituency and throughout north Wales.
The crisis has moved further along the coast to the east and it affects parts of my constituency and parts of the constituencies of my parliamentary neighbours. There is a serious problem, particularly that of cash flow. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn was right to lay stress on the need for interim payments to tide farmers over a awkward period.
I was rather disappointed when this issue arose during Welsh questions. It is wrong to say that it has not been
752
covered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales because we rushed through Welsh questions so that he could—
Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Anthony Meyer: I would rather not give way because I want to bring my remarks to an end as quickly as I can.
The problem has extended geographically to the east and to those who are connected with agriculture, especially to abattoirs, as well as sheep farmers. One of the few EEC standard abbattoirs in the area is the St. Asaph abattoir at Waen, which is run by Mr. Dewi Jones. It has been hit seriously by the dramatic fall in the number of sheep coming forward and the prices which have been paid. I was rather dismayed when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seemed to imply when I raised this matter at Welsh questions that if I wanted to talk about others being compensated apart from sheep farmers it would be better if I shut up. Undoubtedly, hardship has been extended to butchers and many others. Substantial losses have been incurred and these clearly deserve to be treated seriously.
It is important that the Government make a contribution to promote the sale of lamb. They must convince the public that it is one of the most delicious forms of food and one of the easiest to cook, as well as being one of the most readily available.
2.9 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Mark Robinson): I echo the words that have been uttered by several hon. Members in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for taking this opportunity to allow us to discuss the position of sheep farmers following the introduction of restrictions on the movement and slaughter of sheep in some parts of Britain. I welcome the participation of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie), who has given us a salutary reminder that we are discussing a problem that is not confined to Wales. It is one which has affected many parts of the United Kingdom.
The restrictions were imposed as soon as there was evidence of radioactivity levels in sheepmeat high enough to cause concern should they enter the food chain. Ever since the Chernobyl radioactive cloud passed over this country, an intensive monitoring programme has taken place to ensure that there is no danger from eating food as a consequence of any contamination. We have not been slow. I say to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) that we were dealing with an entirely new position. We have a responsibility to strike the right balance to ensure that there was no unnecessary alarm through hasty and ill-informed information or misinformation.
Monitoring of meat samples taken in mid-May showed increasing levels of contamination when the results of the tests became available a few days later. Further tests to varify the results were undertaken on lambs which had yet to enter the food chain. Following consultation with the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology a decision was taken on 20 June to impose the restrictions, using powers in the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. The effect of our action was to prevent any contaminated meat being on sale in the country's shops which might give rise to concern.
I should say to the hon. Member for Caernarfon that, in terms of the food chain, no samples have been found

753
above 1,000 becquerels. Our action was to prevent any contaminated meat on sale which might give rise to concern. In the circumstances, the action that the Government took was the most expedient that could have been taken. Monitoring of lamb in Wales proceeded alongside that in other parts of the United Kingdom and from the same time.
Mr. Wigley: Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to the question that, although the samples that were taken in Cumbria on 14 May were found radioactive, no samples were taken in Wales until 2 June?
Mr. Robinson: We took samples at the first opportunity. We moved as swiftly as we could to get the results we needed. We do not believe that any action we took has delayed the decisions that it was necessary for us to take.
I turn to the important issue raised tonight—the views of the farmers. The action that the Government have taken in protecting the consumer has had the full backing of the agricultural industry. That is worth recording.
I am sure that the House will wish to acknowledge the co-operation that has been given in these difficult circumstances by the farmers' unions. This was made clear to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales in his meeting with the farming unions on 7 July and again in his meetings with the NFU, the FUW and the Country Landowners Association at the Royal Welsh Agricultural Society show on Tuesday this week. I had the opportunity of listening to their representations on my visit to the show yesterday.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) paid tribute to my right hon. Friend for his part in trying to resolve the difficult problems. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the hard work that he has done on behalf of his constituents in advocating their cause.
Those who represent the agricultural industry have made it clear that the difficulties that their members are experiencing are a direct consequence of the restrictions that were imposed. But never once had the decision to impose the restrictions been queried. The hon. Member for Caernarfon emphasised that.
The suggestions that the unions have made on how to deal with problems which farmers now face have been of great assistance to the Government in clarifying the action that is being taken to minimise any adverse consequences. They have helped my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to reach the decisions which were announced today.
I now turn to the question of the de-restriction of areas. Since the measures were first imposed, every effort has been made to reduce the areas affected. This initially covered 5,100 holdings in north Wales and some 2 million sheep. But we soon decided, on the basis of further test results, that that could be reduced. About 2,610 holdings are included in the areas de-restricted.
I am pleased to report that at midnight tonight—in the House's terms — a new order came into effect to release a further part of Anglesey, which is in my hon. Friend's constituency; part of the Conwy Valley; the coastal strip between Barmouth and Criccieth; part of Gwynedd between the A4085 and the B4418 roads; an area west of Corwen on the boundary between Gwynedd and Clwyd; and a small area north of Montgomery. That represents an additional 630 holdings in north Wales
754
containing some 180,000 sheep. Thus, to date well over half of those holdings and sheep originally affected in Wales have been released.
Much has been said about the availability of information. The farming community and the public at large have been kept fully informed of the results of our testing programme. Farmers whose sheep have been used for testing are informed of the results as quickly as possible. The test results have been published at regular intervals and copies placed in the Library of the House. No one would wish the restrictions on areas to be retained for one day longer than necessary. It will not have escaped the notice of hon. Members that we have amended the area in each of the past four weeks. We will, of course, continue to take every opportunity to contrive to do so, but this can only be done in a manner that is consistent with ensuring that it is safe to remove these restrictions. That has been our guideline all along.
We recognised from the outset that an over-rigid ban on the movement and slaughter of sheep would cause difficulties. That is another point which has been raised by more than one hon. Member. Accordingly, we have established a system whereby farmers can be issued a licence to move their sheep where, for example, the sheep need to be dipped. Farmers who have not already done so and who wish to obtain the necessary movement authority should apply to their local Welsh Office divisional agricultural offices which will consider each case on its merits. I pay tribute to the co-operation that we have received not only from farmers but from those who run livestock markets and slaughterhouses for their help in achieving the objective of the restrictions.
Perhaps the key issue in the debate has been compensation. I understand the strongly held views which have been put forward. The Government recognised at the outset that the restrictions would impose a burden on the farming community. Hon. Members will have welcomed the statement about the terms of compensation for losses that may be incurred, made today by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Before we could make this announcement, we needed firm evidence about the precise nature of the problems posed by over-fat lambs in comparison with those prevailing in normal conditions. Close scrutiny of marketings from areas released from restrictions initially show little increase in the proportion of over-fat lambs being marketed. This is in part due to the lateness of the season and in part to the expert husbandry of affected farmers in retaining the quality of their stock under difficult conditions. The longer the restrictions apply, however, the greater the difficulties likely to be experienced. It is because of this that the Government have now acceped that farmers who were prevented by the restrictions from marketing finished lambs at the usual time may have a higher proportion than normal rejected for variable premium because they have become over-fat, and that these animals may also attract lower than average prices in the market. The Government will be prepared to meet such losses where they have been sustained and can be substantiated.
I should very much like to answer some of the points of detail as to how compensation will be managed, but I am not in a position to do so, for one very good reason — we have taken the decision that we shall consult urgently with the farmers' unions to hear from them how

755
they think this can best be done. The importance of doing that is illustrated by the comments of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I have, of course, taken careful note of the points raised by the hon. Members for Caernarfon and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon. I assure them that we shall be coming forward with details as soon as we can.
We believe that that consultation is extremely important.
Mr. Best: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will urgently take to his right hon. Friend the Minister the message that there is a need for some interim compensation for those farmers still remaining within the ban who are suffering such severe cash flow problems?
Mr. Robinson: I have listened to that point, which has been made by several hon. Members. I shall, of course, carry it back to my right hon. Friend.
The Government recognise also that farmers could face difficulties if it is found necessary to continue the restrictions to an extent which prevents them from moving store lambs and draft and cull ewes off their holdings at the normal time. We hope that it may prove possible to devise arrangements under which such movements could be permitted, subject to suitable restrictions to ensure that the animals concerned could not enter the food chain until it was wholly safe for them to do so. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that this course is in every way preferable to a slaughter policy which has been urged in some quarters.
Mr. Corrie: Where the main market for the whole region happens to be in an affected area and breeding stock is coming in from surrounding areas, will that stock be able to go in to the market and then go back out again, or will the market be shut?
Mr. Robinson: I shall take note of that point and write to my hon. Friend with the details. It is an important point. Having talked about getting information right, I want to ensure that I do so.
The farmers' unions have drawn our attention to the fact that some of the farmers concerned are already being
756
faced with extra expenditure. We shall be holding urgent discussions with the unions about that problem and about what compensation might be appropriate to cover the direct losses which the farmers concerned may thereby incur.
No one would have wished these restrictions on the sheep farmer, but, faced with the effects of contamination on lambs in particular, there has been general agreement to the restrictions which the Government imposed to protect the public and to ensure that lamb in our shops is safe to eat. The farmers have accepted it. The public have responded to the security which our decision offered and the demand for lamb is now of such buoyancy that I am almost forced to observe, "The proof of the pudding really is in the eating."
Of course concerns have been expressed about the time taken to release areas, but the fact is that the area under restriction in Wales has by today's derestrictions been reduced by over half. I can assure the hon. Member For Caernarfon that we shall continue to test intensively in order to reduce the areas affected further as quickly as possible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have pledged to publish all information as it becomes available.
There have been some alarmist reports that continued restriction may be necessary for another six months. On the basis of the scientific advice now available, I can say that that seems unlikely.
We shall continue to listen to the views of the industry on how best to impart more flexibility into the controls we have imposed in order to lessen the strains experienced, especially by the producer of fat and store lambs on the hills.
One other point which concerns us, which we are looking into and which has been raised tonight is the difficulty of silage and the testing that needs to be done. I discussed that with the Farmers Union of Wales yesterday.
I believe that we have demonstrated by our announcements today our determination to do all we can to alleviate the immediate difficulties of the sheep farmer while this difficult situation persists.

Gipsies
2.22 am
Sir John Biggs-Davison: I intend no attack upon true gipsies. In common with other hon. Members I have a great respect and regard for Romanies. I have long thought that if there was any abomination more vile than Hitler's final solution for Jewry, it was the Nazi extermination of gipsies. Alas, they have had few to speak for them or to demand restitution.
The undesirable and resented itinerants now in Chigwell Row in my constituency, for example, are not Romanies. They travel in expensive caravans drawn by expensive cars. They will tarmac one's drive and they may threaten people who will not do business with them. I wonder what taxes and rates they pay and where. Sometimes they obtain milk tokens for their children and other social benefits.
I am speaking for my constituents, but their affliction is similar to that of the constituents of other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) has asked to be associated with the tenor of my remarks. In Chigwell Row, this summer has been a season of misery and fear. Primary schoolchildren have needed police protection. Some have been assaulted by the children of the itinerants who are as prone to stone-throwing as children in the worst parts of Belfast. Intimidated shopkeepers close when the so-called gipises approach. The proprietor of the Sunnymede garage chased some who stole fuel from his forecourt. The primary school, the shops, the garage and many homes, including my constituency base, abut on the lovely stretch of Hainault forest where they are encamped. It forms part of the ancient common of Lambourne which as incorporated into the statute of 1903 charmingly entitled: The Hainault (Land Fox Burrows and Grange Hill) Act. This created
"an open space forever for recreational purposes."
The Act is now a mockery. The intruding caravans are not parked to one side, but sprawled across the open space, denying it to my constituents, their children and to visitors from London and elsewhere. The whole tract is befouled with itinerants' rubbish and worse, and their generators keep children awake until a late hour. They are a lawless, insanitary, frightening, thieving band. No wonder the church hall was crowded on Monday when I attended a meeting of indignation. It was easy to obtain 629 signatures for a petition against the invasion.
So far this year there have been five applications to the county court at Ilford for eviction. Grange Farm has suffered two invasions. It sounds like a war. The Epping Forest district council has barricaded Grange Farm with huge mounds of earth. There have also been two invasions at Chigwell Row recreation ground and it, too, has been fortified with a ditch. But when a group of travellers was evicted in execution of a court order, it moved 200 yards up the road to that part of Hainault forest to which I have referred. To gain access to the forest, it filled in the roadside ditch with rubble and tarmac.
Since the demise of the Greater London council, which used to run it, this part of the forest comes under Essex county council, and today that authority applied in court for an order in its turn. But what guarantee can there be against further trespass on the recreation ground in this nightmare merry-go-round? The itinerants might move a
758
short distance, perhaps to the London borough of Redbridge or Havering, while still threatening and plaguing the people of Chigwell Row.
The byelaws of Hainault Forest lapsed when the GLC was abolished. Now three authorities are concerned, Essex county council, Epping Forest district council and the council of the London borough of Redbridge. This divided responsibility is a gift to the intruders. I have the honour of being president of the Friends of Hainault Forest, and with the support of the Epping Forest district council I took a deputation of Friends of Hainault forest to ask my noble Friend Lord Elton to endeavour to bring about a single unified management under the appropriate body, as it seemed to us, the conservators of Epping Forest, the City of London Corporation. It has the expertise and both Hainault and Epping forest used to form part of the great forest of Essex. Under the Epping Forest Act 1903, there is the great advantage that if one takes a vehicle more than 10 m into the forest, one has committed an offence. I should like to revive with my hon. Friend the Minister the proposal we have made to Lord Elton.
Meanwhile, to add to all the complications, the boundary between the Metropolitan police district and the jurisdiction of the Essex police bisects Hainault forest. I am told that there is no procedure for a county court to provide for a group of travellers to be handed from one police jurisdiction to another, although our local police, to whom I pay tribute, would not be unwilling so to act, if authorised.
I also give credit to Epping Forest district council, which has acted vigorously, but its scope is limited. The district has not yet been designated under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. Essex county council supports its application for designation, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend will assure me that the Secretary of State will move promptly when he receives the request for designation. A weakness of the Caravan Sites Act—the work of Lord Avebury, a Liberal—is that caravan sites are not only for true gipsies but others of nomadic habits. I do not know whether it would be feasible or desirable, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister would consider a form of registration for bona fide travellers.
Epping Forest district council has a gipsy camp site not far away in Stamford Rivers, but it is crowded. If resort to this irresponsible, freebooting life is not checked, there will be new peace convoys and reinforcements for the itinerants of Chigwell Row, who recently received a passing group—it did not stay long, I am glad to say—who were described to me as Algerians. I am informed that such invasions would be impossible in the Federal Republic of Germany, where the law is based on the principle of hausrecht and no one may go into or on to a citizen's property without his permission.
On 23 June, I was glad to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General tell the House that the Home Secretary was,
"discussing with the police and other interested parties whether any strengthening of the law is required, either by extending the proposed powers of the police in the Public Order Bill or by some limited offence of criminal trespass. The Lord Chancellor is considering possible improvements in the civil procedure for the summary repossession of land available under order 113 of the Rules of the Supreme Court."
The Attorney-General was asked:
"Why has not the simple remedy available to owners of residential property to deal with squatters, which was

759
provided in the Criminal Law Act 1977, been extended to the residential occupation of land?"—[Official Report, 23 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 14.]
He replied that it was being investigated by the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary.
Speaking in Bristol earlier this month, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said:
"We have agreed on a proposal which we will be putting to Parliament which will not criminalise trespass in general, but will, I hope, fill the gap."
He said t hat one option being considered was that it might form part of the Public Order Bill.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, especially since she knows the subject intimately. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) for listening to the debate. I realise that some of the points I have made are not for the Department of the Environment but for the Home Oftice, so in conclusion I ask my hon. Friend whether she would be kind enough to ask the Home Secretary to complete the discussions that he described to the House as soon as possible, and announce a programme of firm action early in the new Session of Parliament.
2.33 am
Mr. Greg Knight: I am here at this late hour to contribute briefly to the debate and to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) for raising an important subject which, at one time or other, will have touched on most hon. Members' interests. From time to time, we have all experienced problems with itinerants.
I emphasise the word "itinerants", because, as my hon. Friend said, genuine gipsies rarely cause trouble. In my experience, the true gipsy often does not give cause for offence at all. It is the tinker, the itinerant, the person who has no regard for the property of others, who causes difficulty.
My hon. Friend opened his speech by asking a question. He wondered what taxes these people pay. Perhaps he will forgive me if I answer the question for him. Invariably the answer is that they do not pay any taxes at all. I refer not only to matters like income tax, but many of the vehicles of these itinerant people do not display valid excise licences. In Derby, particularly in the Stores road area, there have been problems with rubbish being deposited and nuisance being caused. What irritates the law-abiding citizen most is to find on examination that many of the vehicles used by these itinerants are, indeed, untaxed and do not display excise licences.
What is to be done about the problem? My hon. Friend touched upon one difficulty. Derby — like his area, I believe—is not designated under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. Clearly the police have inadequate powers to deal with the problems. However, even when an area is designated, I feel that the police do not have sufficient powers to deal with the problem. This has been highlighted in recent months by the case of the hippy convoy, which moved from one area to another. Even when an area was designated, it was found that the police, in many instances, could only look on and wait to see whether any public order offences were committed, but they did not have adequate powers to move the itinerants off the land in question.
The remedy, I think most people would say, is for the police to be given increased powers. I welcome the comment of the Home Secretary that he is looking at ways
760
in the next Session of Parliament to give the police greater powers. I do not share the hesitation of some hon. Members who say that we should not criminalise the law of trespass. I think that a distinction can be made. First, there is the innocent trespasser, the person who is going hiking, a member of a cycling club or a person taking a group of boy scouts into the country. Here every trespass that the landowner finds offensive tends to be transient only. If the person concerned is confronted by the landowner and asked to move on, invariably he and his group will do so without any argument or delay. Problems have arisen with groups of travelling itinerants because they know they are trespassing and have no intention of moving on; the landowner can plead with them to go, but they will remain because they know that the law is inadequate and that no effective sanctions can be taken against them.
I therefore hope that, when the Home Secretary considers the matter, he will decide to frame legislation sufficiently tough to enable the police to ensure that those who deliberately disobey the wishes of the landowner can not only be properly prosecuted but that the police can have an immediate power of arrest and dispossession.
There is a debate going on at present in the city of Derby in which the city council and the county council disagree. The Derbyshire county council wishes to designate a gipsy site in the Chequers lane area of Derby. The Derby city council disagrees with the proposals, have received many complaints from residents near the Chequers lane area in respect of this matter. I back the city council in its objection to the county council proposals.
I do not wish to enlarge on this now because I understand that in due course the Minister will have to make a decision on the matter. However, will the Minister confirm that when an area is seeking designation a gipsy site does not have to be within that district? In other words, can a district achieve designation by being served by a gipsy site near to its area?
I believe that to be the position. If so, the city of Derby could obtain designation under the Caravan Sites Act without a gipsy site being found within the boundary of the city. Provided that a site is found nearby, that, I gather, is sufficient to enable the city to be designated. That is important for an urban area in which most of the available land is already built on. It is often difficult, perhaps impossible, in such an area to find a suitable place to designate a site for gipsies, whereas nearby there may be a considerable amount of available open land which could be so used for the area.
I will not develop that point further tonight. I hope that the views of the city council and of myself will prevail in Derby and that the Chequers lane area will not be used as a gipsy site. I also hope that during the lifetime of this Parliament steps will be taken to give the police greater power to arrest people who deliberately flout the wishes of landowners and who cause suffering, nuisance and annoyance to ratepayers, taxpayers and residents.
2.42 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) for giving the House the opportunity to debate this subject, which has taken on an even greater importance than it had in the past, partly because of the activities of the so-called peace convoy, and partly because

761
an increasing number of local authorities and hon. Members have experience of the as yet unresolved problem of accommodating gipsies in the manner in which my hon. Friend identified in Hainault forest.
I am aware of the problems in his constituency that my hon. Friend outlined, as he drew my attention to them yesterday. I shall deal in some detail at the outset with the problems to which he referred, particularly as I wish to refer to the action that is to be taken to try to remove that particularly unsightly encampment. I understand that Essex county council, which owns the land, has agreed to take eviction proceedings.
On the abolition of the GLC, Hainault forest was transferred, under the main property transfer order, to Essex county council, Havering borough council and Redbridge borough council, each council receiving a portion of park within its boundary. I understand that good relations exist between the three councils in the management of the park and that there is a one-year operational agreement in force under which the London borough of Redbridge manages the whole park, with financial contributions from the other authorities. I also understand that this management agreement, which is amicable, is likely to be extended for a further year.
In the meantime, those councils are in the process of drawing up a formal management and operating agreement for the long term. To do that, the councils have established a working party, the main task of which will be to draw up a management plan for the forest. My hon. Friend pointed out that he is president of the Friends of Hainault Forest. Members of that group are on the working party.
Essex county council is at present taking proceedings to evict the group of unpleasant people to whom my hon. Friend referred, at the request of Redbridge council, which is the manager. There may have been some difficult initial demarcation problems about which authorities should take action, and it is said that there could be a problem over who should clean up the mess—which I understand would be extensive — after any eviction. Redbridge council assures me that it does not acknowledge that there is a dispute, and Essex county council officials have not mentioned any dispute. When eventually an application is made for a proper designation site, I hope that this will be taken up swiftly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
In his opening remarks my hon. Friend mentioned that he was not referring to the genuine Romany. There is a very long history in my constituency of Romanies, many of whom are now part of the indigenous population and resident there. Therefore, I know exactly what my hon. Friend is talking about. If these individuals can show that they are truly of the nomadic way of life that is referred to in the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and if they can satisfy the other requirements of residing in or resorting to a particular authority's area, it is for that authority to consider the facts and decide whether an appropriate place can be provided for them on one of its sites.
It is difficult to define a gipsy, and it is often suggested that the definition is too wide. We are looking at the various suggestions and we are trying to keep an open mind about the various definitions. Hon. Members will hardly need to be reminded that this topic has arisen over and over again. It was examined thoroughly in the Cripps
762
study of 1976. More recently it was examined in a booklet that was published by my Department entitled "Defining a Gypsy." In neither case was it found possible to suggest a better or more watertight definition than the one in the Act.
The long-standing problem of the so-called long-distance travellers undoubtedly causes a great deal of complaint. My hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest and for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) pointed out that these are mostly of the tinker group of gipsies, and the complaints generally related to the fact that they tend to move more widely and in larger groups. This is because they cannot readily avail themselves of vacant pitches on existing sites or because, by reason of the composition and movement patterns of these groups, they do not want such sites and tend to occupy car parks, factory land, amenity open space or any other handy site — very often in locations such as Hainault forest which are entirely unsuitable.
We have tried to solve this problem by inviting suggestions as to how proper transit sites might be provided, but so far we have met with very little response. We shall not give up the search and we shall return to the issue as part of the present policy review. In the meantime, local authorities and communities are having to put up with problems of lawlessness and anti-social behaviour which nobody should have to tolerate. There are great problems, as hon. Members will already know. We have to take on board more than just simple words in our endeavour to alleviate the problems that gipsies create while they are on site and the problems that they leave behind them.
In recent years, a couple of important measures have been taken to help authorities with their responsibilities under the Caravan Sites Act. In 1980 we gave statutory coverage to a system of Exchequer capital grants towards the cost of establishing local authority gipsy sites. In the ordinary way, grant is 100 per cent. of approved cost. In the last few years we have seen a marked improvement in the pace at which sites have been provided, but I regret to say that last year's figures show some slackening of the pace. We believe that we have made adequate Vote provision —£5 million— this year to meet claims from local authorities, and we need to see a sustained effort on the part of authorities to bring suitable projects forward.
We have also recently carried out an internal overhaul of the procedures for dealing with grant applications, which simplified the process of approving grants for worthwhile schemes and set more realistic cost levels. I know that some authorities think, even now, that we have not gone far enough, and that the system of capital allocations still puts a strain on local resources, so lessening their resolve to deal with the problem. We are taking a hard look at that.
Another important change in 1980 was the extension of the system of designation to districts, or groups of districts, instead of just counties or London boroughs. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North asked whether an area could be designated if it was served by a site in an adjacent area. My right hon. Friend must be satisfied that adequate provision is made in the area to be designated or that it is not necessary or expedient to make such a provision. We will consider any case that is put to us on its merits. The Act requires the county and the district to apply for designation jointly.

763
We think that the prospect of eventual designation is an important factor in the thinking of local authorities when preparing their gipsy site programmes. It is not popular with all gipsy interests, but the purpose is widely understood. Designation gives local authorities powers to control unauthorised encampments on highway land, unoccupied land or occupied land when the owner's consent is withheld. We know that that is an important incentive to provide adequate sites. The incentive is that, when there is a designated site, the local authority can take out an injunction for early movement from elsewhere. Designation does not deal with all circumstances, but it deals with the most common. Although it is not a completely satisfactory solution, authorities welcome it.
It is always difficult to choose good examples of the system helping to alleviate difficult circumstances. The problems will vary, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest would like to reflect on the fact that Kent had a great deal of difficulty some time ago dealing with its gipsies. As a result of the county and district councils jointly tackling the problem and providing sites, and the rewards of designation, there are some 15 sites in the county, which offer 213 pitches for gipsy caravans. Five districts in Kent are designated and others are seeking designation. There are some lessons to be learnt from that experience.
Both my hon. Friends mentioned the measures that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering to provide an appropriate means of dealing with such incidents as recently occurred in the Somerset and Hampshire venture of the hippy convoy. He is looking for some method which ensures that proper action is taken against such people. The House knows that the Caravan Sites Act 1968 is about providing authorised accommodation for gipsies, and appropriate and clearly defined measures of control. That represents, in the Government's view, a balanced package of measures and that is the course that we expect local authorities to follow in controlling unauthorised gipsy encampments.
In all other respects, gipsies are subject to the same requirements to be law-abiding as any other member of the community and it is right that they should attract the due attentions of the police and the courts when they flagrantly flout normal standards of behaviour by committing acts of wanton vandalism or threatening behaviour, such as my hon. Friend described, or, indeed, when they refuse to license their vehicles, which my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North mentioned.
It is for that reason that I am particularly pleased that the subject has been brought to the attention of the House this evening. I hope that it will highlight the strong feelings among the general public about the necessity to ensure that the activities of gipsies and travellers are more particularly looked at by the police in order to protect the homes and bodily safety of the general public. We may need to emphasise to the police that they are responsible for caring for the safety of people and their homes in the face of possible attack by itinerants.
Means are already available to deal with some of these acts of violence, damage and tax evasion. Where there is a threat of a breach of the peace or an act of criminal damage, the police have powers to take action, including powers to enter on private land and to make arrests. In the
764
Public Order Bill there is a provision to deal with those who threaten violence or who behave in a disorderly manner likely to cause alarm, harassment or distress. I know that one of the problems is catching the culprits. It is all very well to have the measures, but if people cannot be caught they do not help much.
It is relevant that there are provisions in section 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to deal with some of the difficulties. For example, if there has been an offence and the police reasonably believe that a suspect has given a false identity or address, or that the subsequent service of a summons will be impractical, they have power to arrest. That may well be of use in dealing with some of the road traffic offences which are not usually arrestable offences, committed by itinerants.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for those matters, as well as trespass and he has said that a new power is under consideration which will enable police to act when trespass occurs on land in the sort of circumstances that arose in connection with the land farmed by the unfortunate Mr. Attwell, with whose case I am sure my hon. Friends are familiar.
As many hon. Members may already be aware, the outline of the new power was signalled in a recent debate in another place. It would contain the following elements: entry as a trespasser with a refusal to leave on request, coupled with a risk of causing serious damage to property and harassment or intimidation of the lawful occupier. Such an offence would arise in certain limited circumstances which my right hon. Friend is at present considering. This action takes further the undertaking that was given to the House by my right hon. Friend on 3 June, when he said that, if further changes to the law beyond those then in prospect were needed, they would be introduced. I hope that hon. Members will accept that action is in hand to deal with the problems in a practical fashion and in a way that will not create problems for legitimate users of the countryside and other groups whose interests should he protected.
It will certainly not have escaped my hon. Friend's notice that some suggest that people such as those in the peace convoy should be provided with special sites. However, the Government do not accept that that is either necessary or desirable. We doubt whether such groups would use them. In the summer their habit is usually to attend events such as the summer solstice, and providing a site would not do anything to stop the unlawful camping that usually results. One needs to separate the itinerant tinkers who cause a great deal of damage throughout the year from the special groups who come up from time to time during the summer for a quite different purpose.
I hope that I have managed as adequately as I can to cover the points that have been raised. If I have left points out it is possible that we shall return to the matter at another time. We shall report as soon as we can on the operation of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 in the light of the policy review that we are conducting. If any hon. Members have matters to raise with me or with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, they should write and say what the matters are. I am grateful to have had an opportunity to speak in the debate. I trust that these matters will not lie in abeyance much longer.

British Rail Engineering
3 am
Mr. Michael J. Martin: Before we rise for the recess I am glad to have this opportunity to highlight the serious problems in British Rail engineering workshops. For the assistance of the Minister, I should point out that some of my remarks would be better addressed to the Secretary of State for Scotland and his Under-Secretary of State the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who is responsible for employment in Scotland. I hope that the Minister will pass on those parts of my speech that are appropriate to them.
I recently headed a delegation of councillors, youth leaders and people in tenants' associations in Springburn to the Scottish Office. One of my colleagues on that delegation and the longest-serving councillor on the regional council, Mr. Patrick Trainer, made a valid point. He said that even if the British Railway workshops in Springburn were working at full capacity with some 3,000 workers, the number that they had in the good old days, Springburn would still have a serious unemployment problem.
At present, over 8,000 people in my constituency are out of work. In the Keppochill ward adjacent to the railway workshop 1,800 people are out of work and 59 per cent. of the people unemployed in that ward have been out of work for over a year. Over 50 per cent. of unemployed people in the constituency as a whole have been out of work for over a year. The picture throughout the six district council wards in my constituency is serious.
I know that the Minister will say that which he has said in the past, that he leaves the policy decisions and the day-to-day running of the workshops to BREL. That is too easy an option for any Minister to adopt. The Minister, like me and like every hon. Member, is keen to see an upturn in the economy, and in our different ways we are all trying to achieve that. If there is to be an upturn in the economy—and I hope and pray that there will be—one of the things we shall need is a sound industrial engineering base. We will not be able to cope with such an upturn if we lose our engineering workshops.
Mr. Greg Knight: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Is not the main problem in the British Rail engineering workshops the reduction in the maintenance work as British Rail has progressed from diesel traction to electric traction and from Mk 2 to Mk 3 coaches? It is very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that he is worried about jobs. We are all worried about jobs, but if the maintenance required in those workshops is reduced, surely it follows that the number of people required to carry out that maintenance will also be reduced. I am little puzzled about why a number of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues voted against the Channel Tunnel Bill, because that project would provide many hundreds of millions of pounds worth of work, particularly in the midlands, and would give British Rail the greatest opportunity it has had this century.
Mr. Martin: I am not an expert on the Channel tunnel, but if the Channel tunnel is the greatest thing since sliced bread and will bring employment, perhaps there is a case for keeping a railway workshop. If a workshop is capable of repairing and maintaining railways, it is capable of building new railways and of diversifying to other engineering.
766
It is argued that the Government will bring about an upturn in the economy. We shall be in trouble if workshops are not able to cope with the work that that upturn will create.
It would be false economy to send all the work to Derby, York and Crewe and, for a limited period, to Wolverton. BREL says that the new locomotives and stock will require less maintenance because of the new methods. But the best laid plans of mice and men often go wrong. I know from my engineering background that machinery which manufacturers say will not need major repair does need it.
BREL is making a serious mistake which could have repercussions for the country in terms of a major transport programme if every repair job has to travel at least 300 miles to a workshop.
The Government are looking to the core workshops to put together a package to sell off BREL to the private sector. That is shortsighted. Are the Government serious about looking after the economy? It would be dangerous for stock to have to travel 300 miles for repair and for the Government to sell BREL to a company which, after five minutes, will throw promises into Ministers' faces. The Secretary of State for Scotland can testify to that.
Another shocking indictment of the Government is that they have given approval for Strathclyde regional council to spend money on the refurbishment of urban trains in the Strathclyde passenger executive area. I have no complaint about giving the council that power, but the Government will not give any assurances to Strathclyde that the work will be carried out in the Springburn railway workshops.
The first phase of that repair work has already been carried out, and I understand that it has been done to the satisfaction of the Strathclyde passenger transport executive. It is, therefore, galling that because of the consequences of BREL's decision this local authority will have to cope with increased unemployment and will have to try to bring industry into the area, despite the fact that it wants to place the order with BREL.
Next to British Rail, Strathclyde is BREL's second largest customer, yet it has been told that there is a possibility that the work will go to Wolverton. That is ridiculous because millions of pounds of Strathclyde ratepayers' money—over and above the money that will be put in by Government — will go into this project. Everyone in Strathclyde hoped that the work would go to the Springburn railway workshops, yet BREL has said that it will go to Wolverton, which is not even a main core works. It is similar to Springburn in that the workshops there are being run down. That is ridiculous. The Minister should intervene to do something about this. Surely he will give the Springburn work force the dignity of carrying out work that has been initiated by their own local authority. After all, they are all ratepayers of that authority.
BREL has said that it does not wish to hold on to the Springburn works, and is making arrangements to allow ScotRail to convert those works into a repair depot. I get the feeling that if it were not for the wheel shop and the heavy lifting equipment, we would be talking about the complete closure of those works.
A maximum of 200 jobs will be created as a result of the ScotRail project. I say "maximum" because no one has been specific. All we have been told is that up to 200 jobs will be created. It could be anything from 100 to 200. If the 1,700 jobs at Springburn cannot be saved, surely the

767
Minister can tell BREL to put on its thinking cap and to create something more than the miserly 200 jobs that have been mentioned. Surely it is not beyond the wit of BREL to provide more than 200 jobs in a community that has given generations of hard work to the railway industry.
BREL has set up a holding company, of which great play has been made. During the Adjournment debate that I initiated, the Minister encouraged the shop stewards to co-operate as much as possible with the initiatives that BREL was introducing —a move that he claimed had been successful in other parts of the country. Although in a PR context, BREL has played this holding company to the hilt, it has produced no jobs except one for the manager, who came from Springburn, anyway. The only other jobs created were that of the manager's secretary and one or two support staff. I may be wrong, but certainly that was the situation two weeks ago, before the workshop broke up for the Glasgow fair holidays. Something may have happened during the holiday period, but I doubt it.
If BREL is serious about its initiative to create a holding company it should come forward and tell us its plans. How many jobs does BREL intend to create with the money it has made available? It is unfair to claim that there is a holding company — the months are ticking away—when nothing seems to be happening other than one member of the staff being lodged in a part of the company's premises.
I have previously mentioned that on 14 July, a delegation met the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I want to put on record that we were received most courteously by the Minister and his civil servants. Every member of that delegation, including myself, felt it was a constructive meeting, especially since the Minister agreed to a Springburn initiative. Before the first world war Springburn was a borough on its own and the delegation believe that it if it was a town in its own right like Clydebank, Greenock, Port Glasgow or Kilmarnock, Ministers would be more inclined to sit up and consider what is happening in that community. We are proud of belonging to Glasgow, but we are at a disadvantage because we are lost in the Glasgow scene. The serious situation in Springburn is not clear.
The Minister has agreed to a major initiative which will start with a meeting of Strathclyde regional council, Glasgow district council and the Scottish Development Agency. I would be keen for BREL to take part in those meetings. I have not counted the acreage of the Glasgow work site, but it is immense. The acreage is both covered and uncovered. Only a quarter of it will be required by ScotRail. The remaining three quarters of the site will be free, but it will still be in the hands of BREL. It is important for BREL to play a constructive role in the work of a Springburn initiative. I am keen to see it think again about the 200 jobs, but there must be about 600 more jobs even after the announcements. Even if there were a standstill and no further redundancies, there are 600 jobs still to be found, or lost, in the area. I should not like to see BREL, or the holding company that is created, going in one direction and the Government and local government agencies going in another. I want to see every resource that we have available to create work being utilised to the full. I hope that the Minister takes that on board and conveys the message to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I am proud that I served an engineering apprenticeship. If an employer had not been prepared to take me on as an
768
apprentice, I would not have the skill that I have today. The Government stated that the youth training scheme has been extended and that it will now run for two years. The one-year scheme was the subject of a great deal of exploitation and I do not think that that can be denied. A two-year YTS cannot replace a proper, recognised apprenticeship, but I hope that the Government will take every opportunity to ensure that boys and girls who are involved in the two-year schemes are given the best training possible. If there is an upturn in the economy, at least these people will have a skill that they will be able to use in later years, not, I hope, too many years hence.
A training school at Springburn was opened in 1979. Indeed, I was present when it was opened. It was able to cope with several hundred apprentices who had been taken on by BREL, Springburn. In recent years no apprentices have been taken on. The school has turning lathes, drills, workbenches, welding equipment and all the various pieces of equipment required in the course of training apprentices from start to finish, from first year to fourth year. It is a public scandal that the padlock remains in place and no one is using the school's facilities. There are workshop facilities and proper washing, toilet and changing facilities and lockers.
If the Minister is not prepared to take the responsibility for the school, his colleagues who are responsible for manpower services should do something to ensure that it is used for the purpose for which it was built.
I live in Springburn and it is a proud community. Our spirit is by no means broken because of the redundancies. We do not want to dwell in the past, although we have a proud one in engineering. We were the railway engineering capital of the world at one time. Despite the unemployment problem, we still feel that we have many positive factors in our favour. We have an excellent motorway system. We are to the north end of the city arid in 10 minutes by car we can be in the most beautiful countryside in the world. Glasgow offers first-class facilities, such as the Burrell collection, the Scottish National Orchestra, and the Scottish Opera. Most major chain stores have branches in Glasgow.
Springburn must be sold to potential employers, both at home and abroad. Everyone in the community has a responsibility. I can say that tenants' associations, community leaders, clergymen, elected Members, and myself, will give every encouragement to anyone from the Minister's Department or any other Department who considers the area in that respect. We have excellent sites for employment. I hope that the Minister will give a commitment to get initiative into a community that has served railway transport well over many years.
3.25 am
Mr. Conal Gregory: I am proud to represent the fine railway city of York. Some 8,000 of my electors who live and work in the city of York are employed by British Rail. British Rail Engineering Ltd, employing some 3,000 people, is a major employer in the area. The restructured business groups formed in April this year—York with Crewe, Derby Litchurch Lane, Derby Locomotive and Horwich foundry — will concentrate on new product construction for local and overseas customers, as well as heavy overhaul and component repairs for British Rail.
The work force looks forward to developing its design expertise, rather than adopting a hand-down position as occurred with British Rail. The decision to form a separate

769
business group—the other is for maintenance and light repair of rolling stock—was prompted by the need for British Rail Engineering to respond more effectively to outside markets, as well as British Rail's new build and maintenance requirements.
Many hon. and right hon. Members will have had an opportunity this week of reading British Rail's annual report. That report declared that BREL had responded to the challenge of an independent future by creating programmes for new product development and export activities. It is appropriate that we place on record praise for BREL's deliveries over the past year. I do not see the doom and gloom for that company that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) suggested.
In the past year that the hon. Gentleman tried to gloss over, BREL has meant 100 sprinter vehicles to British Rail and 100 pacer railbus vehicles built in partnership with Leyland Bus for British Rail's provincial sector, as well as 28 first class coaches for intercity Pullman routes.
British Rail orders to BREL total some £165 million —the substantial part won after competitive tendering. That will probably wound the Labour Front Bench, but it tells the lie to those who said that is would not be able to compete.
I draw attention to the real export potential of BREL, because that is the unsung hero of the past and of the future. It is exciting that BREL has won a foothold in the Chinese market after 15 months of talks. Let us hope that the three prototype vehicles, based on its design for the high-tech coach, which I have seen at Derby, will lead to solid orders, especially since the Chinese plan to build 1,500 coaches by the early 1990s.
I know that at York and other BREL sites which I have visited there is high morale and the workers feel that they are, if hon. Members will excuse a pun, on the right tracks, but they are sadly let down by those funeral directors, the union shop stewards. I have to say, because words spoken in this House are clearly monitored by the appropriate ambassadors, that the greatest disservice to BREL has been and continues to be done by one J. Knapp.
Mr. Knapp has been touring the country and whipping up the 40,000 staff. [Interruption.] I can well understand that the Opposition wish to drown this point. If they will bear with me and listen for a minute, they will hear the cogency of my argument. But I can understand that they do not want to do so. Mr. Knapp has been going around the country trying to whip up the 40,000 staff employed at the British Rail workshops and at British Rail maintenance depots so that they take strike action. He has suffered a second humiliation within 12 months. Thank goodness for the British Rail engineering work force and for British Rail that they have had the good sense—for their future, for the home base, but especially for the export market and for solid jobs not only in Crewe and Litchurch Lane in Derby but York and the other sites which I have mentioned—to keep this small clique away from the efficiency to which they strive. We have a solid company that can offer goods on competitive terms, not just on the home market but on the international one. I look forward to a global future for BREL. I hope that we shall get common sense and leadership out of the shop stewards and that, in future ballots, the work force will have the opportunity to continue along the right road.
3.31 am
Dr. John Marek: I take issue with the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory). It is one of the sad facts of life in the United Kingdom that these personal attacks by one side of the industry on the other continue. It does the industry no good for Conservative Members to attack the trade unions, the working people within British Rail and their elected representatives. I could easily attack the chairman of British Rail and many of the board's members for their shortsighted decisions.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Unless I misunderstood my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory), he was praising the work force for their sound common sense in rejecting strike calls. My hon. Friend can hardly be seen to attack the work force who are exercising their democratic rights in that way.
Dr. Marek: The Minister has got it wrong. The hon. Member for York was attacking the elected representative of the work force, the general secretary of the NUR. It is a pity that Conservative Members can do nothing but make personal attacks. As I said, I could easily mount the same type of attack on many of the decisions of the British Rail board. I shall not do that, because it does not add anything to the argument. It is far better to concentrate on what the policies should be so that we can at least ensure a future for BREL. My worry is that, if we proceed along the lines of the past five or six years, there will no longer be a British Rail Engineering Ltd. The same fate will befall BREL as is now befalling, for example, the shipbuilding industry.
Mr. Gregory: I do not wish to extend this point unduly, because clearly I have hit a raw nerve in the Opposition. I should rather we returned to BREL's efficiency, the work force and its design potential. We cannot get away from the fact that, if an elected union leader goes around the countryside, that demoralises the people working there. Those people at home and abroad who are placing orders say that there is a large question mark over whether the work force can supply on time if a strike threatens. It is important to the future of the work force and the company that we analyse that point.
Dr. Marek: It may be useful to try to analyse that point. However I want to get on to what we can do to improve British Rail. I always thought that democracy was about persuasion and argument. Either one persuades people or one does not. In this case, some people were persuaded, but many other people who were not affected, or for reasons of their own, were not persuaded. It is central to the well-being of any organisation or any country that people are free and able to try to persuade people about a particular view, as we are able to in the House. I do not think that there is any short cut. There is a price to be paid for democracy in some ways but I think that it is a price that all of us want to pay.
The House will know that I am a Member sponsored by the National Union of Railwaymen. I want to make a few comments as a traveller on British Rail. I have not travelled on British Rail quite so much in the past six months because of some of the incompetent decisions of the British Rail board. However, going along the M6 and the M1 by car, trying to compete with heavy lorries doing 70 miles an hour and not being able to do anything about

771
it without breaking the speed limit, is an even worse fate than having to put up with the inadequate service on our mainlines.
I very much prefer to travel by rail when possible. I know that the Minister travels by rail. Not many Conservative Members do. I know that the hon. Member for York also travels by rail. The next time they travel by rail I ask them to consider whether everything is right on the journey and whether the journey is going as it should. For example, is the train on time? Did it leave on time and did it reach its destination on time? If it did not, there must be a reason. That reason may not be connected with the design, engineering or maintenance of the coaches or the engine, but it could be.
Are all the comforts and advantages that one has when travelling by rail present and working? For example, on a number of mark 2 and mark 3 coaches—this is only a minor matter — I have noticed that the microphone cannot be shut off. There may be a fault in the microphone and it makes a buzzing sound over the seat. The guard says that he cannot do anything about it because he cannot switch it off. About 15 or 20 per cent. of the time there is that rather nasty noise in certain seats, especially on the west coast mainline. That is clearly a maintenance problem. No doubt it has been reported. However, I doubt whether the coaches get checked for that when they go in for maintenance.
Something that is a little more obvious is what the wheels are doing when they go round. Are there square wheels on the coaches? If so, and if as the coach starts to speed up it goes click, click, that does not disappear. It will continue throughout the journey. The coach can go all the way from Euston to Glasgow and back again many times and it is annoying for the customers. I know that that can happen if the coach brakes too hard, but it should be reported and the coach should be taken into maintenance to have the wheels skimmed so that customers have a better ride. That is not being done.
The wheels can do all sorts of other things. At certain speeds coaches can suddenly start juddering violently from one side to another. That fault now appears to have been mainly rectified by British Rail. It may be that hunting by the wheels is a dangerous sport. However, on occasions I still travel on trains on which at certain speeds the coach suddenly starts vibrating and it should not do that. That problem should not occur, passengers should not have to put up with it and the coach should go into maintenance. One should test whether the seat goes back as it should. Many do not. One should ask oneself whether the seats are padded or whether the padding has worn so thin that the seats are extremely hard. One may want a meal on the train or a snack in the buffet car. Does it have everything.
Many of the pipes on the mark 2 boilers seemed to be frozen from 10 January to mid March with the result that nobody managed to get a meal or a hot drink. One should find out whether the food is available in the buffet car. If it is not, perhaps because the boiler is not working, it is an everyday maintenance problem and should not exist.
One should ask oneself whether the windows are clean and one can see out of them. Often one cannot. On almost every other train trip the automatic doors do not work. They either remain open or work irregularly. Sometimes toilets do not work, although I have not often found that on British Rail. In the past three years, I have not travelled more than a handful of times when everything was working. There is always something wrong. Why? There
772
is a lack of maintenance and coaches are not looked after properly. That is true of the mark 2 and mark 3 coaches, some of which are extremely modern.
The Government say that many of the job losses in British Rail Engineering are due to the introduction of sprinters which are new technology, will be built to much higher specifications and will not need much maintenance. I do not believe it. I will apologise to the Minister if they need substantially less maintenance than our present stock, but we shall have to wait until about 1992 before we can tell. It is extremely shortsighted to close works and cut jobs on the basis of a supposition which may well not be borne out in practice.
I think that the class 142s will fall to pieces quickly. Newspapers have already carried stories about how they cannot climb inclines and drivers are kitted out with bags of sand to lay down in front of the engine so that it can make the gradients. They are cheaply built coaches and they may well have a place, but if we were a wealthy country and could afford the best, we would not build class 142 coaches. Basically they are glorified buses with one axle at one end and one at the other. I would not care to sit over the axles, and I recommend everyone to sit in the middle, otherwise the ride will be extremely bumpy.
From my experience I can say categorically and unequivocally that our rolling stock is not sufficiently well maintained and that if we want to serve the public well, we should maintain the coach fleet to a much higher standard than we do now. Engines also break down. How often have hon. Members travelled by train when the engine breaks down and there is a delay of about 40 minutes? The length of delay depends on where the engine breaks down and there are not enough engines. Earlier this year on a journey from Wrexham to Euston two engines broke down. That has happened to me only once, but it says something about the state of our railway system. Statistically, perhaps that is not significant, but it is symptomatic. It would not surprise me if it happened again.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) provided me with some information about times. On one day, British Rail tested train times and found that 50 per cent. of express trains were late and that 40 per cent. of those were late because of faults in the engines or wagons. That must be an unacceptably high percentage of delays. Why does it happen? It is simply that the trains are not checked often enough and, when they are checked, there is so much pressure on the people who work on them that they can carry out only cursory checks. It does not happen on the continent. Whenever I have travelled by train on the continent, I have always been on time. In Holland, trains leave and arrive to withing 15 seconds of the stated time. That seems to be impossible on British Rail.
Another important argument as to why the Government are wrong when they say that BREL does not need so many employees because of the new build is that new build accounts for only about 10 per cent. of the coach and wagon stock. If that is the case, the Government's excuse does not wash, because 90 per cent. of stock is old. That will continue to be so, despite the building programme. No doubt the Minister will say that Br:tish Rail is building more new trains than ever before, but most of the stock is old and clapped-out. Had there been no new build, the system would have broken down completely.

773
Not enough coaches are available. Trains are being shortened, with the result that passengers have a much more uncomfortable ride. British Rail could provide more coaches and give passengers a rather more comfortable ride. To give another example, two passengers travelling together on a fairly full train might be unable to obtain seats together. The British Railways Board follows that policy on purpose. It is more efficient and produces more income, but it serves the public less well. It is possible to fill every seat in a railway carriage, but others will have to stand and parties of two or more will be split up. The Government may say that people should reserve their seats. Of course, they could, but it would diminish the flexibility of travelling by train.
We do not have enough coaches, and engines break down far too often. We do not have enough freight wagons. BREL is capable of building them, but people are being made redundant and the manufacturing capability is being thrown away. It is inconceivable under the present policies that any new slimmed-down BREL will revitalise the manufacturing sector of the United Kingdom in regard to railway equipment. This will not happen. It will grow ever smaller and, if we carry on this way, we will have no manufacturing capacity.
First, we need new build and, secondly, better maintenance. The possibility is there if we want to take it. I understand—although I do not expect the Minister to agree—that the Government's policies are to cut public expenditure. This means that British Rail must lose, in the Government's terminology, as little money as possible. That involves making life as difficult for the passenger as possible or as difficult as the Government can get away with. It is the same with London regional transport. There are complaints in the evening papers every day now about more waiting time for buses and the deteriorating standards of service. Efficiency for the accountant is not the same as efficiency for the passenger and for the public.
Mr. Gregory: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest. When he talks about investment in British Rail, I do not think that he is being entirely fair. If he had done his homework, he would recall that £1,000 million has been invested by British Rail in the last three years. Can he give a comparative figure in real terms in relation to investment of such a sum by Labour?
Dr. Marek: Without immediately using a deflator to take account of inflation, it is very difficult.
When DMUs were built in 1956 to 1958, nothing was done about it for something like 25 to 27 years. Without something being done, the BR service would have collapsed completely. Willy nilly the Government had to invest the £1,000 million, if that is the true figure. I note that the Minister is shaking his head. Whatever the figure was, the Government had to do it. Indeed, I am not accusing the Minister of trying not to invest in British Rail, because I believe that the present Minister is much better than any previous Conservative Minister. But I stand by my point that the present Government had to invest in British Rail, or the service would have collapsed completely.
I have not mentioned exports or the Channel tunnel. Those offer two possibilities for railway manufacturing to increase if the will is there. As to exports, I would not blame this Government particularly because I do not think
774
that the Labour Government did any better than this Government. Either we grasp this nettle and insist that we continue as a manufacturing country in the railways and export, or we do not. I wonder what will happen in China. I think it was the hon. Member for York who mentioned China and the scope there. I would not be surprised if the Germans, the Japanese and the French all have agents in China who can speak Mandarin and are going about trying to get contracts. Meanwhile, our Government are no doubt saying, "It is nothing to do with us, it is purely private industry. It is a self-standing group that will have to look after itself, and there is no way in which we can help". I suspect that that is the truth, and that is why we will not get anything from China. If we do, it will be some small sop.
If we are going to do something for the country, the Government will have to get off their backside and do it, and I have seen no sign of that in the last six years. I suspect that the British public have cottoned on to this and that, after the next general election, we will have different people sitting on the Government Front Bench.
3.55 am
Mr. Peter Snape: The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) for his habitual championing of the employees of the BREL factory in his constituency, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who did well to remind us of the reality of expenditure in this sphere in the last six years.
Perhaps the Minister will comment on the talks between Strathclyde regional council and the Scottish Office. While he may not be directly involved in those talks, they must impinge on the responsibilities of his Department, especially as they could result in additional orders and maintenance work, and a greater number of workers being retained at Springburn. The Minister may find that such information cannot easily be rustled up in the midst of a debate at nearly 4 o'clock in the morning. I hope that he will at least acknowledge the importance of the talks, certainly from the point of view of Springburn.
The remarks of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) were predictable. I am not a great one for tradition, but it used to be the custom for hon. Members not to attack people who were not in a position to answer back. The hon. Member for York regularly has a go at trade union leaders, who are not here to defend themselves. Conservative Members embrace a strange form of democracy these days. They insist on ballots being forced on people prior to any form of industrial action, but they complain when general secretaries of trade unions tour the country urging the workers they represent to support—unsuccessfully in the case with which we are concerned — the official view of elected trade union executives. I had hoped that that form of democracy would be favoured by the hon. Member for York, but no such luck.
Mr. Gregory: The hon. Gentleman should declare his interest.
Mr. Snape: I need not declare my interest. It is in the Register of Members' Interests. Nor do I need any reminders from the hon. Member for York about the protocol of this place. He has not been here long enough

775
to instruct me in that matter, and he will not be here after the next election to tell the rest of us to declare our interests.
Mr. Gregory: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the normal custom and procedure of the House that an hon. Member, when making a major speech, declares his interest?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Yes, it is the normal procedure for hon. Members to declare any interests that they may have.
Mr. Snape: If interests are declared in the Register of Members' Interests, they are there for all to see. I should have thought it was an open secret—if that is the right term to use — that I am sponsored by the National Union of Railwaymen.
Mr. Gregory: Oh?
Mr. Snape: Oh my foot. When I speak from this Dispatch Box I have the honour to do so on behalf of my party, not on behalf of the NUR. The hon. Gentleman's intervention — sadly, typical of him — was about as relevant as much of his speech.
The ballot with which the hon. Gentleman should concern himself is the one that will take him back to full-time wine tasting following the next general election. Then he will be able to join the Minister, who, I am told, peddles the stuff.
Mr. Norman Hogg: I urge my hon. Friend to deal in some detail with the speech of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory), because it was highly complacent and expressed an ideology that was peddled by the Conservatives in 1979 and was recycled and peddled again by them in 1983. That ideology has patently failed to expand the nation's manufacturing industry. BREL is suffering from the effects of that ideology and it cannot succeed so long as the Government force it to accept that ideology. That is why my hon. Friend should deal in more detail with the speech of the hon. Member for York, who is in this place, albeit temporarily.
Mr. Snape: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not intend to waste any time on what I regard as the contemptible little speech of the hon. Gentleman, the temporary Member for York. He will not be missed when he is replaced by somebody who I hope will know something about the manufacturing industry that he and his Government have helped to destroy during the last six years.
The Government peddle two great myths relating to BREL. The Minister of State repeats, like a ritual incantation, that the new railway rolling stock needs less maintenance and that BREL therefore needs to employ fewer employees. That is not true. If our railway system were modern and up-to-date, there might be some justification for that attitude. It is interesting to note what the £1 billion has bought for the railway industry during the last six years. I hope that the Conservative party, and in particular the hon. Member for York, who has demonstrated his palpable lack of knowledge of these matters, appreciate that it is instructive to consider the procurement policies that have been followed since 1979.
New orders until 1980 were, of course, placed during the period of office of the last Labour Government. Since 1980, 194 locomotives and power cars have entered service with British Rail. That is 7 per cent. of the total fleet size.
776
The other 93 per cent.—I shall do the arithmetic for the hon. Member for York because he is more used to litres and gallons than to the realities of manufacturing industry —is more than six years old.
As for coaches, we hear about sprinters and pacers rushing about the country. Out of a current fleet size of 16,105 coaches, just over 2,000 have entered service since 1979. That is just 13 per cent. of the coach fleet. Only 15 per cent. of the current fleet of 39,866 freight vehicles that are in service with British Rail entered service in the last six years. There is plenty of old rolling stock to maintain. Indeed, there is too much of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham reminded us of the old slogan that British Rail has got rid of, along with Jimmy Savile. It is the age of the train that causes the problems. It takes more than a beefed-up advertising budget, proclaiming that British Rail is getting there, and a few buckets of red paint on various stations in the south of England, to convince me that the service on British Rail is not worse and that it is not less punctual and reliable than it has ever been during my lifetime.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham regularly and understandably publicises the difficulties he faces in travelling between Westminster and Wrexham. The rest of us could tell a similar tale. I, too, prefer to travel by train. The risk of the train running late on three journeys out of five between Euston and Birmingham is infinitely preferable to one of the many contraflow systems that clutter up the M1 and M6. Travel between London and Birmingham becomes more and more difficult as each year goes by, and the age of the rolling stock is a major contributor to delays and unpunctuality.
When we talk about the attitude of those who work in BREL and those who represent them nationally, it is important to reflect that, since 1980, more than 17,000 employees have lost their jobs. The latest proposals—the ones that led to the ballot that the hon. Member for York complained about so pathetically a few minutes ago —will mean another 7,870 job losses according to our estimates.
If we had a modern railway system, there might be some justification for that champ that we hear from the Dispatch Box that, because of modern rolling stock, fewer people are needed to repair and maintain it. Since 1980, because of the Government's investment policies, the number of freight wagons in service has declined dramatically. That arises directly out of decisions taken by the Government.
As recently as 1980, BR published its rail plan, which identified a need for a programme of investment in new rolling stock. It said that, given investment, the freight business could be made viable. The Government, with this industry as with others, turned logic on its head and stipulated that BR would have to improve its overall financial results before there would be any approval of large-scale investment. BR decided that, being unable to build the replacement wagons that were required to produce a modern, high-capacity wagon fleet, it would withdraw altogether from wagon load traffic and concentrate on the bulk market in an effort to achieve the better financial results that the Government sought.
The second great myth that the Government, and especially the Minister, like to perpetrate is that everything that BR has asked for in investment, it has got. That is true so far as it goes, but, like BR's old-fashioned rolling stock, it does not go very far. The Minister knows that there is

777
an investment committee, which looks into these matters, on which representatives of the Department of Transport sit. He also knows that there are certain financial criteria which must be met before the committee approves any proposal, still more before any proposal appears on the Minister's desk in his eyrie in Marsham street. He also knows that many of the long overdue proposals for modernisation never get even to the investment committee because BR knows that they will not meet the financial criteria. It is a vicious circle.
Much the same was true for investment under the last Labour Government. Many of us had some stringent criticisms to make of our Ministers, who were apparently prepared to accept this crazy system of cost-benefit analysis to justify road building schemes, but insisted on strict financial returns on railway matters. I readily concede that, but it is no coincidence that two Ministers in the Labour Administration in the late 1970s were among the first to pack their bags and decamp to the Social Democratic party where, presumably, they advocate a programme of much greater investment in BR in the 1990s than they were ever prepared to authorise back in the 1970s.
The sooner we compare like with like when it comes to investment in different modes of transport, the sooner we shall be able to get back to running a railway system that is a pleasure for passengers to travel on and capable of moving bulk freight.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham said, travelling up and down the motorways these days is not only a nightmare; it is pretty dangerous too. The proportion of heavy goods vehicles on our roads, despite promises, pledges and blandishments offered to the road haulage lobby, increases year by year. Unless we have a railway system capable of moving freight in the way that British Rail used to, 25 or 30 years ago, in modern rolling stock behind modern and, I hope, electrified locomotives, the decline of railway freight traffic will continue and our raod network will become more and more congested, overcrowded and dangerous.
There should be a future for British Rail Engineering Ltd. There is not a future for it under this Government. There will be under the next Labour Government, and, fortunately, for the standard of debate in the House, the hon. Member for York will not be around to see it.
4.10 am
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) on his success in securing a debate tonight on this matter, albeit at such an unpopular hour in the morning. Naturally, he has taken every opportunity to argue for the retention of the British Rail Engineering works at Springburn.
The House will know the main reasons for the job losses in BREL that BR has announced from the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, made to the House on 20 May. During the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate on 4 June I was able to explain some of British Rail's thinking on this, and the steps that it is taking to help those affected by these changes. I welcome the further opportunity tonight to explain the board's position.
778
May I say, en passant, that the hon. Gentleman referred to the beauty of the countryside just outside Glasgow. I went there last weekend and I concur entirely with what he said.
Mr. Snape: By train?
Mr. Mitchell: By train.
British Rail has been reviewing its policy on the maintenance of railway rolling stock. Its aim is to make maintenance more efficient. Maintenance standards have not declined, as some people have suggested, but British Rail believes that they need to be improved, and that is the Board's objective in bringing forward its current proposals. The review has naturally taken full account of the rapid investment that is taking place in new rolling stock. I shall come back to the point that the hon. Gentleman made in a moment.
British Rail has embarked on the biggest fleet renewal programme for more than 20 years. Since July 1984 alone we have approved 10 major investment projects, worth over £630 million in total, including nearly £400 million of new rolling stock and £200 million of new electrification. Over £700 million of investment in new rolling stock is plannd by BR over the next five years.
It makes no sense for BR to invest in modern vehicles if it cannot ensure that maintenance is done as efficiently as possible and that it gets the maximum availability of the new vehicles. On its annual report, published earlier this week, the board says:
"The trains being built today replace vehicles built 25 years ago, and they are designed, like modern motor cars, for minimum maintenance. Far greater opportunity exists for exchanging components and avoiding costly time in workshops away from revenue earning service. This brings lower costs and greater reliability, but there is a price to pay in fewer jobs."
That is a very clear summary of the factors that lie behind the Board's proposals.
Mr. Snape: This is the same old brief. It is time it was thrown away.
Mr. Mitchell: I shall come to some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), unfortunately, spent a good deal of time attacking BR's management. He will have heard what his hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) had to say about attacking people who are not in the House or in a position to defend themselves. I make no point about that—
Dr. Marek: I said that I could have attacked some of the incompetent decisions taken by the British Railways Board. I did not blame any member of the board and I do not think I described any of those incompetent decisions. I could certainly go on at length if the Minister wanted me to do so.
Mr. Mitchell: It is not realistic for the hon. Member to talk about incompetent decisions and then say that he is not attacking the people responsible for taking those decisions. The people in British Rail management are dedicated and hard working and, with the co-operation of their staff, they are trying to give a good service in a much more complicated operation than many people realise. In the peak hours of the London commuter services, a train arrives every 11 seconds. In an intensive operation of that

779
nature there is bound to be a ripple effect when any minor thing goes wrong, and that ripple affects subsequent trains and causes difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about meals on British Rail trains. I spent yesterday with the Inter-City director and the general manager of his catering operation and we looked at the new work which British Rail is doing on its catering facilities. Food of an improved standard is available and there is an improved choice. The hon. Gentleman does not help British Rail or the truth by failing to recognise that the old Aunt Sally of a curled-up British Rail sandwich of years ago has gone and that British Rail has moved into a new generation of better standards. The hon. Gentleman should have the grace to recognise that.
The hon. Gentleman talked about unwashed windows. I do not think he saw such windows on recent journeys. It could well have been in February. I do not know how frequently the hon. Gentleman uses trains, but when there is a freeze-up of washing equipment, trains cannot be washed.
Dr. Marek: Must I keep a count of when the restaurant service was working between October 1985 and January this year? For about 50 per cent. of the time that I travelled it was not working. I travelled about 20 times and on 10 of those trips there was no restaurant car when there should have been. I saw the dirty windows yesterday on the Southern region when I took a trip just to see what was going on in the region.
Mr. Mitchell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will supply me with the time of the train, because I certainly want to draw the matter to the attention of those responsible who have now set themselves a standard of washing the trains every 24 hours. The south-eastern network is seeking to achieve that standard and I have been promised that by September there will be a discernible improvement to the standards in the south-eastern network. I hope that when that happens the hon. Gentleman will give credit where it is due instead of indulging in constant carping criticism which does no one any good.
I should like to return to the matter of maintenance. First, new vehicles need less maintenance than the ones they replace. The new Sprinter is a good example of that. Secondly, as soon British Rail takes the decision to order new rolling stock, heavy maintenance ceases on the old stock that is to be replaced. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East failed to appreciate that point when he talked about what he called two great myths. One of his myths was that no new rolling stock is in service. New rolling stock is on order and there is no point in continuing to carry out heavy maintenance on rolling stock that is about to be thrown out because a massive amount of new rolling stock is on order.
All the necessary day-to-day maintenance continues to be done and British Rail handles that in its local depots and not at BREL. The building of new vehicles calls for fewer men than are required for a programme of heavy maintenance on old vehicles. I regret that British Rail considers that this means 4,200 to 5,000 fewer jobs in BREL over the next three years. But we cannot turn back the clock. If British Rail is to compete successfully with road, air and coach, and if it is to secure custom from travellers, it has to provide modern, efficient and attractive rolling stock. If it does that, it will not keep the old rolling stock and it will not need the old heavy maintenance.
780
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) rightly referred to the potential for exports by BREL. That must be encouraged. But I regret to say that the hon. Member for Wrexham irresponsibly condemned the 142 vehicle just when BREL was doing its damnedest to sell it around the world. It is a pity that he should seek to damage a major export drive just as it is getting under way.
The hon. Member for Wrexham also talked about his experiences. I hope that he will regret his miserable and curmudgeonly approach to British Rail. He said that British Rail had to invest. There was no question—for example, on the cast coast main line—but that it could have gone on with a second generation of HSTs. British Rail put to the Government its decision to invest in electrification and the Government approved. Even the hon. Gentleman was heard to say some good words about that investment.
Mr. Gregory: Will my hon. Friend confirm that British Rail has not taken up all its external financing limits and that it is an indictment of the Opposition that they are unable to produce any comparative figures for when the Labour party was in power and influenced British Rail?
Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is, as always, very perceptive. I must correct again the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, because he believes in a second myth. He was wrong to say that representatives of the Department of Transport sit on the BR investment committee. They do not. That is a myth.
Mr. Snape: Is the Minister saying that at no time before these matters arrive on his desk is there direct consultation between the British Railways Board and representatives from his Department?
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman knows well what happens. The board considers an investment proposal. If it agrees to it, and if it involves more than £5 million, it is sent to the Department. My officials will ask questions before they send the proposal to me so that I have a full report. Often I then ask further questions. That frequently means going back to the board and asking for further information. But the decision about that investment is taken by British Rail. The Department does not participate.
Having killed both the myths of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, perhaps I can return to the problems of Springburn. Scotland is particularly affected by these changes because British Rail is improving services there through major fleet changes. In a few years a high proportion of Scottish services will be operated by modern, low-maintenance vehicles. There is the new electrification, with the east coast main line and the Ayrshire schemes. Sprinter-type vehicles will appear on many services that currently use loco-hauled coaching stock. There are also likely to be more HST-type services.
Well over a year ago BREL told its trade unions that the work force at Springburn would need to be reduced substantially by March 1987, and it was clear then that Springburn's future beyond that date was uncertain, and no assurances were given on that. In May this year, British Rail announced details of the new BREL organisation. Without a change in strategy, BREL was in no doubt that that reduced maintenance workload would lead to the complete closure of Springburn in 1987. Its new strategy offers a new role for Springburn as a regional maintenance depot, offering work for up to 200 people.

781
I must stress that these are British Rail's proposals. The board's future maintenance arrangements are essentially matters for it to decide in consultation with its work force. Following the clear decision by the work force in the recent ballot against industrial action, I am glad that the unions are coming back to discussing the proposals with BR and BREL at a meeting next week.
I know that the substantial job losses proposed by BR, especially at Springburn, Doncaster and Wolverton, are causing deep concern in the areas, and I need hardly add that it is a concern that I share. I can assure hon. Members that BR will be doing all that it can to soften the impact of these changes and to manage the problem as sympathetically as it can. It will have my full support on this.
Mr. Martin: I asked the Minister to ensure that BREL, which is a substantial property owner in the community, got involved with the Springburn initiative. Will the Minister assure me that he will encourage BREL to do so?
Mr. Mitchell: Perhaps I can come back to that point in a moment.
British Rail has announced plans for a senior BR director to co-ordinate measures to help those affected, heading a special directorate to look at alternative employment prospects and to develop retraining programmes. BR will be working with BREL to find alternative jobs both within BR and outside the railway industry. In particular, BR will—as it mentions in its annual report — try wherever possible to match the recruitment needs of railway departments in the next three years with the employment needs of those displaced in BREL.
At Springburn, BREL has set up Springburn Holdings to support the efforts to create new jobs. There is a job creation package on similar lines to that offered at other sites affected by works closures, with £1 million available from BREL. I gather that in the next few weeks BREL will be seeking to build on these initial steps and expects to be giving its development proposals wider publicity.
BREL has been seeking to enlist the co-operation of local authorities in the Glasgow area, but with mixed results so far. I urge hon. Members to recognise the inevitability of change and modernisation on the railway. We must do all that we can to press local interests to work with BR and the Scottish Development Agency on finding ways to promote alternative jobs to replace those which, it is clear, will be lost.
The hon. Member for Springburn knows that I am personally committed to helping in job creation. Last month I invited him to join me in going to see what has been achieved at Shildon—and what might be achieved in Glasgow. I hope that he will take up that offer. Then we can study in more detail some of the opportunities which have been seized and which may be suitable for transplanting to Glasgow. Nothing will be achieved unless there is the fullest co-operation from the local authorities; the work force and the Scottish Development Agency. All must be involved in a team effort to achieve what has proved to be most successful at Shildon.
It is for British Rail to decide how to put forward its proposals in consultation with the work force. I am sure that if that co-operation is available much can be done in the constituency of the hon. Member for Springburn.

Debt (Government's Voluntary Code)
4.30 am
Mr. Richard Ottaway: Like most things in life there is some good news and some bad. The good news is that we are able to have this debate. The bad news is that it is taking place at half past four in the morning.
I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment on his efforts in producing the booklet "Payment on time, Guidance for Suppliers and Buyers". I also congratulate him on the fact that the booklet has received the endorsement of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Purchasing and Supply. It is a well-written booklet and, indeed, I have no criticism of the booklet except that it does not go far enough. The Minister and I have had differences of opinion on this matter in the past, but I do not, in any sense, criticise his efforts. I simply believe that more can be done.
The guide formally recognises, for the first time, what many of us have identified as a growing problem—that people are not paying their bills on time. This problem was recognised long before the Minister or myself studied it. In 1978, the Law Commission report on interest identified the problem of the bad payer who uses the system to his personal advantage. The commission concluded that:
"The existing laws do not provide adequate means of redress for the creditor who is kept out of his money by his debtor"
The Law Commission responded, as did my hon. Friend the Minister this summer, to the cries of business men who complained about their cash flows and the difficulty they have in getting bills paid.
When I visit business men in Nottingham I am repeatedly told that their order books are full but that they are crippled by their cash flow because they cannot get their debtors to pay. A recent survey in the east midlands asked firms to state the four factors which most limited their business prospects. Top of the list was interest rates, and cash flow was second. Coupled with this increasing problem is the growing craftiness in delaying payment.
The best excuses that firms come up with concern the electronics industry. They state that the bill is in the computer and that they cannot get it out. Another excuse is that such bills are dealt with only at the end of the month. I know one well-known advertising agency which deliberately has its account section in the west country — 100 miles out of London, where the head office is located. People who are pressing for payment are bounced from one office to the other in a deliberate policy to slow up the payment of the bills.
It is an attractive proposition for anyone to delay the payment of debts for as long as he can get away with it. Money can be made by the large institutions in the short term. We know the nature of the overnight market. Many large firms now employ financial consultants who will advise on how best to capitalise upon short-term money. I do not criticise the firms for making a profit, but the smaller business man, who is waiting for his money is deprived as a result of this activity.
Such situations illustrate the limitation of the guideline. I contemplated saying weakness, but that is unfair. There

783
is nothing wrong with the principles set out in the guideline, except possibly that there is not a recommended period for payment. It does not suggest that payment should be made in 30, 45 or 60 days, for example. I shall be interested to know whether my hon. Friend has any comment to make about that.
The choice which a business man is faced with at the end of the month as a result of the booklet is simple. If he has a pile of bills in front of him and he has the choice of paying them or responding to the recommendations in the guidelines, and he is a bit tight for cash, I have no doubt that he would receive a pat on the head from my hon. Friend if he complied with the recommendations in the guidelines. But I have no doubt that his head would rule his heart and he would delay payment of the bills if that helped his cash flow.
The parties can protect themselves by including in the terms and conditions of the business provisos that payment shall be made of the sum due and that interest shall accrue if the sum is not paid. That is a sensible precaution which I recommend to anyone. The problem is that not many parties enter into contractual terms of that sort. A CBI survey showed that only 19 per cent. of contracting parties had terms relating to payment and the accrual of interest. There are many who do business with one another who have no contractual terms and operate upon oral agreements. That is frequently the position with professionals and consumers who contract with a business man.
It is my strong belief that legislation should be introduced to sit alongside the guidelines. The only practical legislation is that which provides that interest is payable on the late payment of a debt. It no doubt comes as a surprise to the House to find that that is not the present position. The law provides for the payment of interest in certain circumstances and there are two pieces of legislation that apply that can best be summarised by saying that someone is entitled to interest on the late payment of a debt if he issues a writ before he is paid, a procedure that is hardly likely to lubricate the wheels of industry. It is not helpful to have to issue a writ at the same time as sending out an invoice.
I suggest that the legislation that should sit alongside the voluntary code is that which would give a party the right to sue for interest after payment has been made. Let us suppose that someone has been waiting for £50,000 for three months. At present interest rates, he would be entitled to just over £1,500. I am sure that such a provision would expedite payment.
There are advantages in such a procedure. First, a party can wait until he has been paid before deciding whether he wants to commence proceedings. For various reasons that relate to his contractual relationship with the other party, he may not want to commence legal proceedings. My proposal would give him the option of exercising his entitlement or forgoing it. More draconian measures are found in other European countries such as Denmark, where 2 per cent. a month is added to a bill if there is late payment. That is the result of legislation.
If a party waits until after he has been paid before deciding whether to sue, he is able fully to assess the period over which he has been deprived of his money before commencing proceedings. That is something that he is not able to do under present legislation.
The best reason of all for this proposal is that if someone wants to recover interest on a sum which has
784
been due to him for some time he has, under present legislation, to issue a writ to recover the sum. It is necessary to issue the writ in the sum that is due, and £50,000 plus interest would put the claimant into the High court, with the attendant cost of starting proceedings in that jurisdiction. There would be the additional cost of instructing solicitors.
On the other hand, a claim for interest of £1,500 would fall within the jurisdiction of the county court. In my experience, the county court is one of the easiest organisations with which to deal. A phone call to the county court will lead to a form being sent by post. The payment of £6—I believe that that is the current figure —will ensure that proceedings are started, and in due course judgment will be obtained. There are no lawyers and everything is simple. It is a cheap system to operate. My hon. Friend will rightly tell us that he has a lot of support for the voluntary guidelines that he has produced. At Question Time on Tuesday, I think he said that 130,000 copies have been requested and there are more in the pipeline. I congratulate him on stimulating such interest.
A survey was carried out by the Forum of Private Business in Cheshire. I should be surprised if my hon. Friend did not know about that institution, because its latest publication has no fewer than two photographs of him in it. It considered the topic that I have raised tonight. As is the forum's technique, it conducted a referendum among its members on what they thought of the voluntary code and what they thought of my proposals for legislation.
Opinion on the voluntary code was evenly divided with 44 per cent. in favour of it, 44 per cent. against it, and 12 per cent. having no opinion. However, on the question of establishing a legal, enforceable right to interest on late payment of debts, along the lines of my proposals, no fewer than 77 per cent. were in favour, 17 per cent. were against, and only 6 per cent. had no opinion. That demonstrates that there is a great deal of support for the proposal among representatives of the forum.
I know that my hon. Friend is slightly resistant to the introduction of legislation. However, he is getting on to slightly tricky ground in his resistance. While the Department of Employment may be promoting that line, there is a classic case going on of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. As from 1 October this year, Customs and Excise will, by legislation, be empowered to impose statutory penalties of the nature of interest, increasing from 5 per cent. to as much as 30 per cent., for businesses that are late in paying their VAT.
Dr. John Marek: Quite right.
Mr. Ottaway: I am glad to hear that. The Government have resisted the introduction of mandatory interest on the late payment of debts. Yet the Treasury is doing just that. The Treasury does not hide its light under a bushel. Customs and Excise put out a press release claiming that the measure will reduce the outstanding VAT debt from £1 billion to £¼ billion, which is an admirable objective.
That rather establishes the point I am trying to make, that up until now the principle of voluntary guidelines has not resulted in the payment of bills. However, by introducing statutory rights to interest, the Treasury is confident that there will be a reduction of 75 per cent. in the level of outstanding indebtedness. That is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. It is said that

785
this action could be "hazardous". The Labour party in Government in the 1960s, introduced little-used legislation which became the Uniform Laws on International Sales Act. That legislation provides for the mandatory use of interest on late payment of bills when there is a breach of contract.
It is not just me and a number of business men who are calling for the introduction of legislation. In 1978, the Law Commission recommended that
"the introduction of statutory interest is appropriate and necessary."
It also rightly pointed out that, with the exception of Ireland, it would have the support of every country in Europe. I mentioned Denmark earlier. The list even includes Scotland in certain circumstances. It would be useful if the House could be told why it is hazardous to have legislation for statutory interest in England but not in Scotland. I look forward to having our fears allayed in that respect.
I have always been rather impressed by the quotation on the top of the notepaper of the Association of Bankrupts which states:
"If you lived in the richest, most powerful city it was possible for a man to imagine, that there was no love there, no mercy and no justice for those who met with misfortune, then you would be better off dead than to live in such a place."
It is with that saying in mind that the attitude of large business organisations is to be treated with some scepticism. During the couple of years in which I have analysed the subject, I have spoken to hundreds of business men. Very few were opposed to my proposals. Every time I came up against big business organisations, such as the Confederation of British Industry, I was conscious of the division in their ranks and the way in which power is manipulated within the organisation.
I first took up my proposals with the smaller firms council of the CBI, which was dramatically enthusiastic about my proposals and said that they did not go far enough. It said that an absolute statutory right to interest with no discretions should be introduced. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) — will remember, we both spoke at a conference of the small business council. Afterwards, I found complete support for my proposal. Despite that, the full council of the CBI has never endorsed this proposal. I understand that it still objects and that the big firms which dominate the CBI are resisting this legislation.
The other day I had the chance to have an informal meeting with a leading manufacturer's group which confessed that it was motivated purely out of self-interest on this matter and that it resisted my proposal — the statutory right to interest of some sort or another —because it would cause problems which the group wanted to avoid. Cash flow was the manufacturers' problem. That is the very problem with which we are trying to cope.
In a recent radio broadcast, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that he resisted the prospect of immediate legislation on the ground that listeners would be amazed at the number of small firms organisations which had asked him not to introduce such legislation. I raised that point with my hon. Friend and he kindly replied to me in a letter which I received this afternoon. In it, he said that, as a result of the doubts which I had raised, he had asked his officials to take up the matter with some
786
of the small firms organisations when they next met them to raise that point specifically. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. I hope that he will go beyond the sort of front shown by the CBI and will meet the small business men who support the reform of private business and call for this proposal.
I am heartened by the bald statement of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that he will consider introducing legislation if it can be shown that the voluntary code is not working. While considering the prospect of legislation, it is important to monitor the success of voluntary codes. I should be grateful to my hon. Friend if he will say how he intends to do that and for how long. If his response is that he intends to listen to the small business organisations I hope that he will take on board the findings of a recent CBI survey. Forty-four per cent. of those asked said that, if there was a right to interest, they would use it, but, most significantly of all, 85 per cent. said that, if there was a right to interest, they thought that their customers would pay more promptly. I think that that justifies the introduction of some form of legislation.
I do not knock the voluntary guidelines. They are a step in the right direction. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I are thinking along the same lines on this issue. However, I genuinely believe that the issue of late payment of bills should be taken a step further and that legislation should be introduced as soon as possible.
Mr. Greg Knight: This is my second bite at the cherry this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I was not aware that the hon. Member had already taken part in the debate. He cannot speak again. Mr. Trippier.
4.47 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I spoke on an earlier motion on the Order Paper—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is only one motion before the House, despite the fact that there are several debates. Under Standing Orders, the hon. Member may speak only once in the Adjournment debate.
Mr. Knight: I am not in any way seeking to challenge your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I thought that, with the leave of the presenter of this topic, it would be in order for me to speak.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have just explained that, under our Standing Orders, the hon. Member may contribute to this debate once. The debate is on the motion to adjourn the House.
Mr. Trippier: I have listened with great interest to the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) on the difficulties created for small firms by the practice of late payment of their bills. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I am grateful to him for the kind things he has said about me and the document which I issued recently, "Payment on Time". I pay warm tribute to him for his able and vociferous advocacy on behalf of small businesses, especially on this problem. My hon. Friend is right to suggest to the House that there is not much that divides us. I hope to try to develop my case during my speech. I

787
think that I may surprise him by saying that when I first considered this matter, shortly after becoming the Minister responsible for small firms, there was no one who wanted to introduce legislation on this matter more than me.
I have held the position of Minister responsible for small firms for just over three years now. During that time this subject has occupied my mind more than most, not least because of the heavy mailbag I have received. I happen to think that it is perhaps one of the most important issues currently affecting the small business sector. It is also one of the most difficult nuts there is to crack. I am certainly not labouring under any illusions as to the extent of the task involved in helping to bring about an improvement in commercial payment practice. However, the correspondence I have received during this period and the discussions I have had with small firms and their representative organisations has given me an excellent opportunity to evaluate the extent and different aspects of what is by no means a simple and straightforward issue.
While raising finance for fixed and working capital requirements, it is vital to businesses of all sizes that they should receive prompt payment for outstanding bills. It is no less important to many businesses, particularly in the small firms sector. They inevitably have a much more critical cash flow situation than their larger counterparts and therefore rely heavily on on timely payment. Late payment and bad debts do not simply inhibit growth and development. Their firm control is fundamental to a company's very survival. The severe problems that they create for a small firm's cash flow is exacerbated if it has to fall back on the bank manager and resort to increased borrowing to help it through its cash flow difficulties. The small business man knows only too well that that sort of situation cannot go on indefinitely.
The problem becomes compounded even further when the small businessman, who often has to wear a number of different hats in any case, takes on the additional role of debt collector. Chasing slow payers is a real drain on his time and resources, and those two commodities are usually in short supply at the best of times. To make the most profitable use of his time he needs to be left free to do the things he does best — selling the goods he produces or the service he provides and creating wealth and work.
It is important that we do not look at this problem simply as a large firm versus small firms issue. That is how I started to look at the problem. This is by no means the case. My hon. Friend is aware that the Confederation of British Industry recently carried out the survey among small firms that he referred to. The reason for that was to assess the extent and nature of the late payment problem. My hon. Friend did not develop that in great detail, but the results of the survey showed that for 54 per cent. it is large firms which are generally paying them late. However, 40 per cent. of respondents stated that other small firms are their main source of difficulty in that respect. I was surprised at that, as I am sure my hon. Friend probably was. That is an important point because there will obviously be delayed payment from small firms not paying other small firms on time, small firms not paying medium-sized firms on time and small firms not paying large firms on time.
As I develop my speech, I am anxious to make the point that I fear that if legislation along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend were to be introduced, there is a grave
788
danger that the legislation would be used more by large firms against small firms than the other way round. My hon. Friend says, "So what". When I had my initial meeting with the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors and the CBI, there were a number of people who said that such legislation could mean that many thousands of small firms would be put out of business. That is the danger. It is not a question of saying, "So what?". I believe that it does not matter. I have no figures to show because it is hypothesis and conjecture. The figure I had thought of could reach 250,000. Is that a risk that my hon. Friend is prepared to take? That is the decision that someone in my position must take.
Mr. Ottaway: This is a circular argument. If small firms are to he put under pressure by large firms, they, too, have the right to use this legislation to enhance their cash flow. Just as large firms will press for prompt payment, so will small firms. It is simply a cash flow question. There may be a few teething problems but after some weeks when the cycle speeds up, both sides will be reconciled. There is legislation in every other country in Europe and the Treasury thinks that it is a good idea, so I am not convinced that this will not result in a massive number of bankruptcies, as my hon. Friend suggests.
Mr. Trippier: Earlier my hon. Friend referred to the late payment of VAT, and two thirds of individuals liable to pay VAT delay payment. That is a reason for introducing the new measure recommended by the Keith Committee report. In fairness, it must be said that those who will be penalised are given two opportunities for delayed payment before Customs and Excise will act. I am not saying that my hon. Friend is wrong, but there is a danger which is why the Government should not rule out the possibility of introducing legislation.
The Associaton of British Chambers of Commerce expressed the view that it could be hazardous to introduce legislation because it could work against the small firms we are seeking to encourage. My hon. Friend and I are completely at one on that point. I was particularly unnerved by other small firms' organisations, and I am happy to quote their precise position, which told me that they thought it was certainly hazardous and risky to follow that route without first seeing whether the suggested code of practice which I have introduced in the booklet "Payment on Time" would work.
My hon. Friend referred to the smaller firms council of the CBI, and I have in my possession a letter sent to my hon. Friend by Sonia Elkin, director of the CBI smaller firms council, shortly after he had the good fortune to raise his ten-minute Bill on the Floor of the House. It was spelt out to my hon. Friend that he was not quite right in what he had suggested to the House in that speech. The letter dated 17 April states:
"The CBI Smaller Firms Council, like the CBI as a whole, is not currently committed to any specific policy regarding the law on interest on overdue debts. Whilst it is true to say that in our initial consultations the SFC was inclined to favour some form of right at the discretion of the courts it has put its views on ice pending the outcome of our current detailed review of policy."
I await that as much as my hon. Friend does.
Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend is referring to a letter which was written as a result of a misunderstanding by the CBI. Unforuntately, I do not have my files with me, but

789
I have a letter from the CBI, saying that the smaller firms council endorses the proposal. I have since pointed that out to the CBI, but it has not even bothered to reply.
Mr. Trippier: I am sure that we can resolve this matter, perhaps outside the Chamber at some future date. Only the other evening I was in the company of the present and previous chairmen of the CBI smaller firms council and there is no doubt in my mind that that council is not unanimous on the matter by a long way. The last time that I attended that council, I was impressed to see that the majority of members attending were concerned as to whether legislation should be introduced.
Again trying to narrow the difference between my hon. Friend and myself, may I say that it is important that those people, especially members of the Forum of Private Business— Mr. Stan Mendham's organisation — should understand what they are being asked in the form of a survey. It is important that they understand that if we introduce legislation, they could suffer. My hon. Friend cannot deny that fact. I have no quarrel with the Forum of Private Business. As my hon. Friend said kindly, I enjoy a considerable amount of exposure from the forum, most of it favourable, and I have a great deal of time for Mr. Stan Mendham. Strangely, this is about the only issue in relation to small firms on which he has not consulted me. It is the only subject on which we have never had a discussion. Perhaps he more than anyone else would be interested to read the Hansard report of the debate.
My hon. Friend and I share an anxiety — this especially worries me — about large firms deliberately exploiting their market power to derive commercial advantage and gain extended credit from delaying payment of suppliers' bills, usually at the expense of smaller firms.
Mr. Knight: I agree with my hon. Friend's campaign. I know what he is trying to do and I support him. Can he assure the House that he will send a copy of his speech to the Rover Group? I have received numerous complaints from medium-sized companies in my constituency that, despite the fact that in its latest brochure the Rover Group says that it has a reputation to live up to, it does not pay its debts on time.
Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. I have asked hon. Members on both sides of the House several times to let me have any information on overdue payments. I shall be happy to look into that matter for my hon. Friend. I shall write to the chairman of the company on his behalf and on behalf of his constituent firms, which are suffering as a result of delayed payment — if it can be proved that there is delayed payment. I must be careful in what I say about that.
The "late payment disease" is found in large and small firms, and in all sectors of industry and commerce. But the practice to which I referred before the intervention, where a payment can be delayed for about two or three months, is absolutely immoral. Although my hon. Friend and I accept that some small firms do not pay the bills of large firms on time, it would not make as much difference to the latter. However, the delay in payment from the large firms to the small firms can make all the difference between survival and failure. That is why I launched the booklet entitled, "Payment on Time."
790
The public sector, too, has come in for some criticism. I gain some comfort from the fact that only 5 per cent. of respondents to the CBI survey thought that central and local government bodies are their worst payers. I was pleasantly surprised to read that. I say "surprised", because many right hon. and hon. Members have asked about Departments or public bodies delaying payment to small firms in their constituencies. But 5 per cent. is relatively low. That does not suggest that I am complacent about it. Much more could be done, but I should point out to the House that Departments have instructions to pay on time. I use the opportunity again to say that if an hon. Member can give me an example of where a small firm in his constituency has not been paid on time by the Department, I shall undertake to look into it.
If I may turn to the means at our disposal to help eradicate the practice to which I referred, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North claims is the major problem, he says that the only effective and lasting solution would be to give creditors a right to interest on overdue debts. This would mean, as I understand it, that the courts would be given discretionary powers to award interest to creditors if their bills are paid late.
Mr. Ottaway: They have power.
Mr. Trippier: It is important for me to understand that and to get it absolutely clear.
Others call for statutory powers so that firms would have an automatic right to interest — that has been suggested to me also—where all late payers would be charged without exemption. When the Law Commission's report on interest was published in 1978, industry had an opportunity to comment on its recommendation that contract debts should, unless otherwise provided, carry interest at a fixed rate from the date on which payment of the debt became due. Small firms' organisations had serious reservations about the efficacy of this approach and took the opportunity to discuss late payment of bills with me. What is clear to me is that there is a wide range of opinion on the benefits or otherwise of legislation and at this stage there is no consensus on the desirability of pursuing this particular course of action. The serious reservations that were expressed some years ago still exist. Whatever route we take to tackle this problem, I have a responsibility to ensure that I respect the views of those who represent small businesses. I will see that the views of my hon. Friend the views of others continue to be fully taken into account.
The situation in other countries was referred to by my hon. Friend. I am always willing to learn from the experience of others, but, while legislation certainly appears to exist in a number of other countries, what is not clear is how effective it is in practice or as a deterrent to late payment; nor is it clear what part an unwritten code of commercial ethics plays in encouraging firms to pay promptly without the need for legislation or exhortation.
At present the provisions of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 mean that, if a debt is paid after the commencement of proceedings, it is possible to continue to sue for interest alone. I have to say that at the moment I remain to be convinced that further legislation is the best solution. My main fear is that in practical terms legislation may make little difference to a small firm's ability to obtain timely payment of outstanding accounts. Pursuing

791
reluctant debtors through the courts could represent a considerable drain on a small firm's available time and resources — and debtors know this only too well. As I have already said, large firms would be more likely to want to pursue that line than small firms simply because they do have that kind of resource at their disposal. That has been the experience in other fields also.
There is also the danger that the prospect of legislation could give rise to large firms agreeing to new credit terms which could be particularly disadvantageous to small businesses. The introduction of legislation that my hon. Friend said we should encourage could result in a general move by those with market power, that is, the larger firms, towards standard buying terms of 90 days' credit. Supporters of legislation would respond by saying that payment of all bills within 30 days should be a statutory obligation as well. I am not happy that the Government should be interfering at all in these matters by telling firms how to do business with each other. Firms should be left free to use their commercial judgment and decide whether the terms on which business is offered are acceptable to them.
So there is the near certainty that legislation would encourage major firms to extend the credit terms on which they are willing to do business with small suppliers. Buyers could also show a more pedantic attention to detail in order to delay the presentation date of the invoice. Many other issues also arise, such as the choice of interest rate, the calculation and mechanics of charging it and whether exemptions would be permitted, particularly if the small supplier wished it. All in all, legislation could be a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
I assure my hon. Friend that I shall keep an open mind on legislation, despite its intrinsic drawbacks. But before we contemplate going down that coercive route, we must see what co-operation can achieve. I say that not because I am looking for a soft option —it would not be difficult to introduce a short piece of legislation on a discretionary right to interest—but because of the practical reasons to which I alluded earlier.
If we fail to change attitudes towards the payment of bills, legislation would be likely to bring about a potentially damaging reaction. If we succeed in our objective, it follows that further legislation would be redundant. The key to changing attitudes is to convince
792
managing directors that in the long run it is not smart business practice for their finance directors to try to place the interest burden of work in progress on to suppliers.
If it were smart, why, for example, do large Japanese companies place such emphasis on developing their links with small suppliers, encouraging their development, assisting them to achieve the necessary quality of product, to understand the importance of prompt delivery, and advising them on the development of new, improved products to meet future needs?
We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate on a subject with which, as I said at the outset, I wrestle on a weekly basis, and my mail bag remains large. My hon. Friend asked how we would monitor the position. I have not yet received replies from a number of chairmen of the top 100 companies to whom I wrote about the payment booklet. I have received replies from the vast majority of them and, in the main, the chairmen of those large companies have welcomed the introduction of the code and are anxious to ensure that their buying departments honour what is suggested in it. I shall publish at a later stage details of what the larger companies are doing on this issue. I give my hon. Friend that assurance.
As an indication of the inreasing awareness of the matter, I have recently authorised the re-printing of the booklet. My hon. Friend rightly said that 130,000 copies had been distributed. Many more will now have to be printed and I welcome the fact that small as well as large firms want to receive it.
There is in the booklet advice and guidance on how to set up a proper contract. It explains the need to set out in the early stages of the document how payment is to be made. My hon. Friend will not be shocked to hear that some firms which have undertaken contracts for larger firms, not knowing that those large companies may not be good payers, should perhaps not have taken on that work. It could in certain circumstances put small firms against the wall.
I am sure that the debate will go on outside the House. I am glad that my hon. Friend and I have had an opportunity to make a contribution to it. I hope that our remarks have helped to clear the air, have helped to inform the forum of private business and have shown that there is an alternative point of view. I congratulate my hon. Friend on having secured the debate and I welcome the opportunity that I have had to reply to it.

Birmingham Public House Bombings
5.13 am
Mr. Harry Cohen: I wish to raise the serious matter of the six men imprisoned for the Birmingham pub bombings. I have a constituency interest in the matter in that Patsy Power, of 25 Cookes close, Leytonstone, is the sister of Billy Power, one of the men in prison. She wrote to me saying:
"My brother, with five other innocent men, have served 11 years for the Birmingham bombings. We, the families, have worked hard, with the help of many sympathetic people, to clear these men's names, with little result until last year. `World in Action' broadcast a special programme in September of last year about this case. Let me give you the position at the moment and tell you my fears. Following the 'World in Action' programme, Sir John Farr MP passed some papers to the Home Secretary and called for a retrial. That was six months ago and we have heard nothing, except that an investigation will be held. We fear that because of the nature of the case, it will fade from the public eye and nothing will be done. Please help us."
In addition, new evidence is now available in the form of Mr. Chris Mullin's book "Error of Judgement: The truth about the Birmingham bombings." I pay tribute to Mr. Chris Mullin. He has shown that investigative journalism is not yet dead. He has produced startling new information.
The bombings took place on the evening of 21 November 1974. The IRA placed bombs in two Birmingham pubs, "The Mulberry Bush" and "The Tavern in the Town." The bombs exploded, killing 21 people and injuring 160. It was the biggest murder in British history. Such was the strength of public horror that within a few weeks the Prevention of Terrorism Act was on the statute book.
Within three hours of the explosions, five Irishmen had been arrested at Heysham in Lancashire where they were about to board the ferry for Ireland. They had left Birmingham's New Street station on a train that departed 20 minutes before the first explosion. The five Irishmen were Paddy Hill, Robert Hunter, Noel McIlkenny, Billy Power and Johnnie Walker. A sixth man, Hugh Callaghan, was arrested at his Birmingham home the following night. All the men had families in Birmingham, where they had lived for between 10 and 25 years.
After three days in the custody of the west midlands police, four of the men had signed confessions describing how they had carried out the bombings. In the case of two of them, forensic tests on their hands were said to have proved positive. In August 1975, after a trial lasting 45 days, they were convicted, and each was given a life sentence of 21 years.
In his summing up the trial judge, the then Mr. Justice Bridge stated that the prosecution's case had two absolutely critical planks — the confessions, and the forensic evidence. As for the confessions, it was apparent from the start that they were gravely flawed. The passages dealing with the planting of the bombs were extremely thin and riddled with contradictions.
In each of the confessions the bombs were said to have been placed in plastic bags. In his reply to the letter that I sent to the Minister from Patsy Power the Minister said that the case for the prosecution was that the six defendants who foregathered in the area of New Street station on the evening of 21 November 1974 had with them white plastic bags and a number of explosive devices, yet
794
at the trial the Home Office forensic scientists were adamant that the bombs had been either in briefcases or in holdalls, not in plastic bags.
The reason for the discrepancy is that the confessions were obtained before the wreckage had been sifted and before the presence there of the briefcases and the holdall was known. It was thought that the plastic bags were the answer. They were not.
Another discrepancy is that Callaghan confessed to planting his bomb outside "The Mulberry Bush." In fact, it was planted inside, at the rear. Callaghan said that it was he and Hunter who bombed "The Mulberry Bush." Walker says that Hunter was with him bombing the taverns. Hunter cannot have been in two places at the same time. The confessions of McIlkenny and Walker refer to three bombs carried to New street station. Billy Power's confession refers to six bombs carried by Hunter, Walker and Callaghan.
The confessions do not mention where the bombs came from. No trace of explosives was ever found in the homes of the men, and no explanation of the origin of the bombs was offered to the court. All the men who signed confessions say that they were beaten out of them. They described to the court a horrifying catalogue of violence which lasted for the best part of three days and two nights. It was intense physical and psychological violence. Hill tells how the barrel of a pistol was put in his mouth and the trigger was pulled three times.
Chris Mullin's book says of Hill:
"they talked about shooting him and dumping him on the motorway on the way back to Birmingham. 'They said nobody would know, as nobody knew I was in police custody'."
His legs are still covered in scars where he says policemen stubbed out lighted cigarettes.
Billy Power is reported as saying in Mr. Mullin's book:
"'Then they started telling me there was a mob outside my home ready to lynch my wife and children. All that was saving them was the police who were searching it. They said the police would not stay for ever and that the only way to save my wife and children was to tell them what they wanted to know,' … Someone said, 'Throw him through the—"
expletive deletive, using Richard Nixon's terms—
"window.' At this they started clearing the chairs away from the window and dragged him towards it. Power was not to know, that the windows were sealed shut and could not be opened. Someone said, 'If the fall doesn't kill him, the crowd will.'"
I want the House to get a picture of the appalling violence. McIlkenny alleged that he was the subject of a mock execution in which a gun with blanks was fired at him. There is an explicit description of that on pages 94 and 95 of the book.
Most of the men have not seen their trial papers for 10 years, and most have not met for 11, but the story that they tell today of those three days and two nights is the same as that which they have told since they left police custody. Nobody disputes that they were severly beaten during their first few days in custody. Photographs taken at the time show injuries to most of their faces. Dr. David Paul, the coroner of the City of London, is prepared to say on the basis of the photographs taken in police custody that all of the men showed signs of injuries on their faces. A medical examination shortly after their admission to Winson Green prison showed their bodies to be covered in injuries.
The police say that the injuries were inflicted by the prison officers on admission to prison, and the prison

795
officers say that the men were injured before being admitted. The men say that they were beaten by the police and by the prison officers. As The Times put it at the time,
"Who beat up the bombers?"
The question demanded an answer, and an inquiry was set up to determine the cause of their injuries. The inquiry was a cover-up. It was headed by Mr. Davis Owen, who is now the chief constable of north Wales. He spent his whole time investigating prison officers and pinned all of the blame on them.
A year and a half later 14 prison officers were eventually placed on trial charged with inflicting the injuries. They all declined to testify and were all acquitted. Although all 14 declined to go into the witness box to give evidence, the majority of them had given statements to their solicitor before their trial. They are truthful and admit to the beatings up. Copies of those statements have been obtained, together with the solicitor's note written before the trial, which in effect, states:
"If these statements are available to the court all our clients will be convicted."
But that does not get the police off the hook because they do not absolve the police. Three of the warders—Mr. Patrick Murtagh, Mr. Brian Sharp and Mr. Gordon Willingham—in their statements to their solicitors point out that the men had bruises before they reached their custody and that is explained in detail in Mr. Chris Mullin's book.
"In their statements several prison officers also say they saw signs of injuries which appeared to have been inflicted before the men arrived at the prison. Patrick Murtagh … saw Johnny Walker stripped immediately after his arrival. Mr. Murtagh says, 'As he stripped, I noticed there were a number of marks on his body. I believe it was Walker who had a long and discoloured bruise from the waist up and across the front of his ribs … It was yellow and green.'
Brian Sharp was with Murtagh when Walker stripped off. He said, 'I saw bruises on many parts of his body and his torso was more or less covered. They were all colours, black, blue, yellow, purple and most of them looked oldish.' Gordon Willingham, one of the officers who two hours later supervised the bathing, saw all the men naked.
`From the marks I saw on them, I would say that their facial markings were recent, but their bodily marks were … at least one or more days old. These were consistent with a systematic beating below the neck while in police custody'." That is what the prison warders put in their statement.
In the eyes of the law there is still a mystery. Apparently the prison department was persuaded to accept responsibility for the injuries although no one has even been convicted of inflicting the injuries. The Home Office is extremely anxious that the question should not be reopened. If it could ever be proved that the police were responsible for any of the violence the confessions would be invalid.
Lord Denning summed it up when he said:
"'Just consider the course of events if this action is allowed to proceed to trial … If the six men fail it would mean that much time and money will have been expended by many people for no good purpose. If the six men win, it will mean that the police were guilty of perjury, that they were guilty of violence and threats, that the confessions were involuntary and were improperly admitted in evidence and that the convictions were erroneous. That would mean the Home Secretary would either have to recommend they be pardoned or he would have to remit the case to the Court of Appeal. This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say: It cannot be right these actions should go any further.'"
It would also mean that the police were guilty of a world record quantity of perjury at the trial. More than 20 officers ranging in rank from detective constable to
796
assistant chief constable testified at the trial that no policeman had laid a finger on the men. The trial judge, then Mr. Justice Bridge, in his summing up said that if the police were lying it would be
"a conspiracy unprecedented in the annals of British criminal history."
He went on to say that if the defendants were telling the truth the careers of many senior police officers would be blighted and some may well end up in doubt. There is a problem for the police and the Home Office because many of the police officers involved have since been promoted and are now senior officers,—apart from one of them, Detective Sergeant Brian Morton, who has just served a gaol sentence for beating up suspects.
That deals with the doubts about the confessions. The other key aspect of the trial was the forensic evidence. Dr. Frank Skuse, of the Home Office forensic science laboratory at Chorley, gave the most important evidence in the trial. He tested the men's hands in Morecambe police station a few hours after their arrest. He used the Greiss test and it proved positive in the case of Hill and Power. It was this positive test that set the police off on their beatings of all the men, and to this day the police claim that they were convinced that they had the guilty men because they had forensic proof. They said to the prisoners that they were going round with jelly on their hands, meaning gelignite.
At the trial Dr. Skuse claimed that his Greiss test made him 99 per cent. certain that the two men had recently handled explosives, that they had been in contact with nitroglycerine. He was repeatedly pressed to say if any other innocent substance could give a positive Greiss test and he said no. The defence called Dr. Hugh Black, a former chief inspector of explosives at the Home Office, and he testified that nitrocellulose which is to be found in common polishes and varnishes would produce a positive Greiss test. His evidence was rubbished by the judge and disbelieved by the jury.
It was 10 years before anyone put Dr. Skuse's evidence to the test. In May 1985 Granada Television commissioned two distinguished forensic scientists to put the conflicting forensic evidence to the test. The new tests were conducted by Dr. Brian Caddy, the head of the forensic science unit at the university of Strathclyde, and David Baldock, a former senior Home Office forensic scientist. Both showed that nitrocellulose could produce the same result as nitroglycerine. In other words, Dr. Black had been right and Dr. Skuse had been wrong.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: In what way has the hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that the tests conducted by Dr. Skuse were identical to the tests conducted by the experts who were gathered together for Mr. Mullin's book?
Mr. Cohen: I shall come to that in a moment. The samples were provided by the laboratories at Chorley and those samples were of exactly the same nature as those used in the tests conducted by Dr. Skuse. The tests were identical in their format.
Mr. Shepherd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Dr. Skuse contends that they were not identical and that that is important? The hon. Gentleman's case hangs on the tests being identical. What inquiries has he made to ascertain that the tests conducted by the later two experts were identical to the tests conducted by Dr. Frank Skuse?
Mr. Cohen: As I have said, Dr. Skuse's formula was provided by the laboratory at Chorley. I understand the point that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is making, but I do not think that it is valid. The doubt must be enormous about Dr. Skuse's claim that he was 99 per cent certain.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Dr. Brian Caddy of the forensic department of the university of Strathclyde made the point that the tests had been done by testing nitrocellulose in relation to old playing cards. I treat all this with very great caution and I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but Dr. Brian Caddy was certainly acting in good faith.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has made a valuable point.
Among the items which gave a positive test were Spectra clear lacquer, a varnished wooden surface, a cigarette packet, a picture postcard covered with nitrocellulose and two packs of old playing cards coated with nitrocellulose. These cards are significant since the men had been playing cards on their train journey from New Street to Heysham immediately before their arrest.
Dr. Caddy then asked Ian MacBride, a Granada television producer, to shuffle one of the packs of playing cards for five minutes. He tested Mr. MacBride's hands and obtained a positive reading. On that basis Dr. Skuse might have said that there was a 99 per cent. chance that the TV producer had handled explosives, when he had not. That Granada experiment destroys Dr. Skuse's evidence and a plank of the prosecution case.
The Granada programme was shown on 28 October 1985 and on 31 October Dr. Skuse took early retirement from his job at the Home Office laboratory in Chorley. He was aged 50—remarkably young. The Home Office has refused to give the reasons for his retirement.
On 22 July the Government told my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow in a written reply that Dr. Skuse's retirement had nothing to do with the "World in Action" programme a week earlier. That is disingenuous because the Granada experiments were conducted five months earlier. Although they were not publicised, they must have been widely known within the forensic community. Certainly the Chorley laboratory was aware of them because they provided Dr. Baldock and Dr. Caddy with the formula used by Dr. Skuse when he swabbed the men's hands.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: The book does not rubbish Dr. Skuse but suggests that, because of the consequences of tests conducted 10 or 11 years after the event, a man should be dismissed. Is that what the hon. Gentleman suggests? That seems to be the drift of the hon. Gentleman's comments. I find them very distasteful.
Mr. Cohen: I do not know whether he was dismissed. I do not know the answer.
Mr. Bob Clay: This is the first time that the allegation has been made. Is there not a simple way to clear up the matter? We are told by the Home Office that Dr. Skuse retired on the ground of public interest. But that has never been specified. All the allegations against Dr. Skuse can be cleared up tonight by the Minister telling us why he took early retirement.
Mr. Cohen: I endorse that comment.
798
The results of the Granada tests have been with the Home Office since last October. It is widely known that it conducted its own tests many months ago, but it has refused to reveal the results. I suspect that the Government are waiting for the recess so that they can avoid questioning by the House. That is hard luck because they have to face the questions. When were the tests conducted? When were they completed? What was the outcome? Why has there been such a delay in announcing the outcome? It is now 10 months since the Granada programme and 14 months since the Granada tests.
There is a third and crucial aspect of the case.
Mr. Dalyell: I understand that further tests are being carried out at the forensic laboratories in London by Dr. Margaret Pereira and her colleagues. Some information might help.
Mr. Cohen: The Minister is shaking his head, but we want the answers to these serious questions because men are languishing in gaol.
In his book, Mr. Mullin asks, "If these men were not responsible for the bombings, who was?" He says that he has identified all four who were actually responsible. He has interviewed three of them, and two have given him what he believes to have been an accurate account of what happened. That is covered in chapters 39 and 40 of his book.
The draft of those last two chapters was forwarded to the Home Secretary by the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) on 12 May, and I give full praise to the hon. Gentleman for trying to get justice in this case. On 20 May the Home Secretary replied to the hon. Member, stating:
"the material and claims in the extract from Mr. Mullin's book raise … matters which are wholly new and which present a completely different approach to the whole question of whether the six men may have been wrongfully convicted".
He continued:
"You will understand that I shall need to consider the implication of what Mr. Mullin has to say very carefully",
and he concluded by urging the hon. Gentleman to
"encourage Mr. Mullin to make available as quickly as possible any relevant material which he may have."
The hon. Member for Harborough and Mr. Mullin got together and agreed that they should ask for a meeting with the Home Secretary to present this evidence. A letter to that effect was sent by the hon. Gentleman to the Home Secretary on 26 May. There was then a long silence, but eventually on 9 July the hon. Gentleman arranged for both himself and Mr. Mullin to see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. Two days before the meeting, the Minister's office contacted the hon. Gentleman and told him that he was to come alone. In effect, the Minister did not want to see Mr. Mullin. A few days later Mr. Mullin received a letter dated 10 July from a civil servant, a Mr. B. M. Caffarey, who was careful to emphasise that he was writing at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Harborough. That in itself is surprising. The letter stated:
"No doubt, if you have any material evidence, documentary or otherwise, of which you feel the Home Secretary should be aware, you will make it available so that it can be taken fully into account".
Mr. Mullin informs me that he has replied repeating his offer to meet the Home Secretary. Why, then, does the Home Office Minister refuse to meet him? After all, the Minister will have to take the final decision. He should therefore satisfy himself about whether Mr. Mullin has interviewed the people who carried out the bombing. Why

799
did it take six weeks before the junior Minister could even be persuaded to see the hon. Member for Harborough? What was the Home Office afraid of?
Incidentally, the Home Secretary also sent the last two chapters of the book to the west midlands police, and in a parliamentary answer on 26 June he asked them to report on this aspect in particular. They too have made no attempt to contact Mr. Mullin. The chief constable replied with a long letter that poured scorn on the book, and I understand that he even questioned Mr. Mullin's motives.
Will the Minister make public the contents of that letter from the chief constable? If he says that it is private, why has Superintendent Martin Burton, spokesman for the west midlands police, read extracts of it to the media? The implication must be that they have a vested interest in debunking Mr. Mullin's case and in continuing the cover-up.
It should be remembered that six innocent men have so far spent 12 years in prison apiece for a crime of which they are wholly innocent, and they have no prospect of being released. The Minister should be prepared to cut through that cover-up and see Mr. Mullin.
There is some evidence to suggest that up to a certain level the Home Office and the prison department know that the men inside are innocent. In the prisons in which these men have been held for any time, they are widely regarded as innocent. They are not regarded as IRA prisoners either by the staff or by other genuine IRA prisoners. Three of the men receive normal, unsupervised visits alongside the ordinary criminal prisoners.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend confirm the prison category of the prisoners we are speaking of?
Mr. Cohen: They are supposed to be category A, the most serious.
Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unusual, if not unprecedented, for a category A prisoner to be allowed to receive unsupervised visits?
Mr. Cohen: Yes, indeed; yet the Birmingham six are supposed to be the biggest murderers in British history.
Walker, at his trial, was described as a brigadier in the IRA and the brains behind the bombings. He is allowed unsupervised visits, but in the same prison, Long Lartin, an IRA man with a record nowhere near that of Walker and who is within one month of release from a 14-year sentence is still given the category A status. Nearly all the staff at the prisons, probably up to the governor and probably at the Home Office, know that they have got the wrong people.
There are many serious questions for the Minister to answer frankly. Why is the inquiry process proceeding at such a snail's pace? When were the Home Office's forensic tests carried out? Was it at least six months ago? Is the Minister planning to announce the results of the inquiry in the depths of the recess when there is no opportunity for Members to question the decision? Will that further extend the cover-up and provide reasons for not reopening the case? Has anyone been found to take responsibility for the beatings which were administered during the men's first week in custody? Is it not true that the original inquiry by Davis Owen, now the chief constable of north Wales, was a whitewash designed to pin responsibility on the prison warders and so take the heat off the police?
800
A most important question is why Dr. Skuse resigned. Can the Minister categorically say that there is no connection between this case and Dr. Skuse's sudden retirement at the age of 50? If there is no connection, what is the reason for his retirement? Why is the Minister so reluctant to meet Mr. Mullin and discuss the case? Why did it take the Home Office six weeks even to see the hon. Member for Harborough? Is it that the Home Office is reluctant to face awkward questions?
Mr. Richard Shepherd: The speech of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is almost like a panegyric for a book. I appreciate this is a serious subject and raises great matters of question. The last two chapters of the book are flawed for an ordinary citizen like myself. To state that one has talked with the perpetrators of the crime and name then as X, Y and Z is an unsatisfactory procedure. Has the hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that this is no more than a gimmick to heighten the serious charges which Mr. Mullin makes in terms of the individuals whom he claims are the biggest mass murderers other than the ones presently serving sentences in prison?
Mr. Cohen: I do not think it is a gimmick. There is one way in which the charges can be tested and that is by the Minister and the police. They should meet Mr. Mullin and discover what evidence he has in respect of those interviewed. That should have been done a long time ago.
If these men are supposed to be the biggest murderers in British history, why are they treated so differently from other IRA prisoners? Why do three of them receive visits alongside ordinary prisoners? Most people in the prisons know that they are innocent men.
During questions to the Home Office yesterday the Minister came up with another excuse for the delay. Apparently, investigations were now in an advanced state, but they now had to investigate the new claims in Mr. Mullin's book. That is not a good enough excuse for further delay. Since October, the Minister and the police have been in possession of the new evidence — the "World in Action" programme and the evidence from Home Office tests. It is not a good enough excuse for avoiding seeing Mr. Mullin.
The Minister impugned the motives of hon. Members who asked questions about the case during Question Time today by accusing them of mounting an "orchestrated campaign". There is nothing wrong with that when swift action to right an obvious injustice is demanded. Those involved in the so-called orchestrated campaign, according to the Minister's answer on 7 July, include the Government of the Republic of Ireland, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishops of Westminster and Armagh, the Bishops of Down, Connaught and Derry, many organisations, 40 hon. Members on both sides of the House, two Lords and members of the prisoners' families. It is certainly an orchestrated campaign, and one which covers a wide selection of the community.
Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. I think that he has done a great service to the House in delivering his speech. Does he accept that for a long time many people have been asking searching questions about all the issues surrounding the Birmingham pub bombings? A long time has had to pass and there have had to be television programmes and now a book for there to be any degree of open debate. Responsibility lies with the Minister to agree to meet Mr. Mullin to discuss what he

801
has written and to ensure that there is a full and open Home Office inquiry into what could well be an enormous travesty of justice.
Mr. Cohen: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments.
The Minister wrote to me on 17 July in response to the Patsy Power letter which I forwarded to him. He wrote that he was
"empowered by section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to refer a case to the Court of Appeal for review … if significant new facts, material to the rightness of the conviction, had come to light which had not previously been before the courts".
The "World in Action" programme that was shown in October 1985 certainly produced material new facts.
I urge the Minister to show courage and to face the fact that an injustice has been done, regardless of the consequences which might flow for those involved. Stop delaying and refer the case to the Court of Appeal forthwith. Show the necessary courage in the interests of justice.
5.52 am
Mr. Bob Clay: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on raising this extremely important matter. From what we have heard already, and from the many parliamentary answers that there have been from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Home Secretary, we must ask why there has been such an incredible delay in the review that the Home Office has been conducting into the case. There are two possible explanations. First, the matter is grave—it obviously is—and the inquiries that are being conducted are so meticulous, thorough and careful that a long period has been necessary. Unfortunately, the other explanation is that there is a cover-up.
It seems that I have to reject the first explanation, which is that the inquiries are taking place with meticulous care and thoroughness. That cannot be so, for the following reasons. It is clear that there is a lack of will or enthusiasm on the part of Home Office Ministers to talk to the author of the book which has re-awakened interest in the case, who is Mr. Chris Mullin. The sorry history of that has been outlined by my hon. Friend. The forensic tests that were carried out by Dr. Brian Caddy took place some considerable time ago and the Home Office is well aware of the results. It is clear from its own answers that the Home Office undertook its own tests on the grease tests some time ago, and we would like to know precisely when. As that is a specific matter, it does not take months to evaluate the results of the tests. Even if there are other things about which the Home Office is not certain, why have not we been told what its conclusions are on the tests?
The fact that the police have not spoken to Chris Mullin is extraordinary. The Home Secretary stated in a written reply that he had received the book. He referred to Mr. Mullin's claim to have identified the four men who took part in the bombing and said that he had asked the police to report on that. Apart from the general review, he has asked the police to investigate the claims made by Mr. Mullin. The answer came four weeks ago. Yet, to date, no attempt has been made by the police who are meant to be conducting the investigation to contact Mr. Mullin. I cannot believe that that is a serious or thorough investigation.
802
It took the west midlands police three days to decide that they had the guilty men. If they could reach that conclusion, shabby as it was, so quickly, why has it taken the Home Office nine months to consider, without reaching a conclusion, whether the west midlands police force was right? Furthermore—it is a familiar complaint that Labour Members make about the procedures —is it appropriate that the west midlands police should conduct the inquiry into whether they had got the right people in the first place? I cannot believe that the delay is because of the thoroughness and meticulousness of the Home Office or the police. Therefore, I must ask whether it is a cover-up. Unfortunately, there are some indications in that direction.
It is beyond dispute that the men were beaten. The argument is about where they were beaten. Were they beaten by the police, in which case their confessions would be invalidated, or were they beaten in Winson Green prison alone? We know that they were beaten in Winson Green prison. The question is whether they were beaten before they arrived there. No serious attempt has been made to answer that question. Despite the fact that 14 warders were acquitted of the charge, the Home Office has made no serious attempt to look into it. I have said that both the Home Office and the police refused to talk to Chris Mullin. That shows a cover-up.
We do not have any serious explanation of Dr. Skuse's retirement. It took weeks of evasive answers by the Home Office to parliamentary questions before the Home Secretary finally wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and assured him that it was not as a result of the "World in Action" programme. That leaves the main question unanswered. Was it as a result of the exposure of his inadequate work on the original tests?
One Conservative Member has questioned the doubts that have been cast on Dr. Skuse. I am afraid that I should like to add to those doubts. I think we know for certain that Dr. Skuse had never met the west midlands police officer in charge of the original inquiry until the case of the Birmingham pub bombings. The forensic scientist living in Lancashire and the policeman living in the Midlands never met again, as far as we know, after the trial of the Birmingham pub bombers.
Nevertheless, early in 1975, when work was starting on the Granada Television programme, for some extraordinary reason Dr. Skuse travelled from his present home in Wigan down to ex-Chief Superintendent Reade's present home in Rugely, Staffordshire, to have a discussion about the fact that Granada Television was undertaking investigations into the case. One wonders why on earth Dr. Skuse had to make that journey so many years later. That underlines even more the need for an explanation as to why Dr. Skuse took early retirement. That suggests a cover-up.
The Minister must accept that the forensic evidence in the trial has collapsed. In many ways, the confessions depended on that forensic evidence. It is quite clear that the police persisted with whatever methods they used to get those confessions because Dr. Skuse had told them that certain of the men were covered in gelignite. Therefore, the police assumed that they were guilty, and everything else followed.
Some extraordinary aspects about the case and the circumstances of the arrest of the men have never been explained by those who seriously believe that the men were members of the IRA. For instance, when the men were

803
taken off the train at Heysham, four were held by the police. One of them, Paddy Hill, actually went on to the ferry. He was taken off the ferry only a couple of minutes before it sailed. The four who were questioned by the police were told that they would have to go to Morecambe for forensic tests.
I believe that their response was quite undisputed, and it is a matter of police record. They said, "Oh, what about our mate?" Here we have, allegedly, brigadiers and so on of the IRA— hardened bombers with years of criminal terrorist experience — and the four who had been captured said of the one who was about to get away, "Oh, what about our mate?" Does anyone seriously believe that men who had any connection with the IRA would react in that way?
It is extraordinary that more attention was not paid at the trial to another point. It is a matter of record. It has been proven and never been denied. Paddy Hill, the man taken off the boat, went on the journey to Belfast at the last minute, having borrowed the train fare from Sister Bridget, a nun in the local convent. Does anyone really believe that an experienced IRA bomber, about to plant bombs in the middle of Birmingham in two pubs, would arrange to get his train fare by borrowing from a nun two hours before the train was to leave? That is nonsense. No one has ever managed to explain those circumstances.
Could anyone really believe that so many police in the west midlands and at Morecambe were capable of extracting confessions in this manner? We know the answer in respect of one of those policemen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton has already said, Detective Sergeant Brian Morton was convicted and gaoled for beating up a suspect while obtaining a confession in another case. We therefore know that one of the policemen in the police station at the time the confessions were extracted was perfectly capable of taking that kind of action.
The point has already been made— I have personal experience of it—that the prisoners are widely regarded as innocent. Only a few weeks ago, when a little publicity about the concern being shown in this place appeared in my local newspaper, the Sunderland Echo, one of my constituents, who had served many years in Hull prison for an offence that had nothing to do with any political, Republican or terrorist motivation, rang me up and said how pleased he was that the case had been re-opened. He had been in the prison for many years with Richard McIlkenny. It was common knowledge in the prison, from the governor downwards, that that man was innocent and was treated as such.
The Home Secretary must explain why the six are treated as though they are in prison for committing a minor offence and why they can sit in the cafeteria among other prisoners, conducting interviews, while IRA prisoners convicted on much more minor charges are supervised by warders, are in locked cells, and the rest of it.
Mr. Tony Banks: Has my hon. Friend asked himself another question on the implications if an inquiry were held and those being held for the Birmingham pub bombings were found to be guiltless? Has my hon. Friend considered the implications for the whole legal system, the position of the police—in view of the way in which they have extracted confessions in this case — and the forensic evidence that Dr. Skuse
804
produced in this case and perhaps in previous cases? Does my hon. Friend think that it might be in the interests of the Home Office and the establishment to allow innocent people to stay in prison because, if they come out, there would be great implications for the legal system?
Mr. Clay: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I agree that that is the great difficulty faced by the Home Office. We have to understand and to feel some sympathy with its dilemma. The trial judge—now Lord Bridge — spelt it out clearly. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton has already made this point. If one believes that the men are innocent and that the confessions were extracted in the way suggested, an extraordinary number of police perjured themselves. Some of those policemen were and still are in extremely senior positions. This is understandably a matter of great embarrassment to the Home Office. It faces potentially grave embarrassment if it does not clear up this case.
I should like to refer to another point which has already been raised by an hon. Member and in the press, and I am sure that the Minister will do so also because he has already done so during Question Time. Why does Mr. Mullin not name the people he believes did it? The first point to make — I am sure that the Minister is well aware of it—is that if Mr. Mullin were to name those whom he thinks did it, those whom he has interviewed, and, in two cases, those who have told him they did it, it would be of no value in a court. It is pure hearsay.
The second point, which I am surprised hon Members do not understand implicitly and obviously, is that the IRA is not an organisation known for dealing with people it falls out with by sending them solicitor's letters. Mr. Mullin, in embarking on this inquiry, which was intended not to identify those who did it but to establish the innocence of those who did not, gave undertakings in many cases to perfectly innocent third parties, in order to find his way to those who did it. He gave undertakings of absolute confidentiality at every stage. He is a man of integrity. Indeed, many aspects of journalism in this country depend on the integrity of journalists to keep their word and not break confidences. Assuming that the Minister accepts that it was a legitimate inquiry — he must accept that because the Home Office would not have spent the time that it has reviewing the case unless it thought there was an element of doubt— and assuming that the Minister thinks that Mr. Mullin was acting from honourable motives and doing a job that was potentially in the public interest, he must know that Mr. Mullin would not have got anywhere in trying to identify those who did it unless he gave undertaking of confidentiality. If the Minister was in the same line of business, surely he would have given those undertakings because he would know that he would not get anywhere if he did not. Having given those undertakings, would the Minister break them? Would the Minister put his hand on his heart and promise to keep certain information confidential and then blatantly breach that?
Mr. Tony Banks: Does my hon. Friend not agree that journalists can perform a valuable role—they certainly have in this case — but that the responsibility for checking the accuracy of Mr. Mullin's account rests entirely with the police? Why should Mr. Mullin perhaps put himself in danger by revealing the sources that he has had to use in order to produce his evidence? The evidence

805
is there. The responsibility is now entirely that of the police and it is no good saying that it is Mr. Mullin's responsibility to bring other people to book.
Mr. Clay: I agree entirely. I was about to make that point. Apart from the incredible danger that would be involved, not only to Mr. Mullin but to other third parties, it is entirely the job of the police to find those who did it. Not only that, it should be much easier for the police. It is extraordinary that the police, with all their intelligence methods, special branch and the ability to interview anyone they wish within the jurisdiction, find it so difficult to discover who did it and yet complaints are made that Mr. Mullin, an investigative journalist with none of those facilities, refuses to give names. It is a bit of a cheek for the Minister and others in the Home Office to be pursuing that line and saying that Mr. Mullin should say who did it, especially as at the moment the Home Secretary and the Minister are refusing to talk to Mr. Mullin.
The Home Office should consider that, apart from the moral considerations of the case and the appalling and serious possibility that six innocent men have been held for 12 years, with all the ignominy of their convictions and the reflection on their families, there are, if the Government cannot understand those arguments, pragmatic arguments. I should like to put one to the Minister. The United States has recently signed an extradition treaty with the United Kingdom for the extradition of terrorists. As the Minister will be aware — this has been raised by Conservative Members in the House recently—it will still have to be demonstrated in an American court that those being extradited will face a fair trial in Britain. There will already be question marks over the Diplock courts. Unless the Home Office takes the case seriously and clears it up, it could well be that the case will, effectively, be retried in American courts. American lawyers will argue before American judges that there is no chance of a fair trial in this country, given the history of the case. The Minister should consider that argument. He should also consider the implications for the Anglo-Irish agreement which the Government and many Labour Members, not including me, were so enthusiastic about. The Minister knows perfectly well that Peter Barry, the Irish Foreign Minister, and other members of the Irish Government have made representations about the case.
A courageous decision is needed now from the Home Office. It has many options and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton suggested that the case should be referred to the Court of Appeal or to a retrial. I am not so sure, and this is the only point on which I may possibly disagree with him. I am not sure whether there can be a retrial when the question rests on forensic evidence at that time, confessions and how they were extracted at that time, men's movements at that time and discrepancies about where the bombs were put. Memories of the witnesses and those charged will not go back that far. Moreover, no one has yet got hold of those who committed the crime.
There is enough evidence that six innocent men have already wrongly served 12-year sentences. It is within the Home Secretary's power to grant a pardon. If he did so, it might circumvent some of the embarrassment about which the Home Office is undoubtedly worried. A retrial or a reference to the Court of Appeal will mean that Dr. Frank Skuse, various police officers, the men and their
806
families will be dragged through it all again. The most courageous decision would be for the Home Office to recognise that it has convicted the wrong people, to tell the police to get on with the job and to grant the men a free pardon.
I hope that the Minister will answer the specific questions raised tonight, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton. We have debated why the Home Secretary or the Minister will not meet Mr. Mullin. This matter is too serious for playing games about who will ask whom for meetings. Mr. Mullin is in the precincts of the House and the Minister could leave the Chamber after the debate and start an initial discussion with Mr. Mullin and arrange to meet him for further discussions. I hope he will give a commitment to do so before he sits down tonight.
6.13 am
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What happened in Birmingham was simply horrific and innocent people were maimed and killed, so I started from a position of scepticism. However, the more one knows about events, the less comfortable one becomes.
The Minister must have time to answer, and my interest is confined to the forensic aspects of the case. For 19 years I was a weekly columnist in New Scientist and in that capacity Chatto and Windus gave me an advance copy of Chris Mullin's book "Error of Judgement". Anyone who reads the book must be increasingly disturbed about the case, but I shall leave the wider issues to others.
I have been interested in the forensic science aspects ever since Dr. Margaret Pereira and her colleagues took me round the Lambeth laboratory some years ago. Faced with the prospect of having to write a review of the book, I wrote to the Home Office on 28 June asking some factual questions, and, as ever, I received a courteous reply from the Home Secretary. But there is no reason why those factual questions cannot be answered, so I shall repeat them now.
In relation to page 35 of Mullin's book, the first question was whether in the light of subsequent information from Strathclyde, and with the benefit of hindsight, the Home Office now believes that Dr. Frank Skuse was as up-to-date in the latest techniques of detecting explosives on people's hands as his position warranted? I should make it clear to the House that these are my questions, and no one else's. Secondly, were Dr. Skuse's results cross-checked with professional colleagues at Chorley?
The third question relates to page 40. Does the Home Office have a record of the timing of Dr. Skuse's inquiries and investigation during his stay at Morecambe police station? The fourth question relates to page 45. I can imagine what Dr. Skuse felt like being hauled out of his bed, or whatever, in Wigan, driven to Morecambe and having to work through the night. But did Dr. Skuse ask Power or the others about what he had been doing—that is, playing cards?
The fifth question relates to page 46. Why does the Home Office refuse to permit Dr. Skuse to be interviewed? The sixth question relates to page 47. Would it not have been normal practice, by daybreak, to have provided Dr. Skuse with more forensic help from Chorley or from elsewhere? Is it satisfactory to rely on a necessarily tired man working through the night? Incidentally, that is no criticism of Dr. Skuse. It is just an explanation of the

807
position in which I suspect he found himself. I should be reluctant to say anything in criticism of Dr. Skuse until I have had the other side of the story.
In relation to page 48, the seventh question was this: what was the result of the water test? Was it submitted to a genito-urinary expert?
The eighth question relates to page 59. Does the Home Office agree that many of us who have never handled explosives could reveal faint positives of ammonium and nitrate on our hands?
The ninth question relates to page 165. What is the Home Office response to Mullin's suggestion that the results of the thin layer chromatography and gas chromatography mass spectrometry tests were "surprising"?
Question 10 relates to page 166. Is there documentary evidence that the GCMS test on Hill's left hand proved positive? Question 11 relates to page 167. What has happened to the oscilloscope readings suggesting the presence of nitroglycerine? Question 12 relates to page 168, where Mullin makes a statement which is possibly the central concern of my letter. It is this:
"Because most forensic scientists are in the employ of the Government, it has always been difficult to find scientists of sufficient stature and practical experience to stand up to the Crown experts like Dr. Skuse."
I asked the Home Office whether it sees this as a problem.
Of course, I have talked to Dr. Brian Caddy of Strathclyde, and I hope that funding may be made available, through the Scottish Office or the Home Office, to set up the sort of institute which the Home Office knows that he wants at Strathclyde. There is an urgent need for it. I have talked to lawyers and to friends in the police, who concur with that view.
Question 13 relates to page 169. Does the Home Office have records of the tests carried out on the men's clothing? Question 14 relates to page 169. How come that the playing cards had simply disappeared? Is this not extraordinary in a case of such gravity? Question 15 relates to page 170. Did Dr. Black, the former Home Office chief inspector, seek ministerial or departmental permission before giving evidence? Question 16 relates to page 237. How does the Home Office respond to statements, as presented to Mullin, of Mr. David Baldock and Mr. R. A. Hall?
Question 17 relates to page 238. How does the Home Office respond to Brian Caddy's finding that shuffling old packs of cards produces the same indications as handling nitroglycerine? Question 18, which relates to page 239, stated:
"Can you give the undertaking that Dr. Skuse's premature retirement was unrelated to the World in Action programme?"
That undertaking was given to me in the letter.
In summing up, Mr. Justice Bridge referred to two absolutely critical planks in the prosecution's case against the six men, first, there were the confessions and, secondly, the forensic evidence given by Dr. Skuse and the whole question of the Greiss tests, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) referred.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend referred to the playing cards and the traces of nitroglycerine. Does he not think that another question to ask the Minister is what has happened to the two sets of playing cards that the men
808
were using on the train to Morecambe? They were exhibits at the trial, but they have subsequently disappeared. Should the Minister not answer where they are?
Mr. Dalyell: I agree with my hon. Friend. This is one of the questions that I asked. Like every one of those 18 questions, it is a factual question to which, after a month, there should surely have been some answer. I was not asking wild questions or proffering guesswork or hypothesis. I was simply asking factual questions, and that is why I was dissatisfied with the Home Secretary's answer.
It is most important that the Minister should have time to reply. I am going to cut out the rest of what I would have wished to say and sit down because Members of Parliament who raise questions ought to be disciplined in allowing Ministers to give answers.
6.21 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): In November 1974 there was a campaign of bombing in the midlands. On 14 November 1974 at the post office telephone exchange in Coventry, James McDade was killed when the bomb he was attempting to plant exploded prematurely. On 21 November, the day McDade's body was being taken to Northern Ireland for burial, at about 20 past 8 in the evening, there was an explosion at two public houses to the centre of Birmingham—"The Mulberry Bush" and "The Tavern in the Town". A warning was telephoned to a local newspaper, but not in time to save lives. In all, 21 people were killed and 162 injured, many of them very seriously. It was one of the most appalling crimes in British history. As we have heard this morning, six men were arrested and charged with murder arising out of this dreadful offence.
The six men came to trial in 1975. The trial, which was held in Lancaster, lasted 32 working days. On 15 August 1975, all six men were found guilty, each on 21 counts of murder, by unanimous verdicts. All six sought leave to appeal against their convictions. Their applications for leave to appeal were refused by the full Court of Appeal on 30 March 1976.
At these court hearings, all the evidence in the case was most thoroughly examined. The courts heard full details of the character of the accused, of their background and something of the circumstances leading up to the planting of the bombs. They considered the forensic evidence in considerable detail. The methods, results and significance were examined, and questioned. The defence brought its own expert to give evidence. The possibility of innocent contamination by a non-explosive substance was raised.
Most importantly, the nature and content of the confessions was closely examined. Here, of course, I touch one of the main points now raised in support of the contention that the six men were wrongfully convicted, namely, the suggestion that their statements were obtained by violence and threats and were therefore not only false but inadmissible as evidence.
So far as the trial is concerned, this issue was the subject of what has been termed a "trial within a trial". This lasted eight days. It was conducted first in the absence of the jury. The evidence was then repeated before it. At the end of the "trial within a trial", the presiding judge concluded that the evidence of the statements was admissible. At the end of the trial, the jury concluded, clearly in large part on the basis of the statements and confessions, that the men were guilty.

809
The key point raised in connection with the confessions has been, as I say, the allegation, made by the six men themselves, that they were improperly obtained. There is no doubt that when the six men appeared in court, after their remand at Winson green prison, clear signs of injury were seen on their faces. There is equally no doubt that the trial judge, and in turn the jury, accepted the evidence of more than 20 police officers that the men had not been assaulted or threatened while in police custody. The judge took the view, in the clearest terms, that the men had sustained their injuries while in prison. That view was later confirmed by the Appeal Court.
But the court hearings, and consideration of the case, did not end there. In 1977, three of the six men initiated a civil action against the chief constables of West Midlands and Lancashire, and against the Home Office. Eventually, in a variety of separate and joined actions, all six men sought the award of exemplary damages on the ground of assault and negligence while in police and prison custody. In the course of the hearing before the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), it was accepted by the Home Office that the six men had sustained injury while in the custody of the prison department.
In all, there were three civil hearings between 1978 and 1981, culminating in three days before the House of Lords in October 1981. In brief, the courts had to determine whether or not the action seeking damages, resting on the allegation of assault by the police, could properly be allowed to continue. In effect, the courts finally determined that they could not proceed to hear an issue —namely, the allegation of assault by the police—that had already been considered and determined in the criminal courts. The actions were thus held by the courts to he prevented from proceeding — in the legal terminology, by estoppel, or by the fact that they were an abuse of process.
Of particular significance, in the light of the recent representations about the case—to which I shall come—is the fact that both existing and new evidence was considered. In particular, the civil courts had before them evidence and statements from prison officers and a report regarding the appearance of injuries on photographs of faces of the six men.
Dr. Paul, the coroner for the City of London and Hornsey, had examined photographs taken before and after the men were received into prison. In a report in 1976, he concluded that these showed signs of injury inflicted before their reception into prison. This carried the implication that these injuries had been sustained while in police custody. However, to put the point at its simplest, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), concluded that this evidence, and the evidence of prison officers regarding injuries, did not change the aspect of the case—again to use the legal wording—it had no probative value. That view was confirmed in the House of Lords.
Mr. Cohen: The Minister accepts that these men had injuries. On what date did the Home Office accept that injuries were inflicted on them while in custody?
Mr. Mellor: I said that the Home Office, given our responsibility for the prison service, accepts that injuries to the men were caused while in Winson Green prison.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Mellor: I wish to complete my speech within the time available. If I give way to an hon. Member, that rules out the prospects of my giving way later. If the hon. Gentleman wants his chance to intervene now, so be it.
Mr. Banks: As it is accepted that the prisoners were beaten while in prison — somebody did it; it was not self-inflicted—what action has been taken to bring those guilty of inflicting those wounds to book?
Mr. Mellor: There was a trial of prison officers.
Mr. Clay rose—
Mr. Mellor: Am I not to be allowed to answer interventions? The hon. Gentleman should contain himself. I contained myself while listening to his speech. He should contain himself while I deal with his hon. Friend's intervention, otherwise civilised debate in this place — to which I assume he attaches the same importance as I do—will not be possible.
As I was saying, there was a trial, before a court, of prison officers accused of that matter. That trial did not result in convictions.
Mr. Clay: Are we to take it that when people are acquitted of a crime, the police consider that to be the end of the matter? In other words, does it mean that from now on, crimes for which people are charged and acquitted are ignored and no attempt will be made to discover who committed them?
Perhaps the Minister would care to correct something he said. While it may not have been intentional, it may seem to somebody reading the Official Report that he gave some slightly misleading information. He said that the evidence of the warders had been considered at the appeal. Will he accept that the key evidence, given by the warders to their solicitors, has never been examined by a court? In that evidence, three of the warders said that, in their view, beatings had already taken place before the men arrived at Winson Green prison. Further statements have been submitted and they are being considered in the context of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's present inquiries as to whether there are fresh matters that would merit reference to the court.
Mr. Mellor: If I am permitted to get through the rest of my speech, that is one of the points that I hope to make. As I was saying, there was a trial in 1976 of 14 prison officers who were accused of assaulting the six men. All were, in fact, acquitted. This case has been given full and detailed attention by the courts, but in addition the case has already been the subject of review within the Home Office. The six men have long protested their innocence, and in particular denied their confessions. That has led, over the years, to many representations from right hon. and hon. Members and others. When such representations have been received, they have been carefully examined, but to date no Home Secretary of either political stripe has been able to conclude that he would be justified in taking any action to interfere with the decisions of the courts. At this point, before I turn to the recent representations, it is important that I should explain what powers the Home Secretary has at his disposal where a miscarriage of justice is alleged to have occurred.
Our constitution places the duty of administering justice in individual criminal cases on the courts. The clear, underlying principle is that the Executive should not intervene in or interfere with the courts' decisions.

811
Nevertheless, the Home Secretary has certain reserve powers. In particular, he may consider sending the case to the Court of Appeal for judicial review. This is his power of reference, provided by section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
But it is also clear that a Home Secretary must not exercise his powers in such a way as to usurp the functions of the courts. In practice, this means that he can consider intervening only if some new evidence, or some new and material consideration of substance, comes to light.
This practice is not rigid. It does not rule out the consideration of a case, or its referral to the Court of Appeal, solely on the grounds that some particular new piece of evidence could, with due diligence, have been laid before the courts. But what would be inappropriate would be for the Home Secretary to seek to review cases, and interfere with the decisions of the courts, on the basis of his own or someone else's view of the facts and arguments which have already been considered. He cannot exercise his powers on the basis of concern, doubt, rumour, suspicion, or unsupported claim. He should not intervene merely because, if the decision had rested with him, he might have taken a different view of the facts than the jury.
I turn now to the more recent representations which have been made about the men's convictions. The case was featured in a "World in Action" television programme which was broadcast on 28 October 1985. Following that programme, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir. J. Farr) submitted to my right hon. Friend various papers in support of the contention that the men's case should be referred to the Court of Appeal. My right hon. Friend naturally undertook to give these papers the most careful consideration.
It may be helpful to the House if I summarise at this stage the main points raised in the programme and in the associated documents submitted by my hon. Friend. Essentially, they focus on two issues: first, the allegations that the men were beaten in police custody, and secondly, the reliability of the forensic evidence. With regard to the former, my right hon. Friend has received copies of statements by six prison officers to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) has already referred. These were apparently made in February 1976 but have not previously been made public. It is claimed that these statements support the view that the men were already injured when they were received into Winson Green prison. In addition, my right hon. Friend received a copy of the report by Dr. Paul, which I mentioned earlier, of his examination of photographs of the six men. As I have said, this report was produced in 1976. Turning to the forensic evidence, it has been claimed that tests carried out by Dr. Caddy of Strathclyde University and Mr. Baldock demonstrate that nitrocellulose can give the same positive result on a Griess test as does nitroglycerine. Hon. Members may recall that this was a claim made by the defence at the trial but which it was unable to substantiate.
Clearly, these various points needed to be taken seriously and examined with the greatest care. This examination was set in hand immediately by my right hon. Friend. Had it not been for the need subsequently to consider further new points raised in Mr. Mullin's book —to which I shall turn shortly—I think that I would have been able to give the House a detailed account tonight of the steps which we have taken to examine these matters. But, as the Home Secretary has said, it would be
812
wrong, in my view, to deal with a case of this kind in a piecemeal fashion. It would be potentially misleading to try to provide a detailed response on one aspect when the case as a whole is under review. That is why I shall have to content myself with assuring the House that the points raised in the television programme and in the papers submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough and others are being looked at very thoroughly, drawing on expert scientific advice as necessary. Not only are the points raised being examined in their own right but, as I have indicated, they are being considered against the background of the whole of the case, including the civil actions which the men subsequently pursued. I cannot take further what the hon. Gentleman said for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained. He also said in his letter to the hon. Gentleman that those matters will be addressed in due course.
I do not think that the happy chance that this matter was eligible for debate today should project the Home Secretary into having to make premature explanations. One or two hon. Members have not fully understood it, but he exercises an extremely difficult quasi-judicial function. He has to make what is often an invidious decision whether to refer a case to the Court of Appeal, using the powers that Parliament conferred on him in the 1968 Act.
We have had a full account of some of the arguments in Mr. Mullin's book. Everyone will agree that, for the most part, it simply provides an account based on the man's own narrative. In the closing chapters, however, Mr. Mullin recounts how he traced three men and identified a fourth who he says were responsible for making or planting bombs. He does not, however, name them, which is not, of course, helpful to us in discharging our functions That is a decision which I hope he will reconsider. Of course I heard the explanation that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North gave, but if the Home Secretary is supposed to conclude that there is fresh evidence which entitles him to exercise his discretion under the 1968 Act, it is difficult for him to do so simply on an allegation that other unnamed men are responsible.
I do not propose to go into whether there is a good reason for not taking the matter further than that. I am simply saying that, if it is alleged that unnamed people are responsible for the offence, that is not a firm base on which the Home Secretary can exercise his discretion.
Mr. Clay: I am aware of the difficulty that the Home Secretary is in, but I wonder whether the Minister understands the difficulty that Mr. Mullin is in. However, helpful the Minister thinks it would be for Mr. Mullin to name names, does he agree that there are many questions that he or the Home Secretary would ask Mr. Mullin which he would happily answer about how he conducted his investigation and what leads him to believe that he knows who did it? The Minister has now talked quite a lot about Mr. Mullin. Is it not time that he talked to him?
Mr. Mellor: We want only to consider as objectively as we can evidence that comes forward. The question is how best to do that. I was grateful for the courtesy of Mr. Mullin's publishers who, presumably at the behest of Mr. Mullin, sent us an advance copy of his book. As a result of that, and as there was new material in at least two of the chapters, the decision was taken to ask that further inquiries be made by the police.

813
If there is further evidence, in addition to that in the book, which Mr. Mullin wants to lay before us, either publicly or confidentially — perhaps some matters are best raised confidentially — we would be more than prepared to receive it. We are dealing with difficult and essentially legal matters — whether there is a basis for reopening a jury trial. It is a grave matter, because we cannot regard the jury as a bastion of our liberty and be too ready to reopen consideration of what it does. There are, of course, proper times to reopen cases, and the Home Secretary has no interest in not reopening a proper case. If there are points that Mr. Mullin wants to put in writing, they will be considered seriously. If there are points that he would rather discuss, a discussion can certainly take place. My judgment at the time was that the bulk of the work of trawling through the evidence in detail is not done by Ministers but by officials. Mr. Caffarey, who has made contact with Mr. Mullin, is the assistant secretary in charge of the division responsible for the work. It seemed to me appropriate that Mr. Caffarey, if there was to be a meeting, should be the person who carried it out. I even thought that that might have attractions for Mr. Mullin since Mr. Caffarey might be regarded as being more disinterested than a Minister, if some of the allegations are pursued—I hope they will not be—about why Ministers might not want to reopen the case.
I have stated as clearly as I can my view on that. I would be willing to consider any further representations that are made as to what would be the appropriate way of taking this forward and I hope that what I have said is helpful and clarifies the point.
My initial judgment was that an oral meeting with a Minister was not the best way of carrying forward these difficult matters. But, as I think even the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) after our exciting experiences together on the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 will agree, I am always open to argument, although I cannot guarantee to accept every argument put forward by him.
May we leave the matter and communicate further. The offer of the meeting with Mr. Caffarey remains. Other matters we can consider in due time.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on one point that is puzzling me and that is that reference has been made to the fact that some of the prisoners are being treated differently in prison from the way in which one would expect them to be, given the gravity of the offences.
Mr. Mellor: They are being treated exactly as other prisoners. What is not happening is that certain additional restrictions are not being imposed on them as on some other prisoners because of the manner of their behaviour. That is why I told the hon. Gentleman yesterday that special restrictions are not being imposed on visits to Mr. Walker in Long Lartin prison.
I willingly concede that the behaviour of these men in prison has not been like many other IRA prisoners. There is no secret about that. I conceded it yesterday.
The Home Secretary must consider whether any of the material that has been submitted to him presents evidence of a kind which would justify referring the case back to the Court of Appeal. In practice he has to look for fresh evidence or new considerations of sufficient weight as might be thought to affect the court's view of the case. We have already given, and will continue to give, careful consideration to the representations made to us following the "World in Action" programme. We are now following up the wholly new claims in Mr. Mullin's recent book. Only when we have completed our examination of matters will my right hon. Friend be able to reach a final decision on whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.
I must assure the House that no considerations of favourable times for disclosing this matter arose. It simply is, as I think would be conceded, that even with the advance copy of Mr. Mullen's book it has only a matter of a few weeks that we have had that fresh evidence.
Apart from anything else, it would be disrespectful, given the amount of work that has gone into it, if the matters that were new within it were not subject to full and careful consideration.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Order.

Aspirin
6.43 am
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise some of the implications of the experience that Britain has had over the disease called Reye's syndrome and the recent ban that has been announced by Britain's health authorities as a result of some of the experience with that disease and the way in which aspirin has been involved with the disease.
It may be helpful if I spend a moment outlining some of the background. Reye's syndrome is a rare disease and the public may not be aware that it is a potentially lethal childhood illness. It was first described by Reye and his colleagues working in Sydney in 1963 and it affects all organs of the body, with especially devastating attacks on the liver and in the brain and muscle tissue. It usually appears soon after a viral infection such as influenza or chickenpox or gastro-enteritis. Early signs are continuous vomiting, loss of energy, drowsiness, aggressiveness and confusion and that usually leads to delirium, coma and in some cases subsequent death following brain inflammation.
The disease strikes children from infancy all the way through late adolescence. It is rare. Between three and seven cases per million children under 16 have been reported in Britain, but its main characteristic is its high mortality rate. In the United Kingdom, some 229 cases have occurred in the last four years. The figures available to me suggest that something like 80 children recovered completely, 20 survived with some evidence of permanent brain damage, and something of the order of 115 died. That is a high mortality rate of about 40 to 50 per cent.
Reye's syndrome may be somewhat commoner than this. When Reye first described the condition only the most dramatically affected patients could be identified and 80 per cent. of those died. Mild cases are now known to occur. Mild Reye's syndrome may be a common cause of vomiting after chickenpox or influenza, and mortality rates in the United States are around 10 per cent. which suggests to me that doctors there may be diagnosing more mild cases than are diagnosed in Britain. The other factor about America is that the Americans have now probably slightly more experience in diagnosing and treating the disease than we have. Various studies in the United States show that about two thirds of cases can be detected by alert medical personnel before the coma stage sets in. Early treatment at that stage can halt progression of the disease and reduce fatalities to almost nil.
I should now like to turn to the link with aspirin. The basic cause of Reye's syndrome is still unknown, but it is still thought to be an abnormal reaction in a genetically susceptible person to a viral infection such as chickenpox or influenza, both of which are common viral infections in Britain. Studies of the disease began in the United States in 1974 and four epidemiological studies published between 1980 and 1982 linked aspirin given to treat viral illness with the onset of the syndrome. The first small epidemiological study reports appeared in 1980 and demonstrated an association with aspirin. They were followed by larger studies and on 6 June 1982 the America! Academy of Pediatrics produced a special report called "Aspirin and Reye's syndrome". That report said:
"the studies for each of the two years showed a strong association with aspirin … Statistically, each of these
816
studies considered independently of the others is significant; considering them together the significance is enormous … .As you are well aware, an epidemiological association does not prove causation. However, causation may be strongly indicated by association when no other explanation for the relationship is found … the consensus of the Committee is that there is a high probability that the administration of aspirin contributes to the causation of Reye's syndrome. In balancing this probability"—
in saying that the report is referring to the risk—
"with the benefits of aspirin, it is the opinion of the Committee that aspirin should not he prescribed under usual circumstances … The Committee recognises that this recommendation is made with less than absolute proof … until contradictory information is available, the present evidence is sufficient to warrant this recommendation."
The United States Food and Drug Administration had earlier established a working group to review the data. Its evaluation was discussed in an open public meeting on 24 May 1982, and after consideration of the available evidence, on 11 June 1982, the United States Surgeon-General advised against the use of salicylates, the chemical name for aspirin, and salicylate-containing medications for children with influenza and chickenpox.
These early studies were criticised for various reasons and in 1983 the United States public health services mounted a further study designed to eliminate possible sources of error in the earlier work. The pilot phase of that study provided evidence to support the association between the disease and aspirin use in feverish children. A total of 93 per cent. of children with Reye's syndrome had a history of aspirin ingestion compared with only 46 per cent. of the matched controls.
In the light of those findings, on 17 December 1985 the Food and Drug Administration and the manufacturers of aspirin-containing medicines launched a campaign against giving aspirin to children and teenagers.
It is significant that the number of cases of Reye's syndrome reported in the United States had already fallen from 204 in 1984 to 91 in 1985. I conclude that the fall was a direct result of public discussion following the Surgeon-General's warning in 1982. The decline seems to bear out the association between the disease and aspirin.
What about the reaction in Britain? I want to contrast what has happened here with what has happened in the United States. British reporting of Reye's syndrome started in August 1981. Between February 1984 and August 1985 the communicable diseases surveillance centre published three annual reports. After the first report, the October 1984 edition of Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin, published by the Consumers Association, warned:
"The possibility of an association between aspirin and Reye's syndrome has been raised and cannot be ignored … while the issue remains unresolved it seems sensible to recommend paracetamol rather than aspirin as an antipyretic in infants and children."
Three years earlier, the National Reye's Syndrome Foundation had been started by a couple whose 11-yearold daughter, Katie Harrington, had just died after taking aspirin for flu. In October 1982, Mrs. Harrington wrote to the DHSS about the possible link. Two months later it replied:
"no causal link between aspirin and Reye's syndrome ha s been established by the present evidence, and that no warning is therefore needed in the United Kingdom."
Meanwhile, the CDSC conducted its own study of the association between aspirin and Reye's syndrome. The preliminary results of this study reached the Committee on Safety of Medicine in February 1986, and were discussed

817
at its meeting in March. The CSM has not published the figures from the study, but a scientist at the CDSC who carried out the study, confirmed that of 106 victims studied in depth, 62 had been given aspirin in the three weeks preceding admisson to hospital.
On 9 June, the chair of the CSM wrote to all doctors, dentists and pharmacists advising that aspirin should not be given to children under 12 except on medical advice—for instance, in cases of rheumatoid juvenile arthritis. The next day, the DHSS chief medical officer, Dr. Donald Acheson, issued a statement repeating this advice.
The leading manufacturers of aspirin responded to the CSM's advice by halting the supply of junior aspirin products such as Junior Disprin. Label warnings are to appear on new packs of all other aspirin preparations by early 1987, advising parents not to give aspirin to children unless a doctor tells them to. Announcements to this effect were placed in the national press over the following week. Posters were made available for GP's surgeries and child health clinics.
The warning was subsequently extended to a range of drugs containing salicylate. The manufacturers will place warnings on the packets, but whereas children's aspirin preparations will be withdrawn, childrens' salicylates in general will not. This includes most notably, Bonjela, a painkiller used very widely for babies with teething troubles. In fact, Reckitt and Coleman does not even intend to place a warning on packets of Bonjela, on the grounds that it is not supposed to be used for fevers anyway.
Alternatives to aspirin include paracetamol, and in fact the CMO has advised avoiding drugs altogether, using instead fluid intake, sponging, and so on.
Against this background I should like to raise several questions. As I hope I have demonstrated, I believe that there have been clear differences between what has happened in Britain and what has happened in the United States in the way in which the problem has been approached. In the United States, the issue was discussed in the open from the beginning, and with full public attention. I believe that that resulted in the fall in the incidence of the disease before the Food and Drug Administration finally issued its official warning.
In the United Kingdom, however, the issue was kept completely in the dark, despite the warnings from various quarters that I set out earlier. Secondly, the United Kingdom authorities waited until the results of the British study were clear before acting, despite the mounting evidence from the United States as to the association between aspirin and the disease.
In the United States, the Surgeon-General did not wait to be certain. He issued the warning, anyway. Since that happened in 1982, probably in the region of 200 children have died in Britain from Reye's syndrome.
Thirdly, a possible reason for the delay—I hope that the Minister will say something about this — is the pressure from the pharmaceutical industry. The official report of the CSM's March 1985 meeting says that members "seemed to favour" a compulsory label on aspirin products. The drugs industry in the shape of the Aspirin Foundation worked hard to throw doubt on the research, criticising the methodology of the CDSC's study.
818
Nevertheless, earlier this year the CSM reported that the evidence was overwhelming and a ban was eventually considered.
The industry, this time in the shape of the Proprietary Association of great Britain — which includes all the main firms—came back offering to withdraw children's preparations and to place warnings on adult packets.
The CSM documents, which are confidential but which were leaked extensively to The Guardian, suggest that firms were primariy concerned with protecting their market. The firms told the CSM that an under-16 ban — originally proposed by the CSM—would confuse people and there was
"a need to maintain public confidence in aspirin."
The Junior Aspirin market is worth about £3 million a year —a small proportion of the total aspirin market.
Fourthly, in the specialist medical journal Pulse, which was published this month, the warnings and the public education campaign undertaken by the Government have been extensively criticised. In fact, most children do not take junior aspirin products but simply take lower doses of adult preparations of aspirin—and the warnings are not yet included on the packets. There seems very little reason- why labels could not have been stuck on the existing packets. Even more recently, I have come across some anecdotal evidence that some junior aspirin products are still on sale without warning labels and that some prescriptions are slipping through the pharmacists' and doctors' network. If that is true, and if it is substantiated on investigation, that would give me cause for great concern.
Fifthly, it is clear to me that a number of questions remain unanswered. One reason given by the DHSS for the delay in issuing warnings was the differences revealed in the United States and United Kingdom studies. It is true that median age of onset is much lower here—starting at about 14 months compared with the eight to nine year age group that is affected in the United States. In the United States there are also marked seasonal peaks, possibly associated with the incidence and virulence of influenza B, but no such peaks have been recorded in Britain. Therefore, I accept that there are some differences in the way in which the disease occurs in Britain compared with America.
Reye's syndrome is much more common in some parts of the United Kingdom, which raises another unanswered question. The incidence of the disease in Northern Ireland is much higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Of the United Kingdom cases, 25 per cent. lived in rural areas compared with the national average for all under 15-year-olds living in the rural areas —10 per cent. There is a higher incidence in rural areas. A surprisingly high number of those affected had apparently been exposed to pesticides from crop spraying. That needs careful investigation.
A likely explanation for the disease seems to be a combination of factors — a body infected with viruses, perhaps weakened by some genetic susceptibility, exposed to an environmental pollutant and finished off by aspirin. More research is needed but the Department of Education and Science—through the Medical Research Council—is not supporting any such research.
In conclusion I shall quote Clifford Harrington, who is the co-founder of the National Reye's Syndrome Foundation:

819
"It's almost like Thalidomide all over again —complacency, secrecy, bureaucratic bungling, and a lack of care for innocent children".
I hope that the Minister will accept that in raising this issue I am not, in any way, looking for scapegoats or stating that heads should roll because no action has been taken. I believe that this is a matter of public concern which involves the lives of young children. On the evidence which is available to me I do not believe that the Government are doing enough. I hope that this debate will spur the Government into more activity to get to the root of the problem. I also hope that they will answer some of the questions that I have raised.
7.2 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss this important and worrying phenomenon of Reye's syndrome and especially the relationship of Reye's syndrome with aspirin. The Committee on Safety of Medicines recommended that aspirin should not generally be given to children under 12, because of its possible association with Reye's syndrome. Reye's syndrome is a serious but fortunately very rare disease; there are about three to seven cases each year per million children under 16. As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said, the disease strikes suddenly, usually when a child seems to be recovering from a viral infection. The early symptoms are usually very severe vomiting, and the child then becomes confused, sleepy, or aggressive, and may then progress to coma. About half the cases in this country have ended in death, and in some other cases there is brain damage. The children are very young, often only babies. Quite obviously, this disease is deeply distressing for families. I wish to extend my sympathy to the parents of all the children who have suffered from this condition particularly those who did not recover or who suffered brain damage.
Doctors have known of Reye's syndrome since 1963. There have been various attempts to investigate its nature, by clinical and biochemical investigations of the patients, and by looking at the epidemiology of the condition. The epidemiological approach showed some differences between different countries. In the United States, patients are noticeably older than they have been here. The median age of onset was about eight to nine years in the United States, but only 14 months in this country. In the United States there has been a very clear seasonal peak, as the hon. Member mentioned, in winter or early spring, just as there is for influenza, but in this country there is no seasonal peak. Perhaps this is linked to another finding, that most United States children had been ill with influenza of chickenpox before they developed Reye's syndrome, but a wider range of viral illnesses have been involved here. At present, I understand, there is no clear medical view about the reasons for these differences between countries, or about their implications. It is important, though, for us to keep them in mind throughout the discussion, just as the Committee on Safety of Medicines did during all its deliberations.
The committee considered the possibility of a causal link between Reye's syndrome and aspirin in 1982 and 1985 but decided that the available evidence did not establish that there was such a link. So what changed between April 1985 and June 1986, when the CSM gave
820
a public warning that aspirin should not be given to children under 12 except on medical advice? Two new pieces of evidence became available. From the United States came figures showing that the number of reports of Reye's syndrome had fallen, in line with the fall in the use of aspirin. A statistical correlation in itself does not prove anything, but this was evidence of a different type which seemed to confirm the risk factor studies.
Secondly, the committee was shown the preliminary findings of a risk factor study in the British Isles. This report will soon be ready for publication, but the committee saw the preliminary results in confidence. Its findings were consistent with the American ones, that aspirin seemed to be associated with Reye's syndrome. That is still not proof; there is no accepted explanation of how aspirin might cause Reye's syndrome. Many children who have developed Reye's syndrome had not taken aspirin. The best medical advice at present is that Reye's syndrome arises from a virus-host interaction in a constitutionally susceptible individual, possibly modified by an exogenous agent.
Given this new evidence, the committee concluded that aspirin may be a contributory factor in some cases of Reye's syndrome, and that action should be taken to reduce the use of aspirin in children. Aspirin should be avoided for children because it may, very occasionally, lead to Reye's syndrome, but there is always an alternative available. When a child really needs a medicine for fever or aches or pains, paracetamol is as effective as aspirin and is safer, with the very important proviso that the correct dosage should be given. The availability of the alternative was an important factor in determining the advice given about aspirin.
Whenever an expert body warns against a well established product which was previously thought to be safe, there are two accusations. Either the cry is "What an overreaction! How can there be anything wrong with something which has been used for years?" Or the other critics say, "If this warning is needed now, it should have been given a long time ago." Scientific truth is not so simple. The Committee on Safety of Medicines has to try to get the balance right, between the danger of overreacting and wrongly condemning a useful drug, and the opposite danger of letting a known hazard continue too long. The committee is very experienced in performing this balancing act, and I have every confidence in its expertise and judgment.
Aspirin is, of course, a very old, extensively used and useful medicine. However, the special position of aspirin must, I believe, have given the Committee on Safety of Medicines a particular problem. In general, when the committee has to advise about the safety of a drug, it is giving advice to doctors about a medicine which is usually given on prescription, and perhaps may only be legally available on prescription. Advice to professions can be given in terms of cautions, qualified, technical guidance, subject to professional discretion in particular cases, Much more was needed for aspirin. Any advice had to be clear-cut and easy to convey to people in their homes and given in a way which would not cause unjustified anxiety about a well-used and valuable medicine.
The committee is independent and its proceedings are confidential, so I cannot say exactly what it thought at different times, but the main conclusions are already on public record. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) asked a number of questions in the

821
first half of 1985 about Reye's syndrome and the committee's deliberations, and he received replies which were full and informative. There was no secret that a link between aspirin and Reye's syndrome had been postulated, that the CSM had considered the possibility of a causal connection in 1982 and again in 1985, and that in the light of the available evidence had concluded that there was no adequate proof of a causal connection. That information was available in Hansard to any hon. Member or for the press.
The CSM considered, at different times, a wide range of information and opinion about the possibility of a link between aspirin and Reye's syndrome. Some sources have already been give in Hansard. I have a complete bibliography of published references considered by the committee, which I would be happy to make available to any hon. Member. Much of the material was about the epidemiology of Reye's syndrome, looking particularly at the risk factors which seemed to have occurred more frequently in children who developed Reye's syndrome than in other children of the same age, who had the same initial viral illness. Four studies in the United States, published between 1980 and 1982, all suggested that aspirin was such a risk factor.
This is a difficult area of research. It means retrospective questioning about how ill children were and what medicines they took. There are many ways in which the research can be flawed. Scientists must look hard at the research methods, not just at the overall statistics. There were criticisms of each research paper. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration was so conscious of the criticisms that it commissioned yet more research, which would endeavour to overcome the design problems of the earlier work. The CSM decided, when it first looked at these reports in 1982, that they did not provide satisfactory evidence of a causal link between aspirin and Reye's syndrome.
In March and April 1985, the CSM again carefully considered the available evidence. That included the report of the pilot phase of the further study in the United States. That study again showed a high numerical link between aspirin and Reye's syndrome, but I understand tha there were still some criticisms of its methodology. Again, after carefully weighing all the evidence, the CSM decided that a causal link between aspirin and Reye's syndrome had not been established.
In reaching this conclusion, the committee was aware of the label warnings and publicity in the United States, and we should be in no doubt of its concern to make the right decision, in the best interests of children in this country. Of course, although the evidence at that time did not convince the committee that there was a causal link, it could have said, "To be on the safe side, let us advise that children could be at risk of Reye's syndrome if they take aspirin even though we ourselves do not see any reason to believe that." So far as the committee could see in 1985, it would have been condemning a very useful medicine for no good reason. It would have been asking almost every family in the country to change its habits, just on a rumoured possibility that the committee itself did not find scientifically convincing. In those circumstances such action could not be regarded as responsible by a committee which, in my view, is rightly held in high esteem.
822
It has been suggested that the committee should have published a full account of the issues and its conclusions about them in 1982 and 1985, and, in the light of that information, left the public to make its own decision on the use of aspirin for children. Although, superficially, that approach might seem to have some attractions, I do not think that it would have provided a practical solution. It is likely that a cautious scientific statement by the CSM would have suffered from being summarised in reporting and that the message from much of the media would have suffered from over-simplification or even distortion with a real risk of the story emerging as a largely unsubstantiated aspirin scare, without serious consideration of the facts.
In fact, the medical reports from the United States were available to the press, and they wished to write about them. I believe that there was some coverage. The CSM's opinion on the evidence it had then seen was also publicly available. I do not accept that the committee, or the Department, should at that time have done anything more.
I now wish to turn to the successful exercise carried out last month to publicise the CSM's recommendation about aspirin. Reye's syndrome is still, I am glad to say, a very rare disease, but many families are now aware of it. We have tried to make sure that all families know that it is best not to give aspirin to a sick child under 12 years, unless their doctor tells them to do so. First, there was an extensive publicity campaign in which a number of parties were involved. The chairman of the CSM wrote to all doctors, dentists and pharmacists, explaining why the committee was recommending that children should not be given aspirin, except in certain special medical circumstances.
The chief medical officers for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland announced this advice to the press, and the chief nursing officers wrote to nurses with a copy of the chairman's letter. There were also similar notifications to health authorities and family practitioner committees. Posters were distributed for clinics and surgeries. The posters were provided by the pharmaceutical industry. The industry also paid for press advertisements, to follow up the extensive news coverage that the story attracted.
Secondly, the industry responded to the CSM's advice by making a voluntary decision immediately to take Junior Aspirin off the market.
I should like to emphasise that the decision to cease marketing junior aspirin was made voluntarily by the pharmaceutical industry. It was a prompt and constructive decision, which has made it much easier to carry out the CSM's recommendations. Manufactureres will also be following the CSM's recommendations by putting a warning on the labels of adult aspirin products, as soon as practicable.
I wish to put my appreciation of the industry's response on record, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health did at the time of the first announcement. I acknowledge also the part played by the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, who gave clear, well-timed advice to their members to get junior aspirin off the shelves and about what they should tell their customers.
Another and most important reason why the committee's advice on aspirin made such an impact was simply because it was aspirin, one of the oldest and best-known of modern medicines, used in treating a wide variety of aches and pains.

823
As I have said, the committee would not have been acting responsibly had it given premature advice on the basis of inadequate evidence that aspirin was suspected of causing an unnecessary hazard when used by children and babies. Once the CSM was convinced that aspirin might be a contributory factor in the causation of Reye's syndrome in some children, it acted very quickly and, I believe successfully. However, I acknowledge that the CSM will continue to monitor the situation very closely, and will give further prompt advice to the licensing authority if necessary.
I hope that my comments will reassure the hon. Member that the due processes were followed.
Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his useful comments, which I shall study carefully. Will he consider my point about continuing research into the disease? My information is that overt and explicit research is being undertaken. Will the hon. Gentleman write to reassure me that something is being done in terms of research into the causes of the disease?
Mr. Whitney: I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman on that point. I hope that he accepts the reassurance which I have given on the basis of the way in which this extremely difficult and delicate issue was handled.

Chile
7.16 am
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On 22 July 1985, the House had an opportunity to have a lengthy Adjournment debate on the United Kingdom's relations with Chile but, by a fluke of procedure, it was much more than the normal half hour. I introduced that debate and raised a number of questions about Britain's relations with Chile and about what Britain could do to encourage the promotion of democracy in Chile and to bring an end to the brutality and bestiality of the Chilean regime. I put it to the then Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton)—that the changes for which we wished would he achieved by Britain ceasing the sale of arms to General Pinochet and breaking off diplomatic and trading links with the Chilean Government. He replied:
"I wish to underline the areas in which the hon. Gentleman, the Government and I personally share agreement. First, the internal situation in Chile, especially human rights, must be of great importance to us in determining the manner in which our relations are conducted. Secondly, the Government fully share the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and those of others, who have contributed to this brief but important debate, about human rights in Chile. We do not agree with every allegation in detail, but we are extremely concerned about human rights in Chile and we regret that, against the current trend in other South American countries, Chile is not making the fast progress towards the return of democracy that the Government would like to see."
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Government and I differed on the way to achieve those ends. After describing how normal diplomatic relations with the Chilean Government had been restored in 1980, he said that the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who is now the Secretary of State for the Environment, had said:
"one factor in the decision to restore diplomatic relations had been to enable us"—
the British Government—
"to present our views on human rights and on other matters at a higher level and with greater impact. This is a good reason —it was valid then, and it is valid today. I ask the hon. Gerttleman to think of the reasons for it." — [Official Report, 22 July 1985; Vol. 83, c. 843.]
The tragedy of Chile has unfolded before us since 1973, 13 years ago. Despite Britain increasing its diplomatic representations in Chile in 1980, maintaining high level contacts, and continuing to allow the sale of arms to General Pinochet, one has to ask what has been achieved in that time. What has this constructive dialogue done for the people of Chile other than allowing the Government of General Pinochet to quote in their own defence the fact that they have diplomatic relations with Britain and to buy arms from the Government of Britain and use them against their own people? A process of constructive dialogue has benefited the Government of General Pinochet and not the people of Chile in any way whatsoever.
The question of Britain's relations with Chile goes back a long way. Until the coup of 1973, Chile was often called the England of south America. It was said that parliamentary democracy was strong and that the institutions of the country were strong and secure. Many of us watched with enthusiasm and excitement the progress that was made by the Government of Salvador Allende between 1970 and 1973 to get the country out of the grip of international monetary debt, to get a

825
reasonable price for the commodities produced by it and to bring some hope to the poor people of the shanty towns of Santiago and other places. Enormous achievements were made.
Salvador Allende spoke with great feeling and great passion of the way in which his Government were being destabilised by the efforts of the United States before the coup in 1973. He spoke with passion and feeling about the power of international capital through the ITT and other multinational companies to destroy his Government. His Government were destroyed. Bombs fell on his home. He was killed, and thousands of people were rounded up in football stadia. The planes that bombed the Moneda palace in 1973 were manufactured in Britain. They were Hawker Hunter jets. The response of many people in this country and other parts of Europe was one of outrage and horror. Workers at the Rolls-Royce factory in East Kilbride immediately refused to load or supply any more parts for those Rolls-Royce engines. There was immediate popular feeling against the horror that had happened in Chile as people saw a democratic Government destroyed by military intervention supported by the United States.
The incoming Labour Government had a programme to provide facilities for refugees arriving from Chile. After the torture of the British doctor, Sheila Cassidy, in 1976 the British ambassador was withdrawn from Chile and a ban on all arms sales was imposed. At that time we made clear what we thought of General Pinochet and the horror and nightmare the people of Chile were going through.
When the present Government came to office in 1979, things seemed to change. There were visits to Chile by British Ministers who congratulated that Government on the Chicage school of monetarist economics that was being introduced and being pushed through by General Pinochet, full diplomatic recognition was reinstated, and arms sales were eventually resumed. It is that aspect of Britain's relations with Chile that I wish to mention.
I recently received an answer from the Secretary of State for Defence when I asked him what contact there had been with representatives of the Chilean armed forces by United Kingdom defence personnel in Chile since November 1984. I chose that date for good reason because that is when the state of siege was imposed. The answer was:
"We have had formal diplomatic relations with Chile since 1980, including a defence element. United Kingdom defence personnel have regular contact with representatives of the Chilean armed forces, both in Chile and the United Kingdom." — [Official Report, 24 July 1986; Vol. 102, c. 485.]
We are looking at a period of British history which, when all the details come out, will turn out to be one of the most sordid aspects of this century, that is, the whole matter surrounding the Falklands war and the defence arrangements made at that time.
In January 1985 the New Statesman published a lengthy article written by Duncan Campbell, revealing how Britain gave military equipment to General Pinochet and turned a blind eye on human rights violations in Chile and, in return, received extensive clandestine help from the Chilean Government in the war against Argentina. I could quote from the article at length, but I want the Minister to have time to reply, so I shall be brief.
After the Argentine forces landed on the Falklands on 2 April, a series of meetings were arranged through Mr.
826
John Heath, the British ambassador in Santiago, with the Government of General Pinochet and a series of understandings were reached. Two explicitly stated that the arrangements for British use of Chilean bases had the full approval of President Pinochet and the cabinet. The terms of the understanding were:
"Use of Punta Arenas, an air base in southern Chile, for RAF spy planes, disguised in Chilean markings.
Use of Punta Arenas and other areas to infiltrate SAS special forces into Argentina for espionage and to destroy Argentine aircraft on the ground.
A complete exchange of intelligence, including monitoring and codebreaking of Argentine signals carried out by Chilean Naval Intelligence staff."
In return the Chilean Government gained:
"RAF Canberra aircraft used in the secret operation, which were to be turned over to Chile when the war was over.
A squadron of RAF Hawker Hunter aircraft, most of which was delivered to Chile after the war started.
Britain's support in undermining United Nations investigations into Chilean human rights abuses, by opposing the reappointment of the UN's special investigators.
The dropping of British restrictions on arms sales to Chile. Supplies during 1982 also included enriched uranium, and the offer of a British maxnox nuclear reactor."
The article points out that in mid-May ITN reporter Jon Snow was in Santiago and saw two Canberra aircraft with Chilean markings among a group of military aircraft, including heavy US air force transports. Two ex-RAF Canberra PR9s are now officially on the strength of the Chilean air force—the third crashed in 1983. None of those aircraft was officially delivered until October 1982, five months after they had been seen in Santiago. On 28 May 1982 with most of its Canberra aircraft in Chile, No. 39 squadron at Wyton was formally disbanded. At the beginning of 1982 it had 15 aircraft-13 of them flying —and on 28 May only a single aircraft could be found for the memorial flypast, according to the RAF News.
The article shows the degree of military involvement with Chile at that time. There were reports of British troops landing at Punta Arenas and of the use of Chile as a staging post for part of the Falklands war. This is a serious matter and has never been openly admitted or explained by the Government. In today's debate we need to know exactly what the status is of the military arrangements made between the British Government and that of General Pinochet. Exactly how many British troops have been using Punta Arenas as a base? Exactly what training facilities have been offered? Exactly how many Chilean armed officers are being trained at British military establishments at present?
One must conclude that the British Government's obsession with the Fortress Falklands policy and their expenditure of vast sums on the Falklands defence arrangements override their consideration of the human rights of the people of Chile. They are prepared to do deals with the Chilean junta to buttress the Fortress Falklands policy.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is my hon. Friend surprised at that fact?
Mr. Corbyn: I am not surprised at that fact because the Government have a similar attitude towards their constructive dialogue with the Government of South Africa. I am surprised that none of this has been made public. We do not know how much public money is being spent in Chile by the Government on military matters.
Britain's voting record in the United Nations concerning Chile has been varied. Immediately after the

827
Falklands war, the British representative there declined to support motions that criticised Chile, and opposed the reappointment of the special rapporteur on human rights in Chile. Last year, after the state siege and the atrocities committed by the Pinochet regime during it, Britain supported motions critical of that. But the British Government have hardly been in the forefront of condemning human rights abuses in Chile. One must wonder exactly what British representatives in Chile are doing to report back to the British Government on the abuses of human rights there.
We cannot have it both ways. We cannot say that we oppose the human rights abuses in Chile if at the same time the Chilean Government know that there is a secret deal in the background to provide them with military and logistical support and know full well that the British Government will do nothing about human rights abuses in Chile.
On arms sales, this year — as every year—several Ministry of Defence arms sales, or supermarket bonanzas, took place. In June, there was one at Aldershot, and in July one at Middle Wallop. People can attend those arms sales and exhibitions only by invitation and with the approval of the Ministry of Defence. The Minister must tell us how many Chilean people were invited to the arms sales by the Government and exactly what was sold to them. What exports have gone to Chile via RAF Brize Norton or Aldershot since those two exhibitions of equipment? If the Government are supplying arms to Chile, the people of Britain would be outraged, especially if they knew the extent of military involvement and support that we are giving to General Pinochet.
The military Government in Chile came to power in 1973. Immediately, they rounded up all the opposition and put them in football stadia or secret prisons. They tortured them and destroyed the lives of many people. Recently, I attended a tribunal in Bristol of Chilean refugees who, at great personal cost to themselves, explained the process of torture and the process by which they had lost people. One of them, Luis Verdugo, lost his wife, who disappeared soon after the coup. He has not seen or heard of her since. He was tortured by blindfolding, by pain mechanisms attached to his body and by accusations being made against him. Eventually, he was released, left Chile and became a refugee in Britain. He would be the first to admit that he is scarred for life, as are hundreds of other people by torture.
Mr. Tony Banks: Did my hon. Friend see the excellent film "Missing", and does he agree that, whatever the role of the British Government at the time of Allende's overthrow and later, it pales into insignificance when one considers the disgraceful, disreputable role of the United States Government, who organised the coup?
Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. Henry Kissinger was involved, first, in organising the destabilisation of the Allende Government and, secondly, in organising the coup and supporting the Government of General Pinochet thereafter. The murder of Orlando Letellier in Washington by the CIA was yet another example of the lengths to which successive United States Governments have gone to destroy the Government of Allende and to give continued support to Pinochet's regime.
More recently much has been happening in Chile. As I was explaining, in 1973 the Government were
828
overthrown, the football stadia were filled and many people were shot, disappeared and were murdered. Since that time there has been a process of regeneration of opposition. Year after year people die, people are murdered, people disappear, yet more people come forward determined to see a future of peace and hope for their country rather than the heel of the dictatorship.
A huge demonstration was organised in the early part of July when thousands of people took to the streets and there was a national strike. The vast majority of workers took part in the strike and supported it. The strike was in every sense an indication of the degree of opposition that exists to General Pinochet. That strike was succeeded by the imprisonment of the leaders of both trade unions and other popular organisations that sought to promote the strike, by very strict censorship and by the silencing of all the radio stations that had been reporting what was goring on. It also witnessed a wave of oppression by the army against those who took part in the popular opposition to the Pinochet Government which had been almost unprecedented.
Two young American refugees from Chile were killed in the dispute. I refer to the tragic deaths of 19-year-old Rodrigo Rojas, the son of a Chilean exile living in Washington and himself a United States resident, a nd Carmen Quintana, aged 18. I refer to The Guardian of 12 July, which reported that witnesses and relatives said that they were beaten, doused with an inflammable liquid and set on fire by a military patrol. The army denied involvement. Rojas died last Sunday, and Miss Quintana is seriously ill in hospital.
General Pinochet appears to have a different version of things because he seems to claim that the young man blew himself up during the demonstration. It is a measure of how far the Government of Pinochet have gone that even the United States embassy rejected those accusations, and the United States ambassador, Harry Barnes, attended the funeral last Wednesday.
What we have to consider is what role the British Government should be playing in these matters. The manifesto of the national civil assembly of Chile has been published. It is a very important document and it is representative of a mass of opinion and hope in Chile. It says:
"Chile is experiencing today a deep political, economic, social and moral crisis. The government has shut its doors to any agreement or dialogue and responds by intensifying repression. It offers no solution to the agonising problems which accumulate from day to day. A vast foreign debt which weighs us down. A third of the population condemned to unemployment and hunger. An internal state of indebtedness which has deprived people and enterprises of years of effort and investment rendering unsustainable the position of the productive sectors, the merchants, the transport operators, and those in mortgage arrears. A housing deficit of around 1 million homes. The deterioration and dismantling of the health and education systems which were once the nation's pride, and an exmaple to all Latin America. A labour legislation which seeks only to atomize and constrict the legitimate expression of workers' demands. It would take a long time to repeat all the grave problems which affect us. But the government sticks by a failed economic model and a political project which aims to keep General Pinochet in power through recourse to force."
Indeed, anyone who has believed that General Pinochet intended ever to hand power over to a democratically elected Government must be very surprised because he continually makes statements that extend the lifetime of his own Government.

829
The manifesto is an expression of popular will to see the end of Pinochet and to see a democratic future for the people of Chile. We have to consider which side the British Government are on. We have witnessed the murders, the sale of British arms, the secret arms deals and, indeed, British approval of the existence of the Government of General Pinochet.
There can be no question whatsoever that the priority for this country and this Government should be to end immediately all arms sales to Chile, not just those that can be used for internal repression, but any arms sales to the Government of General Pinochet, because I do not believe that one can draw this fine distinction that the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and the Foreign Office like to draw.
The second priority is to withdraw the British ambassador to Santiago. Only language of that type is understood by the Government of General Pinochet.
Thirdly, we must know what has happened to British or Anglo-Chilean residents who have gone missing in Chile. The case of Pedro Fernandez Lembach has been raised many times in the House. He remains imprisoned there. The British Government have said that as soon as he is released he will be granted admission to this country. Pressure must be exerted to get him released.
We need also to learn the whereabouts of William Beausire, who is still missing after many years. There are many other cases. I could give details of them, but I will not delay the House, because I want to allow the Minister sufficient time in which to reply.
We see in Chile a process of repression unparalleled anywhere in Latin America. It is similar to what is going on in South Africa in its horror for the people of Chile. The process of constructive dialogue is a discredited phrase. It has been shown in South Africa and Chile to be pointless. The only language that Pinochet understands is his inability to get guns with which to murder his own people.
It is vital for us to cease arms sales and impose on Chile all the sanctions available to us. There can be nothing more disgusting than a regime born of violence and murder having its representatives invited to this country to visit arms exhibitions and to have its officers trained at British military establishments.
I hope that the British Government will join civilised opinion throughout Latin America and elsewhere in the world. People are looking for a way out of the eternal cycle of debt, oppression and military dictatorship. Let us declare that we are opposed to the illegal Government of Chile, that we demand the removal of Pinochet and his armed forces from the streets and that we support the right of the Chilean people to elect their own Government, to decide their own way of life and not to have a form of life imposed on them by a combination of multinational companies, the United States and the military Establishment in Chile.
7.43 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Timothy Eggar): I welcome this opportunity once again to explain the Government's policy and position on Chile, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on his success in the ballot. He has been consistent in his interest in Chile.
830
I appreciate that hon. Members in all parts of the House remain concerned about the continuing human rights violations in Chile and about the lack of progress towards an orderly and peaceful transition to democracy. The absence of political dialogue there between the Government and the democratic opposition and the persistent oppression and repression of public demonstrations and basic political rights are of common concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman and I can at least agree on that. But the action proposed by him would almost certainly lead to the opposite effect to that which he intends.
The hon. Gentleman raised two human rights cases. The first was of Pedro Lembach. He is a Chilean national and we have no consular standing to intervene with the Chilean authorities on his behalf. But we have made it clear to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Justice and, in May and July of this year, to the Minister of the Interior that, if his sentence were commuted to one of exile, we would allow him to enter the United Kingdom. We shall continue to monitor the case very carefully and to make further representations, where opportunities arise.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the case of Mr. William Beausire. The Chilean authorities have informed us that investigations into that gentleman's disappearance have produced no results so far. In February 1985 they suspended further judicial review of all similar cases, including his, pending the presentation of new evidence. We are continuing to press the Chilean authorities to provide a more satisfactory reply. The matter has also been pursued with the Argentine Government through the Swiss protecting power.
To return to the main theme of the hon. Gentleman's speech—our diplomatic and other relations with Chile—we have had normal diplomatic relations with Chile since 1980. These relations enable us to express the concerns which we share—and which we believe are shared by the British public — on human rights, the lack of progress towards the restoration of democracy and other matters. It gives us an opportunity to make those representations direct to the Government of Chile at the very highest levels.
During the last 12 months, for example, our ambassador in Santiago has made a series of representations on these important matters to members of the ruling junta, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister of the Interior and others, while here in London, Ministers and senior officials have made comparable representations to the Chilean ambassador and to visiting influential Chilean.
We have also been able to make our views and concerns known in other ways. In late March and early April of this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. GarelJones) made an important visit to Chile, during which he had meetings with key members of the Government and the democratic Opposition. He also addressed several audiences, including the Chilean defence college, on parliamentary democracy.
In May my noble Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, expressed our concerns very frankly and bluntly to General Matthei, the air force member of the ruling junta, when he was here on a private visit to the United Kingdom. These and many other contacts would not have been possible had we not had normal diplomatic relations.

831
We have also been able to make our views known on human rights in multilateral forums. Last December, at the United Nations General Assembly, we voted in favour of a resolution condemning Chile's human rights record, while in March 1986, at the United Nations Committee on Human Rights, we joined a consensus resolution criticising the Chilean Government's continuing poor record. We have also joined our European Community partners in a number of demarche actions and statements expressing concern about human rights abuses and lack of progress towards our shared goal, the restoration of democracy in Chile. Most recently, we have stepped up our Community action with a series of approaches to individual members of the junta and of the Government.
I think that I can reasonably claim that the Government have made considerable efforts to use the diplomatic channels that are open to them as a result of having diplomatic relations with Chile in order to get across our concern, and that of the House, about the state of human rights inside Chile. However, the hon. Gentleman went on to criticise the Government's policy on continued contact between United Kingdom defence personnel and representatives of the Chilean armed forces. I must emphasise that our defence relations with Chile are a normal part of our diplomatic relations with that country and that there is nothing sinister or unusual in those contacts.
They are a reflection of a long history of military contact between our two countries, especially between our two navies and air forces.
The hon. Member has once again called for an arms embargo. As has been said frequently from the Dispatch Box, we do not believe that it would be effective, not least because there are many other suppliers. Nor would it restore democracy.
Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Minister agree that, if the Chilean Government are using those arms against their own population, there is a moral argument for the British Government saying that they will not supply arms never mind the fact that someone else might supply them? Surely a moral argument stands on its own?
Mr. Eggar: I shall come to that matter shortly when I consider the criteria used in arms sales.
Our policy on arms sales continues to reflect our anxieties about the state of human rights in Chile. We take great care not to approve the sale of arms which we think are likely to be used for internal repression. We consider every application for arms sales to Chile with great care, and pay special attention to cases that could be described as borderline.
Perhaps I might quote the example of the export to Chile of the demonstration Centaur half-track vehicle, which the hon. Member for Islington, North raised at length during the Adjournment debate on 22 July 1985. The vehicle has been returned to the United Kingdom. Hon. Members have asserted that arms that we have sold to Chile have been used against the Chilean people. We have no evidence of that.
Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that, although the demonstration Centaur half-track anti-personnel vehicle has been returned to Britain, during the national strike this year, an identical vehicle was seen on the streets of Santiago? It had apparently been manufactured by the
832
Chilean junta one year after taking the design from the demonstration vehicle, and it was used to kill students who were taking part in the demonstration.
Mr. Eggar: I was not aware of that. If he would care to provide evidence, I shall of course look into the matter, but I notice that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the vehicle has been returned to the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman also called for an end to the training of Chilean military personnel in the United Kingdom. We provide some training, but it is very limited. The hon. Gentleman knows that it has been the policy of successive Governments to keep the details of bilateral military training with other countries confidential. As I made clear in a parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) on 9 April, we do not allocate places to Chileans for courses which cover internal security techniques.
Chile has a long history of democracy, and we are continually reminded in our contacts with democratic Chileans of the role that Britain played in their independence in the 1820s and the close family, cultural and commercial ties that we have had during her democratic history.
We and, we believe, the vast majority of the Chilean people want to see democracy peacefully restored in Chile. We continue to do all we can to urge the Chilean Government to take steps to bring back democracy. In particular, we are anxious to see the early promulgation of the long-promised laws on political parties, and on electoral registration. They would provide some demonstration that the Government are serious in their commitment to the political evolution foreseen by the Chilean Government in the 1980 Constitution. We are keen that the Government should permit rapid evolution towards normal democratic political activity. At the same time we maintain frequent and regular contact with the democratic opposition, both in Chile and the United Kingdom, and try to encourage them to develop their unity and to put forward credible long-term policies.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the strike and demonstrations that took place on 2 and 3 July. We condemned all violence on that occasion, in whatever quarter it arose. As my right hon. friend the Prime Minister said on 3 July in reply to a question posed by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), we deeply regret the deaths that occurred on 2 and 3 July and we are particularly concerned, together with the hon. Member for Islington North, about the cases of Senor Rojas and Senorita Quintana. We welcome the appointment of a civilian judge to investigate the circumstances of those deaths and we hope that that judge will report quickly, giving the full facts.
This year we have continued to sponsor visits to the United Kingdom by a broad section of Chilean democratic politicians, for example Senor Lagos, of the Briories Socialist party, and Senor Allamand of the National Union party. These visits provide vital exposure to a wide range of democratic opinion in Britain and, for some, their first chance to see democracy in action.
While we on the Government side make considerable efforts to encourage political change in Chile, it is essential for us all to recognise that Chile's political problems can ultimately only be solved by the Chileans themselves. The first step must be dialogue between the Government and the democratic opposition, not continued confrontation.

833
We regret the Government's rejection last December of the democratic opposition's national accord for the transition to full democracy, which we still believe provides a basis for dialogue. We also regret the Government's continued rejection of dialogue following presentation of the National Civil Assembly's "Demand for Chile". The initiative to start a dialogue now lies firmly in the hands of the Chilean Government.
We do not believe that the crude condemnation of the Chilean Government, called for by the hon. Gentleman, would have a favourable effect on the political evolution of Chile. Indeed, it is more likely to drive the Pinochet Government to greater intransigence and intensify Chile's lamentable political polarisation. Our policy is to try to be as constructive as possible. We firmly believe that constructive pressure and criticism has the best chance of bringing about the changes we would wish to see. The Government therefore fully intend to continue using every appropriate opportunity to encourage the moderate forces, both in the Government and within the democratic opposition, to prepare and organise themselves without delay to ensure an orderly transition to democracy. But the first step has to be the opening of a dialogue by the Government with the democratic opposition.

School Buildings (Lancashire)
7.58 am
Mr. Peter Pike: I shall take the opportunity of the two minutes that are available to open my debate on Lancashire schools because the Minister is here and it would have been an important debate. The case has been well presented by Lancashire county council to the former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), so the Minister will already be aware of the matter. A delegation of Members of Parliament from Lancashire has met the Minister to put our case. We need some £44 million extra, over the next five years if we are to deal with the problem that exists in Lancashire.
We need that money if we are to put our schools into good repair and maintain them. Obviously, the Minister will not have time to reply and I will not have time to put my case. Perhaps the Minister will accept an invitation to come to Lancashire during the summer recess to look at the problem on the ground. If he wants to be convinced that Lancashire has a good case, let him come along and see the situation and meet the chairman of Lancashire education authority and the hon. Members for Lancashire. Is he prepared to reply to that invitation in the time available?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Timothy Eggar)rose—
It being Eight o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Waste Disposal (Down District)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscaweni]
8 am
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It must strike you, Mr. Speaker, as happily and even providentially appropriate that so a long a debate that has ranged through the night over so many subjects should be terminating in the jaded and even mephitic atmosphere of the early hours of the morning by the consideration of the disposal of rubbish at a place called Drumnakelly in County Down in my constituency. But no one could argue that the disposal of rubbish is a a subject unimportant to the decent livelihood of a civilised society.
I wish to raise the matter with the Minister on a much wider basis than that of any single case and invite him to agree that the Government ought to take a larger view of their responsibilities in the province of Northern Ireland as a whole. The disposal of rubbish is, quite properly, one of the responsibilities of the district councils in Northern Ireland and I am not in the business of seeking the removal of powers but rather the addition of powers to local government in that Province. It is an appropriate responsibility for those authorities, especially in the matter of the collection of domestic waste, because it brings the administration into direct contact and somtimes conflict with residents and with local communities. However, there is a wider aspect and it is to that that I want to direct the Minister's attention.
At present, the district councils appear to act as almost independent authorities in settling upon sites for refuse disposal. Throughout the years that I have represented South Down I have seen a series of descents made by the local authorities upon the most beautiful sites in the constituency with the suggestion that they would be appropriate for the formation of a new rubbish dump.
There is a kind of hovering threat over the people in some of the more attractive parts of Northern Ireland, most of which are situated in my constituency, that they may be chosen for the next foray by the district council in its search for a suitable place for the disposal of rubbish. Often, the result of such forays is that two or three alternative sites are proposed, a careful examination is made of all of them, and they are then rejected with the assistance and advice of the planning department which is responsible to the Minister. But the damage has been done by the disturbance of opinion, by the alarm and despondency that has been caused, and by the irritation that has been created between ratepayers and the administering authorities.
This is an irrational way to go about the business. A long-term view needs to be taken upon a wider scale of the problem presented by the disposal of rubbish. In three ways this would be beneficial genrally as well as to the areas more directly concerned. First, we would have an end to the sudden descent of a district council upon a locality with a proposal for the formation of a rubbish dump. At least the proposals and intentions of the district council would be known years in advance, be open to criticism and would have been authorised, if at all, by the planning authority after due deliberation. That is the first advantage.
The second advantage is that we would have a more rational choice of sites and the opportunity of choosing
836
sites where there might be economic advantage and benefit in the long run from their being selected for the disposal of rubbish. I am afraid that no such benefit can be discerned in many of the sites selected. In the site approved by the Minister at Drumnakelly in my constituency it would be very hard indeed for anyone to identify any economic, agricultural, amenity or other value which will accrue, either locally or generally, from the use of that site for the deposit of rubbish.
The second advantage can be reaped upon a wider scale. There must surely, in most parts of the Province, be places where economic benefits can be drawn from the depositing of rubbish; where it can be co-ordinated with other requirements for the general benefit. It is obviously impossible to reap that advantage if the 26 independent authorities are left to make the decisions. There must, therfore, be co-ordination between the authorities, not only in the actual work of disposing of rubbish, but in the identification, as far as possible, of joint sites which would be suitable and beneficial for that purpose.
The third advantage which would come from a wider view of the problem, is that we might be able to introduce upon the scene more modern methods of processing rubbish. I find it impossible to believe that at the end of the 20th century, the best thing that we can do with the rubbish generated in the Province of Northern Ireland is to allow each district authority to dump it in the place where least objection can be raised on amenity grounds. There must surely be processes which, on a larger scale than the deposits taking place at present, would be economic and might even be attractive. I hope that that is an aspect which appeals to the present Administration for consideration with private enterprise.
On all three counts the argument lies in favour, not of removing from district councils the ultimate responsibility for serving their ratepayers in this way, but the Department co-ordinating this activity and guiding it, so that the disposal of rubbish, instead of becoming a constant threat to the amenities and well-being of the people of the Province, becomes a source of benefit and is rationally and logically organised.
I add to that main proposition the contention that the Department should be more active in policing the execution by the authorities of the conditions attached to the planning permission for the deposit of rubbish. I have seen some schedules of conditions. They are very comprehensive. Reading a schedule, one might wonder how the residents in the area could object; one might imagine that they might even be gratified at the notion that such an establishment was to be set up in their vicinity. Unfortunately, there is often a big gap between the conditions and their observations. Both in the transportation of rubbish to dumping areas, and in the management of the dumping areas a great deal is left to be desired.
I do not think that the routes and transportation are adequately policed or supervised. There are far too many examples of unnecessary disturbance being caused by ill-chosen routes for the rubbish lorries and the consequent flying of rubbish into the countryside. Very often the management of a dump is not supervised with a view to the minimum disturbance to the environment. Provided that a rubbish dump is properly supervised, that the spreading is done at the right time and in the best way, and that the spreading of soil between the layers of rubbish

837
takes place in good time, promptly and with sufficient frequency, there is no reason why most dumps should be a cause of nuisance very far beyond their actual locations.
In what I hope will be the interim period before we get a much more comprehensive, rational and modern system for the disposal of rubbish in the Province, the Department—which, after all, is the planning authority that gives the permission — should do much more to supervise and police these activities when they are carried out by the district councils.
8.10 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) began by referring to the jaded look of the House. That certainly does not apply to him, given what he has just said.
Last year on 5 June, the right hon. Gentleman raised the problem of waste disposal with my predecessor. I am sorry that he has felt it necessary to raise the matter again, although I fully understand why. Nothing is more contentious, either to the right hon. Gentleman's constituents or mine, than the problem of getting rid of rubbish.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows—he referred to it in his speech—the responsibility for disposal of waste in Northern Ireland is with the local authorities, and neither he nor I would want to do anything to change that. But I have every sympathy with the general points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. One of the key questions that he touched on was whether the Department could, or should, do more to stimulate an co-ordinate the activities of district councils in the way they expect to work out their waste disposal requirements. He also referred to the supervising of tipping once a site has been brought into use.
Let me deal with the last point first. I have no statutory power to tell councils how to manage their sites. On occasions on my trips around the Province, when I see how tipping is not being done as well as it ought to be, I make sure that my officials get on to the local councils. But we have no statutory power. All that we can do at present is give them advice, and that we do. However, I accept that that advice is not always taken.
There will be an increasingly supervisory role in the management of these sites throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, and this will be done through the newly established hazardous waste inspectorate. Therefore, the problems to which the right hon. Gentleman referred will be tackled more effectively in the future than they have been in the past.
Mr. Powell: I wish to make a point in the context of available powers. Surely the powers are available in the form of the enforcement of planning control. After all, I hope that a private individual who was given permission to carry out certain operations subject to conditions would have those conditions enforced upon him by the planning authority. As in this case the Minister is the planning authority, surely in that way he has powers to supervise and police what the local authorities have done in the execution of a planning permission that they have been given.
Mr. Needham: We do, for example, lay down conditions for fencing, and if fencing does not take place we shall enforce it. However, much of the time, a problem arises when some of the conditions are not fulfilled during a short period. Rubbish may be blown across the road or, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the soil may not be spread adequately or sufficient protection may not be taken when the wind is blowing in the wrong direction. I have sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, because it is a disgrace to the neighbourhood. The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see how the hazardous waste inspectorate solves this problem.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have made a careful study of the current position and I agree with him that local councils are the best instruments to plan adequately for the disposal of refuse in their areas. That is especially true in the rural parts of the Province. After all, the local council knows every nook and cranny of its area and it is, through its councillors, close to the feelings and wishes of the local people. It is best placed to discover the areas where refuse can be tipped with the minimum of nuisance and upset to residents.
This is not quite the position around Belfast, which raises different problems and where there is a need for a co-ordinated plan covering the six district councils which make up the greater Belfast area. This requires a 10-year strategy which will take care of the rubbish generated by the city and its surrounding towns. We will put forward our suggestions for this when we publish the Belfast Urban Area Plan at the end of the year.
The Department's present responsibilities and relationship with the district councils is covered by the terms of the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. That lays down that councils are required to make specific waste disposal plans on a 10-year basis. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that there is now an Order in Northern Ireland which lays down, over 10 years, the strategy that the councils must adopt.
The plans are based on detailed surveys of the waste being produced and the current methods of disposal, and must set a strategy for future arrangements. The vital element in the development of those plans is the consultation undertaken by the districts with anyone who is interested in waste disposal. That includes neighbouring district councils. The councils must contact their neighbours to discover the best way to proceed, jointly, in the rural areas. The councils must also undertake consultations with my Department. During this consultation stage the Department of the Environment plays an important role to ensure that there is consistency and compatibility right across the Province.
Any approved plan must take into account access to it and the effect that it is likely to have on local roads. I am encouraged — I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will share that encouragement—that significant progress has been made by the district councils in the production of these plans. Eleven district plans have been completed, including Banbridge in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency—and another 10 are at various stages of preparation and consultation—that includes Newry and Mourne, which also touches on the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman.
Only five councils have not yet carried out the necessary surveys. Although there is no statutory deadline, I can

839
assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will do all that I can to make sure that the completion of those plans goes through as quickly as possible.
With regard to Down district council, the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the survey has been completed and the plan should be available, publicly, early next year. We in Northern Ireland are considerably further down the path in the production of these plans than the rest of the United Kingdom. At the moment, I have no statutory power in my locker to use on those councils which have not yet undertaken the surveys. If I believe it is impossible to get the surveys undertaken for any reason, I will of course reconsider whether the Department's powers are sufficient. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman, however, that I do not think that that will be a speedy process.
As for the Down district council, the principles which I have mentioned apply. I accept entirely that to find suitable sites in the Down district council area is far from easy, for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman. The Department has liaised closely with the council in helping it to find somewhere to go. We have ensured that the technical requirements—for example, the prevention of water polution — are adhered to. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the proposed site at Drumnakelly. The council came to a conclusion on that site after at least 11 other sites had been considered and assessed. There were site meetings and discussions with both members and officials of the council.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the present tip is at Inch, near Downpatrick. This site has had to be closed and as a temporary measure two other sites — one at Burrenbane and one at Ballygowan—are currently being used. Nevertheless, these can be nothing other than temporary and the council is therfore faced with the pressing problem of finding a new long-term tip. There is a further proposed short-term site at Dunmore, near Ballynahinch, which will have a life of about two years. The need for a major long-life landfill site can be met only by Drumnakelly—it is the only suitable site that we have been able to find — and it will last for about 40 years. As I understand it, acquiring this site and finalising the engineering works on it will take a further 12 months.
The site is not in an area of outstanding natural beauty or green belt. The greater part of it, to which most of the tipping will be confined, is out of sight of the public road and almost every house within a mile of its boundaries. As I understand it, there is only one house which faces directly on to the site from some high ground about 340 yards away. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will want to know that the conditions which we have imposed in the planning permission ensure that only a small portion of the site will be visible to any traffic on the public road, and to about five or six houses which are 150 yards from the site boundary. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it will be effectively screened before tipping commences.
840
Not all the site will be used for tipping. There are a number of rocks that will be left untouched and exposed to maintain the ruggedness of the landscape, which is typical of the countryside around it.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There will be winds.
Mr. Needham: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that wherever it is in Northern Ireland there will be plenty of wind. That is one reason why it is vital to ensure that the fencing is right.
It was only after we had had the widest consultation that the site was accepted at a relatively remote location. A considerable degree of shelter is afforded by the lie of the land. The quality of the land itself is not of a very high grade. Nor is there any apparent threat to the conservation of the area, the scenery or the wildlife. We are responsible for prevention of water pollution, a matter which we take seriously. In the first instance we have granted a Water Act consent for five years, subject to the conditions that I have mentioned.
I shall touch briefly on the matters that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in terms of other methods of waste disposal, such as incineration, and whether it would be possible to find some element of private enterprise that we could bring in. I have to tell him that no interest has been shown by the private sector up to now, although the Department has tried to gain it. We are keeping open all methods of use and disposal, to ascertain whether there are any new technologies that we could bring in that would reduce the need for landscaping. For the foreseeable future there does not seem to be too much of an opening down that road. I note, as will my Department, the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes on that score.
I can only reiterate that sites for tipping will always be difficult to find. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that, in this instance, we have not fallen foul of the strictures that he made in last year's debate and which he repeated today. He said that sites applied for by district councils were turned down on planning grounds. I hope that he accepts that we are proceeding, throughout the whole Province, with the production of 10-year plans which cross local authority boundaries, which will give the public an adequate look at what is proposed for their areas.
I should be delighted to visit the site at Drumnakelly with the right hon. Gentleman if he feels that particular aspects of landscaping, fencing, and so on, are required. I assure him that I shall keep the strategic aspect of the problem under review. If I feel that any of the councils are lagging behind or that we are not getting on as quickly as we should with an adequate Province-wide strategy, I shall reconsider any extra measures that we might take to remedy the problem.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Eight o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Office, Secretarial and Research Allowance
  Office, Secretarial and Research Allowance
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Westland plc
  Westland plc
  Race Relations Act 1976
  Race Relations Act 1976
  Mr. Kevin Taylor
  Mr. Kevin Taylor
  Mr. Manus Nunan (Recordership)
  Mr. Manus Nunan (Recordership)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  National Seed Development Corporation and Plant Breeding Institute
  National Seed Development Corporation and Plant Breeding Institute
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  School Curriculum
  School Curriculum
  First Degree Students
  First Degree Students
  Students (Languages)
  Students (Languages)
  School Textbooks
  School Textbooks
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Students (Funding)
  Students (Funding)
  Natural Environment Research Council
  Natural Environment Research Council
  Schools (Collective Worship)
  Schools (Collective Worship)
  Mental Health
  Mental Health
  Spina Bifida
  Spina Bifida
  Women (Neural Tube Defect)
  Women (Neural Tube Defect)
  Marine Science and Technology
  Marine Science and Technology
  Building Projects (Performance Data)
  Building Projects (Performance Data)
THE ARTS
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
CIVIL SERVICE
  "Civil Servants and Ministers: Duties and Responsibilities"
  "Civil Servants and Ministers: Duties and Responsibilities"
  Ethnic Monitory
  Ethnic Monitory
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Departmental Cash Limits
  Departmental Cash Limits
  Gibraltar Shiprepair Ltd.
  Gibraltar Shiprepair Ltd.
PRIME MINISTER
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
  La Belle Discotheque (Bombing)
  La Belle Discotheque (Bombing)
  Customs (Prosecutions)
  Customs (Prosecutions)
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Dr. Kurt Waldheim
  Dr. Kurt Waldheim
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Inner Cities
  Inner Cities
  Royal Wedding
  Royal Wedding
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Health Education Group
  Scottish Health Education Group
  Spittal Quarry, Caithness
  Spittal Quarry, Caithness
  Lorimer and Clark's Brewery (Closure)
  Lorimer and Clark's Brewery (Closure)
  Chernobyl Disaster (Food Imports)
  Chernobyl Disaster (Food Imports)
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Goods and Services (Contracts)
  Goods and Services (Contracts)
  Housing Action Area, Edinburgh
  Housing Action Area, Edinburgh
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Leisure and Recreation (Management Training)
  Leisure and Recreation (Management Training)
  Gaelic Language
  Gaelic Language
EMPLOYMENT
  Action for Jobs Campaign
  Action for Jobs Campaign
  Gas and Oil Fields (Workers)
  Gas and Oil Fields (Workers)
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  College of the Air
  College of the Air
  Factory Inspectors
  Factory Inspectors
  Departmental Freephone (Cost)
  Departmental Freephone (Cost)
  Health and Safety Executive
  Health and Safety Executive
  Industrial Hazards (Control)
  Industrial Hazards (Control)
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Mr. Willie McCrae
  Mr. Willie McCrae
  Procurators Fiscal
  Procurators Fiscal
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Copyright
  Copyright
  F. W. Clews (Furnishers) Ltd.
  F. W. Clews (Furnishers) Ltd.
  Midland Ideal Homes (Holdings) Ltd.
  Midland Ideal Homes (Holdings) Ltd.
  Central Service (Kettering)
  Central Service (Kettering)
  M. B. P. Russell and Co. Ltd.
  M. B. P. Russell and Co. Ltd.
  Audio Tapes (Levy)
  Audio Tapes (Levy)
  Scotch Whisky (Japan)
  Scotch Whisky (Japan)
  Goods and Services (Contracts)
  Goods and Services (Contracts)
  GEC-Plessey
  GEC-Plessey
  Counterfeiting
  Counterfeiting
  Egypt (Trade)
  Egypt (Trade)
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Iran (Car Kits)
  Iran (Car Kits)
  Company Law (Reform)
  Company Law (Reform)
  Register of Companies
  Register of Companies
  Small Companies (Financial Information)
  Small Companies (Financial Information)
ENERGY
  Sellafield
  Sellafield
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  South Africa
  South Africa
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Severn Barrage
  Severn Barrage
  NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.
  NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  British Coal (Northern Area)
  British Coal (Northern Area)
  Goods and Services (Contracts)
  Goods and Services (Contracts)
  Coal
  Coal
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  British Gas
  British Gas
  Electricity (Revenue Collection)
  Electricity (Revenue Collection)
WALES
  Acute Surgery (Waiting Lists)
  Acute Surgery (Waiting Lists)
  Sheep (Radiation)
  Sheep (Radiation)
  Chernobyl Incident (Environmental Information)
  Chernobyl Incident (Environmental Information)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nuclear Test Ban
  Nuclear Test Ban
  Cultural Representation (USA)
  Cultural Representation (USA)
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Chile
  Chile
  E1 Salvador
  E1 Salvador
  President Reagan
  President Reagan
  Caste System
  Caste System
  Egypt
  Egypt
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
ENVIRONMENT
  Rates
  Rates
  Planning Permission (Revocations)
  Planning Permission (Revocations)
  Waste Management (Report)
  Waste Management (Report)
  Durham Beaches (Colliery Spoil)
  Durham Beaches (Colliery Spoil)
  Goods and Services (Contracts)
  Goods and Services (Contracts)
  Royal Docks (STOLport)
  Royal Docks (STOLport)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Birlsbury Wood
  Birlsbury Wood
  Croxteth Hall and County Park, Liverpool
  Croxteth Hall and County Park, Liverpool
  Homeless Families
  Homeless Families
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Improvements Grants
  Housing Improvements Grants
  Hazardous Waste
  Hazardous Waste
  Victoria and Albert Museum
  Victoria and Albert Museum
  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  M25 (Shopping Developments)
  M25 (Shopping Developments)
  County of Avon
  County of Avon
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Isle of Dogs
  Isle of Dogs
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Sunday Trading
  Sunday Trading
  Licensed Premises
  Licensed Premises
  Victims of Crime
  Victims of Crime
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Racially Motivated Crimes
  Racially Motivated Crimes
  Public Order Legislation
  Public Order Legislation
  Crime Prevention
  Crime Prevention
  Burglary
  Burglary
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
  Drug Misuse
  Drug Misuse
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Dr. Frank Skuse
  Dr. Frank Skuse
  Commercial Vineyards (Sampling)
  Commercial Vineyards (Sampling)
  Police Officers
  Police Officers
  Roskill Report
  Roskill Report
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Community Radio Stations
  Community Radio Stations
  Kidnap Insurance
  Kidnap Insurance
  Metropolitan Police District
  Metropolitan Police District
  Crime Clear-up Rates
  Crime Clear-up Rates
  Drug Abuse (Merseyside)
  Drug Abuse (Merseyside)
  Trespass
  Trespass
  Peacock Committee
  Peacock Committee
  News International Dispute
  News International Dispute
  Risley Remand Centre
  Risley Remand Centre
  Air Weapons
  Air Weapons
  Mr. John Stalker
  Mr. John Stalker
  Metropolitan Police (Strategy Report)
  Metropolitan Police (Strategy Report)
  Jury Age Limit
  Jury Age Limit
  Airborne Radiation
  Airborne Radiation
  Prison Officers Association
  Prison Officers Association
  Greater Manchester (Chief Constable)
  Greater Manchester (Chief Constable)
  Motoring Offences
  Motoring Offences
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Asylum
  Asylum
  Citizenship
  Citizenship
  Overseas Visitors
  Overseas Visitors
  Chilean Nationals (Asylum)
  Chilean Nationals (Asylum)
  Mr. Dharminder Singh
  Mr. Dharminder Singh
  Prisons (Education Equipment)
  Prisons (Education Equipment)
  Prisoners (Literacy)
  Prisoners (Literacy)
  Mr. and Mrs. Tariq Mahmood
  Mr. and Mrs. Tariq Mahmood
  Mr. Majid Hadjarpour
  Mr. Majid Hadjarpour
  Prisons (Drugs)
  Prisons (Drugs)
  Acklington Prison (Construction Work)
  Acklington Prison (Construction Work)
  Visas
  Visas
  Job Applicants (Police Records)
  Job Applicants (Police Records)
  Child Carers (Criminal Records)
  Child Carers (Criminal Records)
  Child Abusers (Therapy)
  Child Abusers (Therapy)
  Immigration Services (Interpreting Facilities)
  Immigration Services (Interpreting Facilities)
  Prisons (Reclassification)
  Prisons (Reclassification)
  Child Abuse (Voluntary Groups)
  Child Abuse (Voluntary Groups)
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Research Councils
  Research Councils
  Juvenile Courts (School Reports)
  Juvenile Courts (School Reports)
  Passport Fees
  Passport Fees
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Minoxidil
  Minoxidil
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  NHS (Administrative Stall)
  NHS (Administrative Stall)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Organ Donors
  Organ Donors
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Claimants
  Claimants
  Children (Clinical Research)
  Children (Clinical Research)
  Goods and Services (Contracts)
  Goods and Services (Contracts)
  Disabled Persons (Discrimination)
  Disabled Persons (Discrimination)
  McColl Report
  McColl Report
  DHSS Staff
  DHSS Staff
  Medical Boarding Centres
  Medical Boarding Centres
  Disablement Benefit
  Disablement Benefit
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  Meningitis Vaccine
  Meningitis Vaccine
  Mesothelioma
  Mesothelioma
  Doctors (Diagnostic Services)
  Doctors (Diagnostic Services)
  Inglehurst Nursing Home, Blackpool
  Inglehurst Nursing Home, Blackpool
  Pharmacists
  Pharmacists
  Pharmaceutical Society
  Pharmaceutical Society
  Incontinence
  Incontinence
  Waiting Lists
  Waiting Lists
  Health Professionals
  Health Professionals
  Health Education Council
  Health Education Council
  London Ambulance Service
  London Ambulance Service
  Drug Abuse
  Drug Abuse
  Disability Prevention (Expenditure)
  Disability Prevention (Expenditure)
  Child Abuse
  Child Abuse
  Mr. Victor Paige
  Mr. Victor Paige
  Rates
  Rates
  Epilepsy (Report)
  Epilepsy (Report)
  Custodianship Allowances
  Custodianship Allowances
  School Leavers (Benefit)
  School Leavers (Benefit)
  Health Authorities (Documentation)
  Health Authorities (Documentation)
  Diabetics (Syringes)
  Diabetics (Syringes)
  School Meals
  School Meals
TRANSPORT
  Roads (Lighting)
  Roads (Lighting)
  Redevelopment (Hammersmith)
  Redevelopment (Hammersmith)
  EC (Ports Competition)
  EC (Ports Competition)
  Goods and Services (Contracts)
  Goods and Services (Contracts)
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Speed Governors
  Speed Governors
  M40 (Ardley Service Area)
  M40 (Ardley Service Area)
  Heathrow Airport (Fifth Terminal)
  Heathrow Airport (Fifth Terminal)
  Motor Cycles (Noise)
  Motor Cycles (Noise)
  Driving Test
  Driving Test
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Northern Lighthouse Board
  Northern Lighthouse Board
  Stansted Airport (Rail Link)
  Stansted Airport (Rail Link)
  Public Utilities Streetworks Act 1950 (Review)
  Public Utilities Streetworks Act 1950 (Review)
  Airports Act 1986
  Airports Act 1986
  British Airports Authority
  British Airports Authority
  Road Traffic Control Equipment
  Road Traffic Control Equipment
  Manchester International Airport
  Manchester International Airport
NATIONAL FINANCE
  VAT
  VAT
  EC (Budget Council)
  EC (Budget Council)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Incomes and Taxation
  Incomes and Taxation
  Wife's Earned Income Allowance
  Wife's Earned Income Allowance
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Mortgage Interest
  Mortgage Interest
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Taxation (Tobacco)
  Taxation (Tobacco)
  Wife's Earnings Elections
  Wife's Earnings Elections
  Taxation (Benefits)
  Taxation (Benefits)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Principal Scientific Officers
  Principal Scientific Officers
  Customs and Excise
  Customs and Excise
  Obscenity
  Obscenity
  Government Supplies and Contractors
  Government Supplies and Contractors
  Goods and Services (Contracts)
  Goods and Services (Contracts)
  Income Tax (Refunds)
  Income Tax (Refunds)
  Crown Estates Commissioners
  Crown Estates Commissioners
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Security
  Security
  Police Complaints System
  Police Complaints System
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Modern Language School Assistants
  Modern Language School Assistants
  Blackwater Drainage Scheme
  Blackwater Drainage Scheme
  Arterial Land Drainage
  Arterial Land Drainage
  Sectarian Intimidation
  Sectarian Intimidation
  Orange Order Marches
  Orange Order Marches
  Irish Language
  Irish Language
  Foreign Languages
  Foreign Languages
  Newry (Army Patrols)
  Newry (Army Patrols)
  RUC (Catering Establishments)
  RUC (Catering Establishments)
  Michael Tighe (Tapes)
  Michael Tighe (Tapes)
DEFENCE
  Plessey—GEC
  Plessey—GEC
  Community Programme Schemes
  Community Programme Schemes
  Nimrod Aircraft (Operational Training Flight)
  Nimrod Aircraft (Operational Training Flight)
  Chile
  Chile
  Service Training
  Service Training
  Royal Ordnance plc
  Royal Ordnance plc
  Mr. J. Kay (Pension)
  Mr. J. Kay (Pension)
  Dr. Kurt Waldheim
  Dr. Kurt Waldheim
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Northern Ireland (Force Levels)
  Northern Ireland (Force Levels)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  DROPS Equipment
  DROPS Equipment
  Ministry of Defence Police
  Ministry of Defence Police
  Royal Yacht Britannia
  Royal Yacht Britannia
  United States Air Force (Weapon Storage)
  United States Air Force (Weapon Storage)
  United States Air Force (Weapon Deployment)
  United States Air Force (Weapon Deployment)
  Binary Chemical Weapons
  Binary Chemical Weapons
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Agricultural Support
  Agricultural Support
  EC (Food and Wine Sales)
  EC (Food and Wine Sales)
  Food Surpluses
  Food Surpluses
  Milk Marketing Board
  Milk Marketing Board
  Sugar (Mauritius)
  Sugar (Mauritius)
  Silage and Slurry
  Silage and Slurry
  Wheat
  Wheat
  Sea Defences (Walton-on-the-Naze)
  Sea Defences (Walton-on-the-Naze)
  Sheep (Radiation)
  Sheep (Radiation)
  Animal Farms (Fur)
  Animal Farms (Fur)
  Swine Influenza
  Swine Influenza
  Aujeszky's Disease
  Aujeszky's Disease
  Brewing Industry
  Brewing Industry
  Animals (Ear-punching)
  Animals (Ear-punching)
  Supply Estimates
  Supply Estimates
  Bass Fishery
  Bass Fishery
  Radioactivity
  Radioactivity
  Spain (Imports)
  Spain (Imports)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Leicester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Willoughby de Broke—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Duke of Manchester—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.
Lord Aldenham—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne—Took the Oath.

European Airlines: Competition
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps have been taken by the European Commission on the issue of liberalising air transport within the Community since the United Kingdom assumed the presidency of the Council of Ministers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, The Commission announced on 10th July that it had decided to send letters to member states' airlines requiring them under Article 89 of the treaty, to bring to an end various concerted practices which the Commission see as infringements of the treaty. We welcome their initiative as a significant increase in the pressure for reform, and particularly as an incentive to the council to agree on a package of liberal measures for aviation.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if it is correct that the Commission has written to 10 airlines including British Airways and British Caledonian, can the Minister give the House the names of the other airlines concerned? Further, can the Minister say whether it is true that a time limit of two months has been given for replies, and to whom the replies should be sent?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can confirm that there is a time limit of two months for replies to the letter, and those replies have to be sent to the Commission. The other airlines to whom the Commission has written on this particular point are Sabena, SAS, Lufthansa, Olympic Airways, Air France, Aer Lingus, Alitalia and KLM.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if, as I understand it, the Commission has powers of its own to deal with these matters, does that mean that it will
376
act on the replies independently of the Council of Ministers and thus avoid further delay? Can the noble Earl give the House the date of the next meeting of the Commission?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords, the Commission can act independently of the Council of Ministers on this matter. I cannot tell the House when the Commission next meets, but I can say that the Council of Ministers will be meeting formally on 10th and 11th November. It is hoped that my right honourable friend will be able to arrange an informal meeting in London in October.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend able to say what the position will be if they do not reply to the letters?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it will be for the Commission to take what action it deems necessary through its powers under the Treaty of Rome.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the British Government can also act independently by taking powers under Article 88 to enforce the treaty, in spite of the fact that many member governments of the Community are flagrantly breaking the law? Can my noble friend indicate when the Government are likely to take these powers and what the effect will be in bringing down the cost of European air travel?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as my noble friend rightly points out we can take matters into our own hands, but we believe that a better solution will be found, for the long-term good, by negotiation between all members of the Community rather than by individual states taking action. However, if we do not achieve a satisfactory solution by the end of our term of presidency, which will be the end of December, we will look at the matter again.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many of the member states concerned, other than the United Kingdom, are very heavily—and I mean heavily—represented within the Commission itself? It is by no means certain, on the basis of the information that we have been given this afternoon, that there will be any collegiate directive issued by the Commission in view of the divisions of interest to which I refer.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Commission is firmly of the opinion that there should be further liberalisation of the air transport market and it will pursue all means at its disposal to that end.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the noble Minister aware of the very real feeling that because 1992 has been fixed as the year for the removal of all internal barriers within the Community there is a danger that the obstructing states may try to delay action until nearer that date? Can the noble Earl tell the House whether the British Government remain committed to their intention of achieving a first stage in these negotiations during the term of our presidency?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we remain committed to seeking an agreement with our partners in Europe, which is why my right honourable friend is seeking to have an informal council meeting before the formal Council meeting, where we hope substantial progress will be made.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that saying the Government will attempt to seek agreement falls short of using the powers mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bethell and what we could do? Is my noble friend in a position to say that if there are no replies, or if the replies are unhelpful, we will use the powers referred to?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think we will be entitled to consider every option available to us if progress has not been made by the end of our presidency.

Food from Britain Campaign: Support
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what level of support has so far been committed by the agricul-ture and food industries to Food from Britain.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I am pleased to say that with the positive outcome of the poll of cereal growers, the agriculture and food industries have committed £2·5 million to Food from Britain in 1986–87 and a similar amount in 1987–88. The actual level of expenditure will depend upon the work programmes developed jointly by Food from Britain and the various sectors.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very encouraging reply. Are Her Majesty's Government committed to any financial provision in future for the Food from Britain campaign?
Lord Belstead: Yes, my Lords, we certainly are; £14 million is due to be spent by the end of the next financial year, 1987–88. We have promised that from then onwards for a three-year period we will put in Government money on the basis of £1 for every £2 of industry money, provided industry puts in a minimum of £3 million in any one year. The Government maximum would be £2·5 million in any one year.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister tell the House whether those bodies which engage in generic advertising, much of which is financed by commodity levies, are going to integrate their advertising programmes with Food from Britain, possibly on a co-funding basis? Is the noble Lord satisfied that liaison between these parties and Food from Britain is in all respects adequate?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not know that there will be an integration of those involved in generic advertising, but I know that they will be considering contributions.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should declare an interest as I am a member of the council on the executive board of Food from Britain. May I ask my noble friend whether he agrees that the ability of the individualistic factions of the industry not to make a total commitment to Food from Britain has been both irresponsible and debilitating? Does he also agree that it would be quite wrong if the council were to become a farmer-funded/farmer-managed organisation, and will he ensure that it does not happen?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the intention of the Agriculture Bill with which your Lordships have just parted company is to increase the size of the council on which my noble friend sits so that there is representation not only of the farmers' unions but of the food manufacturers, the milk, meat and cereal sectors, and the retailers. Obviously it is our hope that money will come in from those different sectors. Perhaps I may just say that if industry plays its part, at the end of the first eight years of the Food from Britain campaign the Government will have contributed £21½ million.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in view of the success of raising money for Food from Britain, will the Minister reconsider the method of financing the advisory service and perhaps put it on a levy basis?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is an exceedingly interesting but other question.

Boeing 747 Aircraft Inspection
3.11 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many Boeing 747 aircraft on the British register have now been examined for cracks in the frame in the forward sections; in how many of these cases cracks have been found; what was the average age of the aircraft in which cracks were found; and whether any and if so how many of these aircraft remain to be checked.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Civil Aviation Authority have informed us that since the initial inspections of localised areas of the nose fuselage structure were completed in March this year, three Boeing 747 aircraft on the British register have now been more extensively inspected in the continuing programme for aircraft which have accumulated over 8,000 flights. Cracks have been found in all three aircraft. But the nature and severity is less than previously found, being well within the structural capability of the aircraft. Each aircraft has completed over 13,000 flights, 18 aircraft remain to be inspected and each inspection will take 2 to 3 weeks to complete.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interesting and helpful reply. Can he say whether, in the light of these cracks, both the airlines and the government agencies concerned are reviewing the expected working life of these aircraft?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the cracks are well within the structural capability of the aircraft and this is something for the aircraft operators themselves to determine. It depends on the pressure cycles—that is, the number of times the aircraft has to take off and land—and therefore the cracks will vary. Obviously there will come a time when, because of the continuing maintenance programme, it will be cheaper to renew the aircraft than to maintain it.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that the question that has just been put by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is very important? Are the Government, the department and the CAA satisfied with the present procedure in regard to the programme of inspection of airplanes generally? Or does the noble Lord consider that there should be some review given to the regular inspections? These cracks have come to light as a result of a number of recent incidents, and if they had not come to light we might have had very severe difficulties.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the incidents that I have reported today have come to light as a result of a continuing programme of vetting of aircraft which is done on a regular and increasing basis. The cracks are very minor and well within the structural capability of the aircraft, and, I believe that the Government and the CAA who are responsible for this matter are taking it seriously.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that with only three inspections completed and 18 still to be carried out, progress seems to be rather slow? Is there any prospect of speeding it up?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, of course the aircraft have to come back to this country in order to be inspected for British Airways; but this is a second series of inspections. The aircraft have been inspected once—before the end of March—and the inspection that is being carried out this time is a continuing, on-going and slightly more extensive one.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does that reply mean that the cracks that are found now were not apparent when the aircraft were looked at previously, and is it safe to travel in aircraft with cracks?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am advised that it is safer to travel in aircraft with cracks of this nature than in aircraft with no cracks at all, as this probably means that there will be greater stress elsewhere.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is that not rather a cracked answer?

Community Radio Scheme
3.14 p.m.
Lord Monson: 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 why they have decided to abandon the community radio scheme after nine months of preparation, and whether they will compensate the 266 applicants for the time and effort expended and costs incurred.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, it proved impossible within the present statutory framework to devise satisfactory arrangements for supervising the experiment which both provided safeguards for the public and at the same time did not involve the Government in controlling the content of broadcasts. We concluded that it would be better to reconsider community radio as part of radio policy generally in the Green Paper to be published this autumn. As to compensation, applicants were asked not to incur the expense of elaborate applications; but we shall want to reflect on the views expressed.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that the Home Office must have been fully aware of all the possible snags long before groups were invited to submit applications last autumn? Is he aware that many if not most of the applications were supported by individuals and organisations of the highest integrity and respectability, including the police, local clergymen of various denominations, hospitals, charitable organisations, and so on? Finally, does he further agree that none of the thousands of individuals who comprise the groups which made applications would have gone to the trouble of expending so much time, energy and money if they had imagined for one moment that their applications would automatically be consigned to the dustbin?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, every effort was made to resolve the difficulties of mounting a sensible and continuing experiment within the present legal framework, but we concluded that it would not be right to keep applicants hanging on any longer—hence the announcement made by my right honourable friend. Certainly we recognised that many applicants had worked hard on their applications and we regret the disappointment caused by our decision not to proceed. The applications have shown that there is enthusiastic and constructive support for community radio, and we very much hope that it will prove possible to devise suitable arrangements for its development in the future.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that that Answer in regard to compensation for the applicants is really not good enough? Is he further aware that many of these applicants are people of very limited means and organisations with very limited funds? Having misled them into doing all this work, or even having decided quite honourably not to continue with community

381
radio, are the Government not really responsible for the costs that these people have needlessly incurred?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I shall not accept from the noble Lord that the Government have misled anybody. As I said in my original Answer, the guidance notes issued to all applicants made it clear that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary did not want people to incur the expense of elaborate applications. At a recent meeting with my honourable friend the Minister of State, representatives of the Community Radio Association undertook to send him details of the costs incurred by some of their members, and we shall want to reflect on what they, the noble Lord and indeed others have said on how the question of compensation can be taken forward.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the country is covered by a fairly comprehensive network of independent radio stations which are serving local communities very well and which are financed entirely by private, mostly local, money? Is he further aware that any introduction of a scheme that would further divide the limited revenue which can be raised locally will probably destroy the whole structure of local radio and that most of these local radio stations, many of which are not making a profit at all, heaved a sigh of relief at the Government's decision?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that the remarks of my noble friend point all the more to the need for a Green Paper to cover the whole subject of radio.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, while accepting the disappointment of those who have promoted community radio applications and their integrity, in considering the future will the noble Lord not bear in mind the very wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent? In fact, to license these stations without any safeguards at all is not only dangerous but grossly unfair to the independent radio stations which are subject to the very severe and proper supervision of the IBA and its rigorous regulations. They also have to pay very substantial rentals to maintain the cost of the IBA. In the matter of compensation, will the noble Lord also bear in mind that those who make unsuccessful applications for such licences receive no compensation at all, and as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said, many of the independent radio stations are now finding it extremely difficult to break even against the varying competition?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I understand much of what the noble Lord says. I think that the Green Paper will provide an opportunity for all those concerned to consider the nature of our national and local radio services in future and the appropriate regulatory framework for them. That will include consideration of the scope for a new tier of community radio stations.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, were not the Government warned over and over again by knowledgeable people that what has happened would
382
happen? Does that not underline the need for them to listen a bit more attentively to expert advice when it is offered to them?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is always room for more than one point of view.

Business
3.20 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on ordnance factories.
With the leave of the House also, I shall arrange for Statements that are to be made in another place on the second Severn crossing and Unipart and Leyland Bus to be reprinted in the Official Report.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Public Order Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and during this adjournment the Second Reading and remaining stages of the British Council and Commonwealth Institute Superannuation Bill and consideration of the Commons message on the Dockyard Services Bill will be taken.
Following are the Statements referred to above:

Second Severn Crossing
"My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales on a second Severn crossing.
"In February 1984 my right honourable friend, the then Secretary of State for Transport, announced the Government's decision to proceed with a programme of strengthening and repair for the Severn crossing. That programme is well under way and proceeding well. At the same time my right honourable friend announced that he intended to initiate a study into the way in which a second crossing might be provided in the same general corridor as the existing crossing. Consultants were appointed later in the year and asked to report by August this year. I am glad to say that the consultants have completed their work ahead of time and copies of the report have today been placed in the Library of the House.
"My right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Transport, and I have considered the consultants' findings and recommendations and have decided that a second Severn crossing should be provided. We propose that this new crossing should be a bridge sited at the English Stones, about three miles downstream of the existing crossing with connections to the M.4 on both banks and with an additional southerly link to the M.5. The new bridge would carry a dual two-lane motorway with hard shoulders. The consultants advise that it will be possible to provide windshielding on the bridge.
"We are proceeding with the next stage of planning immediately. This is a major project and much work remains to be done and consultations set in hand. I am sure that the House will welcome this commitment to build a second crossing of the Severn on the main route into South Wales. I know that this decision will also be very widely welcomed in Wales. The Government have always recognised the vital importance of the Severn crossing to the economy of Severnside and South Wales. Our action in strengthening the existing crossing, and the commissioning of this report, its completion by the consultants within the timetable set and the decisions that I have announced today confirm our determination to ensure that the crossings are adequate for future traffic needs and underline our commitment to the future economic development of the Principality."
"My Lords, that concludes the Statement."

Unipart and Leyland Bus
"On 6th February I informed the House that it was the Government's intention, with the agreement of the Rover Group Board, that negotiations should be pursued for the separate privatisation of Unipart by the early placement of shares with United Kingdom institutions.
"With the approval of the Government the Rover Group have reached agreement in principle, subject to contract, for the sale of a 75 per cent shareholding in Unipart to a consortium comprising Unipart management and a group of UK investment institutions led by Charterhouse Bank. It is proposed to reserve up to 5 per cent. of the ordinary share capital for Unipart employees. Rover Group would receive up to £50 million, depending in part on Unipart's future performance. The Rover Group would subscribe up to £3.75 million for equity in the restructured company.
"Rover Group's links with Unipart will be retained through its holding in Unipart, and by contractual arrangements agreed between Austin Rover Group and Unipart. Return to the private sector should enable Unipart to develop and diversify its operations, while continuing to meet the requirements of Rover Group.
"On Leyland Bus my honourable friend the Minister of State for Industry informed the House on 27th June that the Rover Group had received tenders for Leyland Bus from Aveling Barford, the Laird Group, and a Leyland Bus management consortium. The Rover Group have recommended and the Government have agreed that the tender from the management consortium should be taken forward.
"The Rover Group have therefore reached agreement in principle, subject to contract, for the sale of Leyland Bus and a 33 per cent shareholding in Leyland Parts to a consortium of Leyland Bus management and investment institutions. It is also proposed that employees will be able to participate in the shares of the new Leyland Bus holding company. The Rover Group would receive about
384
£11.7 million for Leyland Bus and the shareholding in Leyland Parts. The details of the sale contract remain to be negotiated.
"As I have consistently made clear to the House, there is substantial overcapacity in the traditional bus market and some measure of rationalisation would be inevitable under whatever ownership. It is the intention of the management team to decide urgently on the most effective new structure for their manufacturing operations and on employment levels. Some job losses will be involved, including the future closure of Easter Coach Works at Lowestoft. However, the Government accept the view of the Rover Group that the proposals by Leyland Bus management are soundly based and provide an opportunity to develop a viable bus manufacturing operation."

The Summer Recess
Lord Denham: My Lords, you will remember that last week I announced that the House would go into recess on Thursday, 31st July. I should like now to announce that, subject to the progress of business, the House will return from the Summer Recess on Monday 6th October. It is expected that Her Majesty The Queen will open the next Session of Parliament on Wednesday, 12th November.
Exeter City Council Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Social Security Bill
3.22 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENT TO A LORDS AMENDMENT AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF LORDS AMENDMENTS.
[References are to Bill (170) at first printed by the Lords. Commons amendments etc. are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 19, page 24, line 8, at end insert—
"(1 A) The scheme prescribed in subsection (l)(a) above shall provide for weekly payments of a community care addition to a chronically sick or disabled or elderly person, or in respect of a chronically sick or disabled child or other chronically sick or disabled elderly dependant.
(1B) Regulations shall provide that payments of community care addition made under subsection (1 A) above shall be payable at a rate that shall be determined by reference to—

(a) the needs of the claimant or dependant in relation to his proper welfare and need for care and attention in a dwelling which he occupies or is to occupy as his home or in which he resides or is to reside as a member of a family, and

385

(b) the extent to which other benefits or payments that are payable under Part II of this Act fail to meet those needs.

1C) Payments of community care addition under subsection (1A) above shall be payable in addition to any other income support payment, including any premium, and in addition to any attendance allowance or mobility allowance to which the claimant or dependant may be entitled."
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof:
Page 27, line 37, at end insert—
"(2A) In relation to income support and housing benefit the applicable amount for a severely disabled person shall include an amount in respect of his being a severely disabled person.
(2B) Regulations may specify circumstances in which persons are to be treated as being or as not being severely disabled.".
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to the Commons Amendment No. 2 in lieu thereof.
As your Lordships know, I believe it to be my duty, when this House has asked another place to think again by pressing their views successfully against the Government on important aspects of a major government Bill, to report to the House the view taken in another place. Your Lordships know, too, that I am always anxious to fulfil my duty to reflect the views of this House in discussions with my colleagues in government and to ensure that they are taken into consideration to the proper extent. I hope therefore that the House will bear with me if, in speaking to Amendment No. 2 by another place in lieu of your Lordships' own amendment, No. 1, I also refer to the wider issues raised by the changes made to the Bill during its earlier stages in this House.
This Bill represents the final outcome of a fundamental review, with extremely wide-ranging consultation, of social security. Our proposals aim to put the main income-related benefits on a consistent and simpler basis. Within this framework, your Lordships' House has as it is entitled and expected to do, looked at the detail of the Bill and asked another place to look again at three broad matters.
By a large majority, your Lordships inserted in the Bill an amendment to help severely disabled people who need assistance to live in the community. For reasons which I shall explain in a moment, the Government are not able to accept the original form of the amendment, but what we have produced are proposals which I hope it will be generally agreed meet the spirit of your Lordships' concern.
The second matter was the change of the Bill at Committee stage, reversing the Government's decision that in future everybody should pay a minimum contribution to their rates. By contrast, that amendment was carried by only a very small majority.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, one is enough.
Viscount Whitelaw: I suggested, my Lords, that it was a very small majority. It was more than one, but not very much more.
It is, I think, fair to describe the point as one of major principle concerning the financial arrangements for housing benefit. I emphasise that. As your Lordships know, the other place has now reaffirmed its
386
original position. In those circumstances, and on a point of this kind, your Lordships will not be at all surprised to be invited now to accept the position of the other House.
The third matter concerns the arrangements for payments from the social fund. The changes made in your Lordships' House attracted considerable support from the opposition parties and Cross-Benchers. The Government, recognising their strength of feeling, have made various changes. My noble friend Lady Trumpington will shortly explain these in greater detail, but they include provision for maternity and funeral benefits to be regulated and appealable; and for more indpendent oversight of the review of adverse decisions on other applications to the social fund. I hope that your Lordships will agree that these go some way—though I readily accept that if is not the whole way—towards meeting the concerns of this House.
I firmly believe that this package represents a very fair response to the views of this House. On the three major matters, one has been substantially accepted, subject to some necessary amendment of the details; one has been somewhat modified, with a view to meeting at least some of the concern of your Lordships; and, on the third, which, as I said, concerns a major policy decision taken by the Government, the elected House has reaffirmed its position. I very much hope that your Lordships will agree that this House should now acquiesce in those changes.
I turn briefly to the detail of Amendment No. 2. What concerned your Lordships was the effect of the new income support arrangements on those severely disabled people who, with suitable assistance, are able to maintain themselves in the community. In adding Amendment No. 1 to the Bill, the House was, I believe, anxious to secure more specific reassurance about payments to be available to this group than the Government had at that stage given. But I fear that the amendment was drafted in a way that would make it difficult to operate within our social security system; and would also have gone far wider than was necessary to help the severely disabled people who were the focus of concern.
That amendment has therefore been removed. In its stead there is provision for, in effect, an additional premium to be included in the income support scheme for prescribed severely disabled claimants. It will be paid on top of the other structural improvements for disabled people in the Bill, in particular the disablement premium. In effect, it provides a two-tier disablement premium, which many commentators —including the House of Commons Select Committee on Social Services—have urged.
The additional premium will be paid directly as of right to severely disabled people who meet certain criteria. The first is that they should be in receipt of the higher rate of attendance allowance: so it will apply to those in households where there is no one capable of carrying out normal domestic duties. We think the purpose behind that rule—the need for extra support to maintain independence that cannot otherwise be provided—is a sound one. We have recently announced the extension of invalid care allowance—the benefit that is paid to those caring for disabled people. Consistent with that, we intend that the extra disablement premium will be paid directly to

387
a severely disabled person where there is no one receiving or eligible for the invalid care allowance in respect of that person's care needs. We envisage setting the rate at the same level as for invalid care allowance—currently £23 a week. It is nearly double the rate of the disablement premium in relevant cases.
Our estimate is that up to 10,000 severely disabled people could qualify for this extra premium at a cost of up to £12 million. It will go to a wider range of people than receive the domestic assistance addition now—just over 3,000 people on our latest information, for December 1984. We can therefore expect a significant increase in expenditure and numbers helped compared with now, and compared with the position under the Bill as it originally stood, and as it would be if your Lordship did not agree with this amendment.
There is a further feature of our proposals to which I should draw attention. At an earlier stage in this House we undertook to have improved transitional protection for those currently receiving the domestic assistance addition. We stand by that commitment, which is necessary to protect the position in those few existing cases where payments are made in excess of the proposed additional premium.
I am conscious of traversing complex and difficult territory here. I hope I have been able to do justice to it; but I know my noble friend Lady Trumpington will make good any deficiencies when she comes to speak. The response to your Lordships' changes to the Bill is, as I have said, an extremely fair one. And in particular our proposals for additional help for the severely disabled, which will be of real benefit to a considerable number of people, have sought to meet the concern expressed widely in your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 proposed in lieu thereof.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I must now call manuscript Amendment No. 2A which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I hope that the House will allow me to respond to the remarks which have been made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry, I should like to have advice on this matter. I have direct advice to the effect that I must now call Amendment No. 2A; but, of course, I shall do what the House wishes. However, that is the advice that I have received.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am advised that it would normally be the case, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has said, that the noble Lord moving the amendment should be called now; but as I think that I could easily be accused of having transgressed some part of the rules of order—
Baroness Jeger: My Lords—
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am going to help the noble Baroness. I hope that she will not be too critical of me for doing something which I believe will be widely regarded as being in the best interests of the House. I hope that the House will agree that it is possible for the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, to respond in much the same way as I did in the first place. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will agree that although this may be wrong—no one will be more certain of that than he will be—nevertheless on this occasion it may be the fair way of proceeding.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount. It is no less than I should expect of him because we all know his reputation for fairness. He has explained the Government's decisions upon these important amendments, and I am sure that when the matter was raised in Cabinet or elsewhere, he did his best to explain to his right honourable friends what prompted this House to amend this important Bill, and explained that the amendments cut across party lines, as often happens in this House. It is indeed what makes ths place respected by the general public. It is because this House is not a rubber stamp that it has gained the approbation of so many people.
I must take the opportunity to protest as strongly as I can, once again, at the way the House is being treated, with crucial amendments being tabled at the last moment. Some amendments were in print only this morning. In this House we are expected far too often to swallow meekly and without protest the practice of important amendments being tabled late, and on this occasion, to enable the other place to rise a week earlier than this House.
We had of course expected that the Government would make some changes, especially on the question of rates, not because of the principle, which is a good one, but because of the cost. The changes that we are now asked to accept by the noble Viscount are on the whole far more unsatisfactory and disappointing than anything we contemplated. I should like to take the opportunity to welcome the new peers who have just taken the oath, and to express the hope that they will listen to our debates with objectivity.
I wish to deal with the noble Viscount's remarks and I will be brief because I know that many of my noble friends wish to comment in detail later. The amendment on disablement to which he referred was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, who made a most impressive speech on that occasion. Of course we noted the Government's concession mentioned by the noble Viscount; but today we must ask whether it matches up to the problem of severely disabled people described by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), who also made a remarkable speech during the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has since tabled an amendment which we, on this side, believe to be reasonable. It modifies the Government's proposals. The noble Lord has gone a long way to meet the Government's point—and I hope that the Government will treat his amendment very seriously.
The noble Viscount said that the Government had sought to act "in the spirit" of the amendment passed by this House. I put it to him that the amendment of

389
the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is far nearer the spirit of what this House intended than what the Government now propose.
The second amendment that we passed in this House sought to protect the poorest section of the community from being made to pay a large element of their rates bill. And, as the noble Viscount has just said, the Government have reversed it. They have decided that even the poorest claimants, including those on income support, must find 20 per cent. of their rates from income other than housing benefit. The Government have not even agreed to put a compensatory element into the income support scales. This means a cruel switch of resources.
We have to realise precisely what is going to happen to the least well off as a result of this part of the Bill. It will mean a switch from food, from clothing and from fuel in order to pay the rates. Anyone who believes that this is fair in Britain in 1986 with millions living on a low subsistence level is making a profound mistake. My noble friend Lady Jeger will go into this matter in greater detail when she speaks on the amendment.
As to the appeals procedure, here again the Government have produced a device that comes no where near to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in his important speech on this subject in Committee. At that time the House rejected the concept of civil servant inspectors in place of the independent tribunals that have worked well for years. I do not propose to rehearse in detail the arguments deployed most effectively in this House. But the principle of a tribunal with a lawyer and two lay members was well tested over a long period. The lay members offered local knowledge and experience. This was crucial to adjudication on social fund disputes. Inspectors, inevitably stationed at a distance, would not have this essential qualification. There would be no oral hearings and the claimants would not have the opportunity to explain their circumstances face to face.
In this country we have always laid stress on giving people a fair hearing. And this, under the Government's proposal, is what people would lose. The question that we have to ask is this. Does the Government's new proposal fulfil the requirements of local knowledge and a fair face-to-face hearing? I regret to say that the answer to the question is, no, it does not. This is regrettable. My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and others will, I feel sure, deal with this in detail in due course.
The primary duty of this House is to revise legislation. Despite our heavy workload and the strains imposed on this House, noble Lords on all sides have tried hard to perform their duty effectively. On 23rd June and 30th June, this House considered the Bill in a Committee of the Whole House. It was resolved that certain changes to the Bill would be beneficial to the less well off and to the disabled. These changes were supported in all parts of the House. They were certainly not forced upon the Government by the Opposition. The arithmetic of the House alone makes this impossible. They were the product of a
390
sympathetic initiative by noble Lords on this side of the House, on the Cross-Benches, and in some cases from the party opposite.
I appeal therefore to noble Lords to demonstrate on this occasion the same care and compassion as before. But, most of all, I appeal to the Government to think again even at this late hour about these issues. It is really not in the spirit of our constitution, following due consideration in this House by noble Lords on all sides, to seek to change legislation of this importance at this stage of the Bill in this particular way without adequate study. I hope therefore that the Government will concede the reason of our case.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, perfectly properly and quite understandably, saw fit, in nominally introducing Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, to range over a somewhat wider field, I know that he will extend to me for a moment the same courtesy that he has extended to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I want only to make one or two comments at this stage. I do not wish to become involved in the details of matters that will conic up shortly in your Lordships' House.
First, this is a Bill of crucial importance to millions of under-privileged in our society. It was therefore right that this House should revise it with care. In addition, in Part III of the Bill there were proposals that had serious constitutional implications. Those are matters that are always regarded as being of especial concern to your Lordships' House. It was therefore right that we should revise those with especial care, particularly as so much of the Committee stage in another place was guillotined. I am sure that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will agree that in the course of that revision not one unnecessary word was spoken in your Lordships' House. There has been no filibuster and no time-wasting of any sort. We have concentrated on the task.
In relation to Part III about which I am particularly concerned—the right of appeal to an independent tribunal—we carried by a substantial majority certain important amendments and sent them back to another place. What happened? They were reached last night, again under the guillotine procedure. And, in another place, precisely 47 minutes were devoted to considering not simply the proposals of your Lordships' House but also the details of what should then be sent back to your Lordships' House to consider this afternoon.
What has emerged as a result of deliberations in 47 minutes in another place is, in fact, 19 separate amendments dealing with Part III of the Bill alone. Three of them disagree with what your Lordships decided; one proposes a new clause; five are amendments to omit words; three are amendments to omit and insert other words; and seven are amendments to insert extra words. There is not only a new clause to be considered, but a whole restructuring of Part III. Neither the new clause nor the restructuring has ever been before your Lordships' House at all. This has created an almost impossible position for those of us concerned in the matter. There was the necessity either to attempt to deal with 19 amendments by way of manuscript amendments which would have been

391
totally impracticable for your Lordships' House to consider this afternoon, or, alternatively, to go into print before six o'clock last night indicating our views on 19 proposed amendments in another place before it had even started to debate them, without knowing what decisions it was going to arrive at—although one could guess, because the Whips were on—and without having the faintest idea of the arguments that would be used in support of a proposed new clause or a proposed restructuring. That, I am bound to suggest to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, is no way to legislate and no way to treat your Lordships' House.
I appreciate that if we now take action on these matters in your Lordships' House, it may cause some inconvenience to another place. So be it. I believe that your Lordships' House has a higher duty than not causing inconvenience to another place. We have a duty to ourselves. We have a duty to our parliamentary system of government. And we have a duty, too, I believe, to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to make sure that in no circumstances can it be suggested that there might be any suspicion ever attached to him (because the idea would be unthinkable) that he was seeking to dissuade your Lordships' House from doing its duty. Our duty is to examine what has gone on in this House at Committee stage and what happened in another place last night, to examine these matters quite fearlessly and, where we think it appropriate, to stand up for our convictions.
Lord Stallard: My Lords—
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, my position was, I believe, that I thought it only fair that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, as Leader of the Opposition, and a spokesman for the Alliance parties should take advantage of the fact that I had ranged rather wider than one amendment. But I think it would now be correct, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in the first instance, that we should proceed in the orderly fashion: that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, should now be called—if that is the wish of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—to move his amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is not exactly my wish, but I must say what I have been instructed is the position. That is that after the first speech in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, moving the amendment I am advised that I must immediately call Amendment No. 2A. I must also say that if this debate proceeds, and the Motion is put as I originally proposed it, Amendment No. 2A cannot be called at all. That is the position as I see it. I am without powers in this matter. I am not, in the sense of the House of Commons, a Speaker, but I must tell the House what I have been told.

AMENDMENT MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[As an amendment to the Commons amendment in lieu, No. 2]
2A At the end of subsection (2A) insert—
("and that amount shall be determined in accordance with the severity of his disability.").
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity at last of moving the amendments to the Government's amendment. I
392
wonder whether I might preface my remarks by saying to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that the kind of discussion which we have just had would perhaps be more properly taken on the Motion, That the House do now consider the Commons amendment. It would then be entirely separate from the substantive amendments that we are discussing. I merely put that down as a possible improvement for the future.
I should like to be as brief as I can in moving my Amendment No. 2A; but I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 2B and 2C. I hope that will be concluded in one discussion without prejudice to moving them separately if need be.
I should like to start by saying I acknowledge that the amendment which this House moved into the Bill by a substantial majority was cast in too wide a form. There is no question about that. I have been convinced by what the Minister said in another place. I freely acknowledge it. Equally I should like to acknowledge that the amendment which has been put into the Bill by the Minister in another place goes some way towards meeting what we wish to achieve. But, as I shall try to demonstrate, it is just too inflexible and the desire of these three amendments, Amendments Nos. 2 A, 2B and 2C, is to introduce elements of flexibility into the Minister's amendment. There is therefore no conflict of interest between the Government and the rest of us because we are all attempting to achieve the same thing.
I should like to quote from the Hansard of yesterday—it was only yesterday that the House of Commons considered the Lords' amendment—when Mr. Tony Newton said (at col. 398 of the Commons Official Report) that his amendment,
"represents our clear acceptance of the basic proposition that there should continue to be a regulated system of weekly benefit directed"
to these very severely disabled people. That shows the the community of interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, says, this is an amendment which cuts across party lines. There are no party politics in this whatsoever. While I am on the subject of what the Minister said in another place, I should again like to thank him because his amendment in some respects goes wider than the amendment which this House passed. He said that of the 3,000 people at whom the Lords' amendment was aimed the vast majority receive far less than we propose to make available under the new premium. He then said that only 50 persons receive more than £20 a week according to the latest information available. That may be so. He and his amendment plainly have reached a wider number of people, some 10,000 people, as opposed to the 3,000 or so we had in mind. I believe that the government amendments put into the Bill in another place will cost more than the intended cost of the amendment which we have moved in this House. On those grounds therefore I can acknowledge what has been done and thank the Minister and the Government for the consideration that they have given.
I should like to have accepted the Government's amendment without question. But if one loooks at the Government amendment and at my amendments thereto one will find that in three respects I am hoping

393
to introduce flexibility into what would otherwise be a very rigid amendment. The Government's first subsection is (2A) and I seek to add at the end of that subsection—that is, the amount which should be payable,
"that amount shall be determined in accordance with the severity of his disability".
That introduces that element of flexibility which we have always thought was so highly desirable and which we also thought was the intention of the Government. Here one has a small number of people. One expects that the social service officer, whoever it may be, who comes to see the severely disabled man—whose disability may be quite different from another, who can remain in his home rather than go into an institution—can find out what his personal circumstances are, assess those, and then say, "Right, your need is £20 a week" or £5 or £50. It may vary as much as that. That is the kind of flexibility which the first amendment introduces into the Government's amendment.
The second amendment is also directed towards providing flexibility. The Goverment amendment reads:
"Regulations may specify circumstances in which persons are to be treated as being or as not being severely disabled".
That is a very rigid division. One either is or is not severely disabled. Think of the feelings of the man or woman who falls on the wrong side, and of his relations, and who, through lack of the kind of support about which we are talking, has to leave his family or his home and go into an institution. All that I am proposing is that at the end there shall be added:
"and how the severity of the disability of such persons is to be assessed".
I consider that to be of some importance.
International standards are now being laid down about the severity of disablement. We ought to be in the van. This amendment would introduce just the kind of flexibility that one would hope to have so that the man or woman whose disability is being assessed does not fall just below or above a single dividing line, but that the disability may be assessed on a more flexible line and give more sense of justice to those who are the subject of this amendment.
Thirdly, there is a new subsection which I hope to insert that the amount,
"shall be calculated with regard to the cost incurred by severely disabled persons in living as householders or as members of a household and to the income support payments available to such persons in residential care homes".
This is crucial. The vote was won in this House because everyone thought how absurd it was to force people into residential care which would cost very much more than the income support which would be needed to keep that man or woman at home. This was therefore a head and a heart amendment. One could pay these people to live at home less money than it would cost the state to keep them in institutions. By inserting this amendment into the Government's amendment one can actually compare the cost of keeping such a person at home with the cost of putting him in an institution and one can then decide which gives better value. I should have thought that was pretty hard-headed and well worth doing. For all these
394
reasons, upon which I shall not elaborate further, I beg to move the first of the three amendments standing in my name.
4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, amendment proposed as an amendment to the Commons amendment in lieu, Amendment No. 2: at the end of subsection (2A) insert—and as this is a manuscript amendment I shall read the words—
"and that amount shall be determined in accordance with the severity of his disability".
The Question is that the manuscript Amendment No. (2A) be agreed.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am able to support fully the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and, if I may say so, to congratulate him upon the role which he played when this House originally passed this amendment and his role today. I cannot fail to express my deep regret that in an extremely brief guillotine debate in another place last night the Secretary of State and the Government cancelled out an amendment which had been very carefully worked out in this House, in conjunction with not only Peers on all sides of this House, but also organisations of disabled people. The proposal had been presented to this House in a non-party amendment which was carried by a very substantial majority. The Minister in fact took that action the day after his own Social Security Advisory Committee had strongly criticised the extent of the Government's succession of measures to cut benefits for the poorest in our society. I should like briefly to quote what was said by the Social Security Advisory Committee. The committee warned that Ministers,
"run the risk of causing widespread hardship amongst claimants who are already living at what is generally recognised as the poverty level".
Many claimants, the committee says, would face severe difficulties which,
"cannot be justified by the savings to be achieved.".
The amendment of this House has been replaced by a much narrower benefit for severely disabled people. I am glad that the Government have taken some note of the debate in your Lordships' House and not simply rejected it, as they did another amendment. However, I must tell the House that it is an alternative which is difficult to understand. During the course of today, knowing what had been decided by another place, I have sought to assess from those organisations which are deeply concerned with disabled people their views on this alternative. The Government have replaced the community care addition accepted by this House with an additional flat-rate premium of £23 payable to "up to 10,000" people at a cost of up to £12 million. However, I must say that the criteria announced by Mr. Tony Newton for the new premium are very difficult to understand. First, the claimants must be living on their own; secondly, they must be in receipt of higher rate attendance allowance (most unusual for people living alone); and, thirdly, there must be no one receiving or eligible for invalid care allowance in respect of their care needs.

395
The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, which brings together so many of the organisations of disabled people in this country, said today (and I have their authority to quote them) that they could not believe that there are 10,000 people in receipt of higher rate attendance allowance who are living on their own. This criteria is much harsher than the present test for the domestic assistance addition which is that adult members of an assessment unit are unable to carry out all those tasks by reason of old age, ill health, disability or heavy family responsibilities. People who need constant attention or supervision 24 hours a day are most unlikely to be living on their own for any lengthy period, except perhaps in a granny flat or in sheltered housing, and all those being cared for by frail, elderly partners would seem to be excluded.
Your Lordships' House is placed in a very difficult position. It has not had the opportunity, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, of analysing carefully and in detail what the amendment means. Of course, it also excludes many of the groups that were in the amendment that was originally tabled and carried. For many chronically sick, disabled or elderly people the flat rate disability premium will not make up for the loss of the weekly additions or for flexibility. Many would not qualify for the premium in the first place since the qualifying conditions are much stricter than for the existing weekly addition. Groups such as kidney patients, terminally ill cancer patients and disabled people who are not on an attendance or mobility allowance are just some of those who will be excluded as a result of the decision taken in another place yesterday.
However, I do not wish to go into that. We can deal only with the amendment that is before us today, the amendment from another place and the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I believe that it is crucial that we should support the amendment which the noble Lord has tabled. The Government, as he has said, would be in a totally inflexible position. They would find that one sum (we hear it would be £23) would be set by regulation regardless of the condition of the disabled person. That does not make sense. That is why the noble Lord has tabled these amendments. They are all designed to give greater flexibility. In some cases the sum may need to be less; in some cases the sum may need to be greater.
I would submit in conclusion that the task of this House, regardless of our political affiliations and our backgrounds, is, in this case, to do the best that can be done for disabled people in our society. I believe that the noble Lord's amendments to the Government's proposed amendment are best designed to do that. I wish we could have had more; I wish we could have had that for which we originally asked. We cannot, but at least we can do that which has been proposed by the noble Lord. I beg to support.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may put a point to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, before he sits down. He says he wishes we could have more. However, under the Government's amendment as suggested and accepted by another place many more people will benefit and more and more money will be made
396
available. Perhaps the noble Lord would bear those two points in mind.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for that intervention before I sat down. Perhaps I may draw his attention to the conclusions of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation. I said that they do not believe that there are 10,000 people in receipt of high rate attendance allowance who are living on their own. This is in fact the centre of the point being taken. Unless there is some flexibility it is likely, as stated by those who are far more expert than I or most people in your Lordships' House, that the figures that have been given will not be accepted by the most responsible organisation which I believe exists in this country to represent the interests of disabled people. The number may be 8,000, 5,000 or 3,000; no one knows. That is why flexibility is necessary.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, on the new addition for the severely disabled which his amendment has extracted from the Government. Of course it is not what he wanted, but it is a concession and, as far as it goes, it is welcome. What worries me is this. When we discussed this matter in Committee many examples were given of severely disabled people who, because of the number of additions for which they could qualify, would in fact be worse off if they were to be translated to the new arrangements. The noble Baroness made it clear that they would not be translated because of the transitional arrangements which the Government had provided. However, in the Committee we were concerned about the newly severely disabled—people who would become severely disabled once the Bill and its provisions were in force and people who would be as severely disabled as those who were quoted during our discussion in Committee.
The difficulty about the new addition is that, as I understand it, it is to be a flat rate of £23 per week. That might well be sufficient for the majority of the people whom we are considering, and perhaps only a very small number would be worse off under the new arrangements than under the old. However, if the examples that we heard in Committee are correct, it is quite clear that £23 per week would certainly not be sufficient for some of them. The point then arises as to whether they would be able to continue to live in the community or whether they would have to go into institutions.
I support this amendment and the other two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, because it seems to me that they seek to take into account individual circumstances.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I, too, should like to support my noble friend's amendment, which I thought he moved in a very cogent and reasonable way. The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, said that this new benefit will extend to a far wider range of people than those who currently receive domestic assistance allowance, and this was a point which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, picked up. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, it will

397
be a flat rate, and will be the same amount as the invalid care allowance, which at present is £23 but which I believe is soon to go up.
Although I echo what other noble Lords have said in that I am glad that the other place did not totally reject our amendment, I, too, am still very worried about the small group of very severely disabled people who are at present in receipt of very high weekly payments for domestic assistance allowance which, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, in many cases, in relation to this very small group of very severely disabled people, is higher than £23 a week. This is the group about whom people have been worried throughout the course of this Bill, and yesterday the Minister for the Disabled, at col. 397 of the Official Report of another place, again acknowledged that there has been concern about this group throughout discussions on the Bill,
Furthermore—and this was a point which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, picked up, and I am sure that the Minister will tell us whether we have misunderstood it—it seems that it is only payable if the carer is not in receipt of or not eligible to receive the invalid care allowance. Most of these very severely disabled people being cared for are being cared for by someone who already is or who will now be eligible for the ICA, so they will not be receiving any more help at all. I hope the Minister will tell us whether or not we are wrong about that.
As my noble friend Lord Henderson said, the benefit of Amendment No. 1 was that it provided flexibility, that it was tailored to the individual needs of very severely disabled people; whereas Amendment No. 2 is a flat rate, and inadequate for the needs of the most severely disabled. Amendments Nos. 2A, 2B and 2C would restore the element of flexibility—an element which the Government are usually very keen on. I know they are very committed to enabling people to live in the community—to stay living in the community and to come out of hospital and live in the community. If the Minister cannot give a firm indication that in some way—perhaps through regulations—she will be able to meet the needs of this acknowledged very small group of very severely disabled people so that they may continue to live in the community, I hope that my noble friend will pursue his solution.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said that on this occasion this House ought to be objective in its approach to this, and we would all agree with that. On the basis of being objective and weighing up the merit of the argument that we have heard so far, there are two special matters which we ought to keep in mind.
The first is that the mover of the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, acknowledged without any reserve that the Government's alternative was a good one. The noble Lord welcomed it and he said that, alongside the amendment which he originally produced, this was better from the point of view of it forming part of the statute. Therefore, we have the recommendations of the Government as an alternative to the original amendment carrying with them the
398
commendation of the mover of the amendment which this House passed on the last occasion. I would suggest that the noble Lord's acceptance of it differs to some extent from the interpretation given to it by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and from one or two comments that we have heard from other noble Lords.
The objective suggestion that I would make is that, if we are to give weight to the merit of the arguments that we have heard so far, we ought to follow the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in recognising the advance on his amendment by the Government, and that would be right. If left there, it would mean that we ought to accept the alternative amendments now put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
However, the basis of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, was purely that to be more flexible was good. The noble Lord suggested that this flexibility would, according to his own assessment, make something that was already good even better. Those of us who have some experience both in helping to formulate statutes and, much more importantly, who have to apply the regulations which flow from those statutes will appreciate what I am about to say. I want to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that there are many occasions when flexibility is a hindrance rather than a help. It is so easy to give a special meaning to a new word which is brought into the vocabulary in any argument. I suggest that in administering the regulation that will flow from this it is much better that the people who have to handle it should know exactly where they stand as set out in the statute. I believe that we should be giving them an intolerable task if, in making it more flexible, we give them the special responsibility of having to weigh up all sorts of things which do not come within their purview.
Therefore, in approaching this objectively, I am arguing that the special appeal of the supposed improvement that flexibility would give, which was the sole argument of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, does not necessarily stand up. We would all have to admit that whatever figures are eventually in the regulation, there will be borderline cases. The argument has been submitted that if it is in the regulation there is bound to be someone just outside it. That will happen whether or not we give this extra flexibility. That is one of the problems of eventually having to arrive at a decision: as is said in America, "The buck has to stop somewhere."
I should be very unhappy about removing the flexibility if I knew that this regulation flowing from this particular statute would leave those people who would be hardly dealt with without any sort of recompense at all. However, we must not view this particular Bill in complete isolation. Those of us who have had to apply these various regulations know that if there is a hard case, that if there are those who fall just outside the clear line, there are other alternative services in this country where that special need can be met, and invariably is met. Looking at the whole of our social service structure, there is no question that a real case cannot be met by another section.
Therefore, in approaching this objectively, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggested we should, I am saying that we should accept the views of the mover of

399
this amendment that the Government's alternatives are better than his original ones (and the noble Lord said that he finds them quite good) and that the extra improvement which the noble Lord thought he may be introducing by making the system more flexible may in a way be counter-productive in relation to seeing that justice is done.
It is on the ground of that sort of objectivity that I hope we shall not accept the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble Lord's flexibility argument, but that we shall support the Government in the extra consideration that they have given to his important section of the Bill.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I have been worried about this amendment, knowing as I do that the last thing that the Government wish is to see such cases as we are considering worse off. I have searched my mind and, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, with whom I share so much concern for handicapped people, as do all noble Lords, I do not see that it is necessary to spell this out in the way he suggests.
I believe there are occasions when it is better not to force a point for the good of all in a delicate situation. We have heard that there are likely to be larger benefits in store for disabled people in the present form, and I personally believe in the integrity and understanding of the Minister, my noble friend Lady Trumpington, and my noble friend the Leader of the House, and I am happy to leave it with them to get the best possible deal for those disabled people within the policy of directing the greatest help to those with the greatest need. Therefore, I would support the amendment as put forward by the Government.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like to support the three amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Henderson. I should particularly like to underline why his second amendment is so important. It brings in the element of assessment. I would just mention as an example the case of our local Cheshire Home. There were 25 or 30 people living there, all known to be severely handicapped or incurable, but nobody—neither the people themselves nor the staff caring for them—knew what they could, and could not, do. It was only after a member of the committee got them individually assessed that the extent of their disabilities became known. Therefore, this is a point of prime importance.
As to the third amendment, 2C, without it I think we shall be left with a flat rate and we shall have members of households excluded. Those are two things that we should have in, and that is why I think we should support all the amendments.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I too want to support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in the amendment he has moved and the other amendments he has put in as manuscript amendments. I feel sad that we had to come to a position where we had to put in manuscript amendments. I say that as a Back-Bencher, because I have certainly had no time to consider, or to consult on, any of the issues discussed in the other place last night and which did not come from there until late in the evening. There was no way that any Back-Bencher,
400
certainly on this side of the House, could have had any time to consider these matters.
I know that a number of noble Lords were under the impression that the noble Viscount would have initiated the debate, or would have spoken, on the proposal that the House do now consider the amendments from the other place. That did not happen. The noble Viscount did not take that opportunity but came in to move Amendment No. 1, and then made a speech ranging widely over the whole Bill. I was then informed through the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that if we pursued that debate any further he would not then be able to call Amendment No. 2A. Of course I accepted that ruling.
However, it is all very confusing for Back-Benchers who have been engaged in the Second Reading and the Committee stage, and right through the whole of this Bill, now to come to this situation.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, it may help the proceedings if I apologise unreservedly to the House and to the noble Lord. I think I made a mistake. It would have been better if I had spoken to the other Motion. I am sorry. Perhaps if the noble Lord gets the satisfaction of my complete apology to him, it may enable him to realise that I think I was wrong.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I do not seek any satisfaction from the noble Viscount, for whom I have the highest regard. All I am saying is that the House has been confused. If I and noble Lords who have been involved with the Bill since it started are confused, how much more confused must be those dozens or scores of noble Lords who have been brought in not to listen to the British Council and Commonwealth Institute Superannuation Bill later tonight, but to vote in what they think may be an early Division on the Social Security Bill this afternoon? How much more confused must they be at this kind of procedure? I hope that they may take the time while this debate is going on to read the debate in the other place and see something of what has gone on.
Those who have followed it know that yesterday there were 184 amendments in the other place, and the guillotine was used to stifle discussion on those amendments. So far as I can see, it worked out that they were allowed roughly about one minute per amendment, and there was a guillotine on it. That is no way to conduct business. That is bad enough. But had there been a gap between those proceedings and these, we could have discussed these matters and put down something. But there was no gap. We come straight into it and we are faced with what is really another guillotine through the kind of procedures that have been adopted here this afternoon.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is a modest amendment, and does not go as far as I should have liked to go. It seeks only to introduce some flexibility into what the Government have done in the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the organisation RADAR, have already cast doubts on the Government's statistics. We have not been able to check them, but we would have done had we had the time. It is said that nobody believes that there are 10,000 people in this category living

401
alone. That has neither been substantiated nor denied, but it ought to be if we are to have a serious discussion on the Bill.
We know that the £23 is going to be offered to a very restricted number of people. The criteria do not allow for account to be taken of individual needs. That was the whole purport of the original amendments. We wanted to retain the position that obtained where individual disabled people were able to qualify for special payments like the dietary allowance, the allowance for incontinence, and all sorts of other things, and the new premium was abolishing that. That was the original discussion. We are back now virtually to that position but with an increased amount, but for this limited number of people.
As noble Lords will know, the higher rate of attendance allowance, which is one of the criteria, means that it can be received by people who need attention day and night. They must need attention day and night to qualify for this £23. They are eligible at the moment for the lower rate if they need attention throughout the day or throughout the night. They are obviously severely disabled. People who need attention throughout the day or throughout the night are severely disabled, but they will not qualify. They will be excluded from the Government's present proposals. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, would introduce a bit more flexibility and take care of some of that.
I could speak for a long time yet, because we spent a long time in Committee and out of Committee on this very issue. I do not hold that against the noble Viscount, who came into the debate for the first time today. But I say that I feel shabbily treated by the powers that be in the way that this debate has been organised today. My faith in what I was beginning to believe was a revisionary Chamber, a place where we revised things, has been severely shaken by this kind of approach to this Bill today and the way we have been treated on the serious discussion that we should have had on a number of the amendments today. Having said that, I support the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I supported the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, at the Committee stage on his amendment, and I am glad that I did so. Now we are faced with the question of what is going to be best for the disabled people concerned. We are told that they number at least 10,000. It is suggested that there should be flexibility, but surely certainty is something that we should be thinking of on behalf of the disabled.
Indeed, whenever we legislate we should be acting in order to achieve certainty of legal effect. I sometimes wish that we did so rather more. But on this occasion we are exchanging the certainty of what the Government are offering in their amendment, which was carried in another place, for the uncertainty that may arise—I think is likely to arise—through the difficulty of definition when it comes to having to define the expression "severity of his disability", which will have to be done by regulations over which we shall have little control. Then the further uncertainty that follows will be the uncertainty arising through the discretion of the official who has to decide these
402
matters. If I were a disabled person I should not wish to have to wait for that degree of uncertainty. I would rather have the thing as the Government suggest. Therefore, with due respect to he noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton (who I should like to acknowledge does so much for the disabled), on this occasion I say, speaking as I hope we shall all vote, that in the interests of the disabled it would not be wise to accept his amendments.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I feel that this is a very sad occasion for this noble House. I could understand if the Benches opposite had been crowded, as they are, because the issue was one of defence, education or the environment. But the issue is that there is a nuance or difference—not much really—between what the Government are proposing and the admirable amendments of Lord Henderson. What we are talking about are not massive defence issues, education or environment: we are discussing what is best for the cripples in our society. To think that these little differences should appear so massive I am bound to say fills me with distress.
I should have thought this noble House would be big enough and large enough to say that the admirable amendments moved in such a civilised way by Lord Henderson, though they might be slightly different from those of the Government, were initiated by the noble Lord and found support from every part of this House on that occasion, and this House will maintain its good name and will maintain its social feeling in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and will do the same thing for the cripples of Britain again this evening.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I wanted to raise particularly the point regarding partially sighted and blind persons and the severe disability allowance. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in her reply to me on 23rd June, suggested that partially sighted people were not part and parcel of the present supplementary benefits organisation. I want to ask her clearly: are blind and partially sighted people disabled or are they not? It has already been pointed out that partially sighted claimants of severe disablement allowance are automatically assessed as 80 per cent. disabled and therefore are severely disabled.
Apart from this, registered partially sighted people have been certificated by consultants as being substantially and permanently handicapped by congenitally defective vision, or as being a person in whose case illness or injury has caused defective vision of a substantial and permanently handicapping character. How can someone expertly regarded as fitting this description not be regarded by the Government as disabled, and so entitled to disablement premium?
I should be very grateful if the noble Baroness would retract the point of view expressed on blind and partially sighted persons when we were going through the Committee stage and accept that these people are now receiving severe disablement allowance, which should continue. They are one of the types of persons that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, was speaking about. There are severe categories in different disablements, and they cannot be dealt with as a

403
package deal. On one occasion I heard the noble Lord, Lord Renton speaking on another debate and he said that disabilities are not package deals. They are specific to that particular person, and no disablement is the same as any other disablement.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am sorry that the other place did not agree to the amendment made by this House, but I should be prepared to accept the new amendment put forward provided that this House accepts the amendments to it proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. If his amendments are not accepted, a large number of disabled people, whether or not severely disabled, will find that as their disability becomes more severe they will be forced to move into residential accommodation run by the various voluntary organisations. They will not have the funds to live independently. Disabled people, by the very nature of matters, for the most part are low earners. It is more expensive to keep a disabled person in a residential home than it is for them to live independently. Therefore, the more people we force from independent living into homes the more expensive it becomes for the Government, because ultimately the Government pay through supplementary benefit.
By forcing disabled people from being independent and moving into homes we reduce the places in those homes available to take even more severely disabled people out of the hospitals. There the cost is even greater to the state than in a home. I hope the House will accept the noble Lord's three amendments.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I was most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for his acknowledgment that his previous amendment was too wide in its context. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has moved Amendment No. 2A and has spoken to the two following amendments. The first two of these amendments seek to write into the Bill that the amount of the premium shall be determined by the severity of the disablement and the assessment of this shall be set out in regulations. The third introduces a factor for the calculation of the amount which means regard has to be paid to the costs of a severely disabled person in a household and the costs of a severely disabled person in residential care. These amendments are all attempts to put more detail in the Bill on the nature of the additional premium and how it will be calculated. Your Lordships will notice that our intention is that the first qualifying condition for the additional premium is that is should be payable to claimants in receipt of the higher rate of attendance allowance. These are the type of severely disabled people about whom the greatest concern was expressed. But we are managing to assist these people without a separate complicated assessment of disablement solely directed to one small element of the income support scheme.
I cannot support the approach which underlies the first two of these amendments. The third amendment introduces a new element altogether; namely, that some form of comparison should be made between someone living in the community and someone living in residential care. This seems to me a particularly complex task to lay on members of staff in local offices. I cannot forbear from pointing out also that the
404
level for this additional premium is, at £23, higher than the addition to the board and lodging limit for disabled people in hostels, which is £17.30. I can assure your Lordships that these amendments are unnecessary. We already have sufficient legal power on the definition of the people who will qualify provided by the Government amendment itself and to set the relevant amounts that will be payable provided by Clause 22(1). With the explanation that I have just given, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will not press the points of his various amendments.
With regard to Amendment No. 2, your Lordships have already listened to my noble friend the Lord President. For my part I want to stress three main points. First, we have made a significant response to the concern that has been expressed about the position of a small group of severely disabled people. We have written clearly on the face of the Bill a duty to provide a specific amount for severely disabled people.
Secondly, in developing our detailed proposals, we have been concerned to provide arrangements that are consistent with the criteria that we adopt in other disability benefits. In the sort term we would have to think very carefully about arrangements which go further in relation to the position of those receiving invalid care allowance, also paid to support care in the community. In the longer-term we must avoid arrangements which make more difficult any wider look at the benefit structure following the results of the disability survey.
Thirdly—and I cannot understand the confusion felt by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals—I must stress that the proposals that I have explained amount to a significant extension of help. The new premium would be paid on top of the disablement premium that we proposed originally and at getting on for double the rate that we have illustrated. As has already been said, we expect that up to 10,000 people could qualify for help at a cost of £12 million. This compares with just over 3,000 people getting the domestic assistance addition on the latest information at a total cost of less than £1 million.
Let me emphasise the words of my noble friend Lord Renton: "Make no mistake, my Lords, any noble Lord who is not content with this proposal would be depriving some 10,000 very disabled people from receiving extra help".
We cannot leave in the Bill an unworkable and potentially very expensive amendment because of concerns about matters that are properly handled in regulations. That would make for bad law. I recognise that the current level of help is linked to an assessment of individual costs. It is precisely for this reason that the spread of payments can be so wide. I would point out that the normal practice in social security benefits specifically for disability is to have standard amounts. There is only one standard rate for adults for the following benefits: severe disablement allowance, mobility allowance, and invalid care allowance. And attendance allowance itself is paid at only two rates, both of them specified amounts. What we are proposing is consistent with that, to set a standard amount paid as of right.
I can confirm the understanding of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), in relation to invalid care allowance and, in reply to both her and the

405
noble Lord, Lord Banks, I would say that we must bear in mind that of the number of people who receive the addition of domestic assistance, only about 150 receive a weekly addition of more than £ 10. Therefore, of the small group who receive the addition altogether, only a few will not see their support coming in the shape of the new additional premium.
Another important consideration is the commitment I gave during the Committee stage. This was that, in addition to the normal transitional protection which would operate ensuring that no one suffered a drop in cash income as a result of the change from supplementary benefit to income support, special arrangements would operate for people in receipt of domestic assistance addition. Their cash protection would be increased at upratings to maintain its value. Therefore, transitional protection and our present proposals safeguard those very severely disabled people at present.
The question that has been asked is what happens to the very small nunmber of the very severely disabled people. The answer is that we are well aware of the needs of this small group. We shall ensure that they will be protected by community care payments, not loans, from the social fund. They will most certainly not be financially disadvantaged when compared with those presently safeguarded.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, queried the figure of 10,000 quoted by my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security. Our figures are our best estimate. They are based on our provisional figures related to recipients of attendance allowance and householders. Of course, it is open to other organisations to dispute this, but I am confident that our figures are reasonable. I do not see how the rules can be harsh—as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, claims—when more people will gain at a higher cost. Even the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, allowed for 5,000 to 6,000, which is considerably more than the 3,000 who receive the current domestic assistance addition.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, asked me again about the blind. I would say to her that blind people would qualify for the disablement premium and partially-sighted people who receive severe disablement allowance will receive the premium by virtue of receiving that benefit. The power in the Government amendment itself provides flexibility. It does not close off consideration of variations in the arrangements I have explained, alternative methods of help or indeed extension of the arrangements. Clearly, as we work out the details, we can take account of comments and views expressed in your Lordships' House and outside, but that is an issue for another occasion.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should like to reply very briefly and, first, to thank the noble Baroness for what she has said. I should like to assure the House that, by accepting any one or all of the three of my amendments, the House would not be depriving 10,000 people of the benefit of the Government's amendment. All that I am proposing is that the House should agree to the Government's amendment but add
406
three elements of flexibility. Then it is open to the House of Commons to accept those or reject them or to put other amendments in their place.
I should like to get that straight in the first instance and to couple with it a reference to what the noble Viscount said at the opening of this discussion when he said that another amendment which your Lordships are about to discuss was one of major principle. The implication was that this one was not one of major principle. It is a matter of fine tuning—quite a different matter altogether.
I would say that the House, to use his words, is both entitled and expected to make amendments for fine tuning such as this, which the House of Commons can accept or reject as they wish. That is the spirit in which I have moved these amendments. I do not regard it as one of major principle. I regard it as one which the House of Commons should be asked to consider again and to accept or reject. I think that it is necessary to ask them to do so in that I consider that the £23 a week is too rigid and the criteria for the award of that amount, announced by the Minister in another place, are too rigid.
I would illustrate only one case. If you pay even up to as much as £ 100 a week extra for a young person with cerebral palsy whose only alternative is to be in residential care, you will be saving public money—I repeat, saving public money. So I would ask the House—I do it with regret, and I would not do it unless I thought it right to do so—to agree with the Commons in their amendment but to agree with my amendment as an amendment thereto.
The Lord Chancellor: The original Question was that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1. and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2, proposed in lieu thereof; since when a manuscript amendment, No. 2A, has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, to insert,
"and that amount shall be determined in accordance with the severity of his disability".
The Question is that Amendment No. 2A be agreed to.
4.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said manuscript amendment (No. 2A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 143; Not-Contents, 213.

DIVISION NO.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Birk, B.

Airedale, L.

Blyth, L.

Alport, L.

Bottomley, L.

Amherst, E.

Brain, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brockway, L.

Annan, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Attlee, E.

Caradon, L.

Avebury, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Bacon, B.

Chitnis, L.

Banks, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Barnett, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Darwen, L.

Beswick, L.

David, B.

407

Dean of Beswick, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Denington, B.

McNair, L.

Diamond, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dowding, L.

Mishcon, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Molloy, L.

Ennals, L.

Monson, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mountevans, L.

Ezra, L.

Mulley, L.

Falkender, B.

Nathan, L.

Falkland, V.

Nicol, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Foot, L.

Oram, L.

Gallacher, L.

Parry, L.

Gifford, L.

Phillips, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Plant, L.

Greenway, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gregson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grey, E.

Rathcreedan, L.

Grimond, L.

Rea, L.

Halsbury, E.

Reilly, L.

Hampton, L.

Richardson, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, l.

Hayter, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Rochester, Bp.

[Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rugby, L.

Hughes, L.

Sainsbury, l.

Hunt, L.

Scanlon, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Seear, B.

Hylton, L.

Seebohm, L.

Ilchester, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ingleby, V.

Serota, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Shackleton, L.

Jacques, L.

Shannon, E.

Jeger, B.

Shepherd, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Somers, L.

Kagan, L.

Stallard, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stedman, B.

Kearton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Swinfen, L. [Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Lawrence, L.

Underhill, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Listowel, E.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

White, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wigoder, L.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Willis, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Aldington, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Braye, B.

Allerton, L.

Brentford, V.

Annaly, L.

Brocket, L.

Arran, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Audley, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Bagot, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry,

Bauer, L.

D.

Beaverbrook, L.

Burton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Byron, L.

Bellwin, L.

Caccia, L.

Beloff, L.

Caithness, E.

Belstead, L.

Camden, M.

Bessborough, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Bethell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Birdwood, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Blake, L.

Carnock, L.

Boardman, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

408

Cathcart, E.

Lurgan, L.

Cayzer, L.

McFadzean, L.

Chelmer, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Clinton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clitheroe, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter,

Coleraine, L.

L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Colwyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Margadale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Craigton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Avon, L.

Croft, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cross, V.

Middleton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Milverton, L.

Davidson, V.

Molson, L.

De Freyne, L.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Denning, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Derwent, L.

Morris, L.

Digby, L.

Mottistone, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Donoughmore, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dormer, L.

Moyne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Dudley, E.

Norfolk, D.

Elibank, L.

Norrie, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elles, B.

Orkney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pender, L.

Elton, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Erne, E.

Plummer of St Marylebone,

Falmouth, V.

L.

Ferrers, E.

Portland, D.

Fisher, L.

Portman, V.

Forbes, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Fortescue, E.

Radnor, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Freyberg, L.

Reay, L.

Gainford, L.

Reigate, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Renwick, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rochdale, V.

Glanusk, L.

Romney, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Rootes, L.

Gray, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Salisbury, M.

Marylebone, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hanson, L.

Sandford, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sandys, L.

Harvington, L.

Savile, L.

Hawke, L.

Selborne, E.

Henley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Hertford, M.

Sharpies, B.

Hesketh, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hives, L.

Slim, V.

Holderness, L.

Southborough, L.

Hood, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Howe, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strachcona and Mount Royal,

Inglewood, L.

L.

Ironside, L.

Strathspey, L.

Jessel, L.

Sudeley, L.

Keyes, L.

Suffield, L.

Killearn, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Terrington, L.

Kitchener, E.

Teviot, L.

Knollys, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Tollemache, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Torphichen, L.

Layton, L.

Townshend, M.

Limerick, E.

Tranmire, L.

Lindsay, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Trenchard, V.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lothian, M.

Ullswater, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

409

Vestey, L.

Wigram, L.

Vickers, B.

Windlesham, L.

Vinson, L.

Wolfson, L.

Vivian, L.

Wynford, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Yarborough, E.

Watkinson, V.

Young, B.

Westbury, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Whitelaw, V.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

5.2 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 2B and 2C not moved. ]

The Royal Ordnance Factories
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in the other place by my right honorable friend the Secretary of State for Defence about Royal Ordnance. The Statement is as follows:
"On 17th June, I announced the Government's decision not to proceed with the planned flotation of Royal Ordnance plc. I also made clear in answer to questions on 18th June that we would review all the various options to decide how best to achieve our aim of privatisation. That review is now completed and I can tell the House that, with the exception of one factory, it remains our firm preference to sell the company as a whole. We would hope to do so by a private sale if this proves practicable. Over the coming weeks, we will be inviting bids on the basis of a selling memorandum and I will report further to the House when we have made some concrete progress.
"The exception is the tank building business at Leeds. Following discussions between the Ministry of Defence and Vickers an offer has been made by Vickers plc to purchase RO Leeds, which the Government and the Board of Royal Ordnance have accepted, subject to detailed discussions now taking place between Royal Ordnance and Vickers to finalise the agreement. The price will be related to an audited net asset value but we expect it to be of the order of £11 million. As part of the agreement, Vickers will build a major new facility at the Leeds site, similar to their factory at Newcastle. This reflects their faith in the business and their determination to win the export orders which are critical to the continuing future of the factory.
"I can also tell the House that in the light of this agreement the way is now clear for a decision to order a 7th regiment of Challenger Tanks, subject to detailed contract terms. Vickers have agreed that the tanks will be manufactured at Leeds and we have negotiated with Vickers prices which represent an improvement on the terms offered by Royal Ordnance. I am satisfied that the competitive pressures which have operated on both companies during our various negotiations have ensured that the Ministry of Defence will receive good value for money for this important order."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, may I thank the Minister and say now grateful we are to him for repeating the Statement in this House? But can the House be told why the Statement was obviously first made to a press briefing some time last night? If the noble Lord has done as I have done and seen copies of the press reports this morning, he will know that there is no material fact in respect of this matter which he has given to the House that does not appear in this morning's press. If the Government and the Minister are to treat the House with that kind of contempt, I believe that we are entitled to an explanation. The Minister announced a figure of £11 million, and the report in the Daily Telegraph refers to a figure between £10 million and £12 million for the plant. That is either an inspired guess, or it is a journalist's way of covering up the fact that he knows that the correct figure is £11 million.
What we have heard about today in the Statement is the break-up of the Royal Ordnance factories as we have known them, and as the country has known them, for more than 300 years. Above all else, as the Statement reveals, this is a Government who are pragmatic. This is a Government—and one has only to look at the history of these matters over the last three years—who are capable of twisting and turning and making U-turns in respect of their previously declared intentions. Certainly they are capable of abandoning what they tell this House, as well as the workers and the communities, if it appears that in the short term there is profit to be made for the Government and for others by changing the plans upon which, hitherto, a sale was to be made.
It is more than two years since the Ordnance factories were privatised. Legislation was driven through both Houses which enables the Government to do what they are doing now, and over the last two years we have seen uncertainty, we have seen confusion, we have seen frustration and we have seen the betrayal of a number of good men and women whose future has been in the Royal Ordnance factories.
What are we to make of the words in the Statement,
"our firm preference to sell the company as a whole"?
What are we to make of the words in the next line,
"We would hope to do so"?
What strength can the people whose lives are affected by this decision put in the intentions of the Government, because the firm preference before this week, and before this announcement, was that Leeds would not be sold separately? There was no categorical statement that it would not be sold separately, but the firm intention was that it would not be. What are the workers in the Royal Ordnance factory at Enfield Lock to make of the assurances that they have had that their factory will not be sold separately? There was no categorical statement—I do not want to put words into the Minister's mouth—but it was their belief that it would not be sold separately. With Leeds having been sold off for £11 million, how can they be certain that the Government are not intent on finding bidders who are capable of buying, and are willing to buy. factories of that kind?
Can we be told how the board of Royal Ordnance reacted to the undoubted pressure put on it to agree to

411
the sale of the tank building business at Leeds to Vickers? Is it not a fact that the board of Royal Ordnance has steadfastly refused to countenance separate sales? In my view there is a clear indication that the board has been leaned upon by a government who appoints it and who in this instance of course can disappoint it too.
Reference is made to detailed discussions which are to take place between the board and Vickers. Can we be told whether those discussions will include any restriction on the future of the factory? Will Vickers be free to sell off the factory to someone else, a foreign tank-making capacity, or simply to rationalise Leeds out of existence with Vickers' other interests at Newcastle? Later today we will consider another Government fiasco—the dockyards Bill. Does the Minister recall telling the House then that all would be well and that the unions had TUPE'81 to protect their interests? May I read to the House references that were made in relation to matters that we shall discuss later today in respect of the dockyards where clearly consultation is paramount and is going to take place?
Can the noble Lord tell me what consultations have taken place with the trade unions which are concerned as to the future of Vickers? These are civil servants. Can the House understand that the kind of consultations and the kind of strength that the Government believe is in TUPE'81 in respect of the ordnance factories is what the dockyard workers have to look forward to in respect of the dockyards?
I say to the Minister that he will not get away as lightly in dealing with the trade unions and the communities that are affected by the dockyards as he may think he has got away with this disreputable, shady and shoddy deal which has sold off Leeds to a separate company.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to express our gratitude to the Minister for repeating this Statement which merely amounts to another sorry episode in the sad tale of the Government's determination to privatise a section of our defence industry, no matter what.
Perhaps I may deal with questions on the Statement in the order in which they arose. First, why have the Government decided that no other options are open? Why have the Government decided, as they say in the Statement that they would hope to sell,
"by a private sale if this proves practicable"?
Why are they neglecting other opportunities, assuming they wish to continue to effect a sale?
Secondly, with regard to keeping the factories together, the Government know that we on these Benches also have pressed the whole time for this to be done. Why have they made this exception? Is it the case that this is a real exception? In other words, are the Government prepared to give an undertaking that no other Royal Ordnance factory will be sold separately? That is what the word "exception" means. Can the Government say a little more about how the Leeds sale came about? All the Statement says is that there have been discussions with Vickers. Have there been discussions with others? Have other bids been sought? Has the matter been put to public tender or
412
has Vickers only been selected for discussions about a possible sale?
In relation to the sale to Vickers, I repeat the question which has already been touched on. How is the shareholding in the purchasing company protected so as to protect our manufacture of weapons which are vital to the defence of this country? What is meant by the words in the Statement,
"the way is now clear"?
The Statement says:
"I can also tell the House that in the light of this agreement the way is now clear for a decision to order … tanks".
Do I gather that that means that here was an order for tanks that were needed which was delayed until the Government could make absolutely sure that the profit and general benefit from this order would enure to private shareholders and not to Royal Ordnance plc?
Has any assessment been made of the damage caused to the whole of the undertaking of Royal Ordnance plc by this continuous delay, uncertainty and damage to morale? For two years now this company has not known what its future is, has not known the extent to which it could rely on its own resources, whether it was about to be taken over or what the case was going to be. The argument by the Minister time and again when we were discussing the privatisation Bill was that there was no time for various precautions to be taken, that we must go ahead fast as otherwise the company would not know what its future was and this would damage the business. That was for delays which might have amounted to weeks or, at the most, three months. Can he now say therefore what the delay of more than two years has amounted to in damage to these businesses?
I have a final question. Will the Government now alter course as they have seen how impossible it is to carry out their first intentions? If it is too late to avoid the Leeds factory going separately, will they at all events alter course with regard to privatising the rest of the Royal Ordnance factories; or do the Government insist on continuing their policy of playing fast and loose with an important element of the country's defences?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with as many of the points raised by both noble Lords as I can; and they have raised a good number. The essence of the problem we were facing is that the Ministry of Defence really does not have business to sustain two tank factories. I wish it were otherwise, but that in fact is the case. Therefore there were powerful arguments for the rationalisation of British tank-making capacity, not least to make it more competitive in international and collaborative markets.
That was certainly one of the considerations that led us to believe that the proposal which Vickers put to us was a good one; added to which we were careful to take advice from independent sources to ensure that we were indeed accepting what was a right and proper price for this factory. So there was no question of being motivated by any doctrinaire or dogmatic considerations in this matter. There was the further consideration that we were able to negotiate with Vickers at the same time a very satisfactory arrange-

413
ment for the supply of the various tanks currently on order and to be shortly ordered, as the Statement says.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to a "betrayal"—I think that was the word he used—of the workforce of the Leeds factory. I would say that quite the reverse is the case. The fact of the matter is that the outlook for the workers at the Leeds factory has been very considerably enhanced by the conclusion of this agreement. I believe that on reflection the people at Leeds will agree with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, referred to the uncertainty. Yes, I agree that there has been some uncertainty. I should like to see that uncertainty brought to an end at the earliest possible moment. Indeed, just last week I was at the small arms factory at Enfield, which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, knows well. Representatives from the trade unions there came to see me and I hastened to reassure those representatives that, like them, we were anxious to bring this uncertainty to an end.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is quite right. We would have preferred to have sold the entire enterprise in one excerise through a flotation earlier this year. But for reasons we explained at the time that, unfortunately, was not possible. I believe we are now moving very much in the right direction. We have rationalised, or are in the process of rationalising, British tank-making capacity at Leeds and at Newcastle and we are now seeking to find a buyer for the remainder of what is, in fact, the bulk of the Royal Ordnance. I hope that before long we shall be able to give your Lordships more news on that.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, as one who has worked for many years, albeit in a part-time capacity, in one of Her Majesty's Royal Ordnance factories, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he is aware that there has been grave anxiety among staff—senior staff in particular—with regard to superannuation and other long-term employment rights? Have the Government now reached agreement on these matters with the various parties concerned, or are they still in dispute on benefits of that kind?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is referring only to the Leeds factory or to Royal Ordnance as a whole. I believe that there are one or two points still to be resolved with Royal Ordnance as a whole, but I have no reason to believe that agreement is not in sight.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will deal with the point about consultation with the trade unions at Leeds. Will the noble Lord accept from me that as recently as less than an hour ago representatives of the trade unions at Leeds told me that repeatedly in recent weeks they have written to the Ministry, following press speculation on the future of the factory, seeking urgent discussions so that they could discuss with Ministry officials the future of their members? They tell me that they have had no response. I asked whether they meant literally that there had been no reply and I was told that they had got nowhere in being able to sit
414
down and discuss the matter. Can the Minister confirm that, to his knowledge, attempts by the trade unions in exercising TUPE '81, or merely common justice, have failed or broken down?
The Minister referred to a visit to Enfield last week. We know that the Minister's intention—it is in the Statement—is to try to sell off all the factories as a single unit, but is it possible for the noble Lord to guarantee that the situation at Leeds will not occur at Enfield or any other factory when it is decided by those in Government above him that what they want is not continuity and unity but money in the coffers in order to boost their chances at a general election?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is going a little too far, if he will forgive me for saying so. Clearly I cannot give the categoric assurance he seeks, but as the Statement makes clear, it is our undoubted preference to dispose of Royal Ordnance, save the tank factory at Leeds, as a single entity. We are looking for bids to make that possible. However, I cannot give the categoric assurance of the kind he requests.
As regards consultation, we have made clear to the trade unions concerned that we are ready to receive any representations they care to make. Indeed, now that we have clarified the way ahead, particularly for Leeds, we are ready to talk further and I know that my right honourable friend has today written to the trade unions on that very point.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the tank situation within the Royal Ordnance factories is a very specific one? My noble friend said that he could not see from the Mob point of view the possibility of keeping two major tank factories in operation. Is his advice, as it certainly was to me a few years ago, that there is very little chance of being able to sell enough tanks abroad in the export markets bearing in mind the extraordinarily cheap prices at which, among others, the USSR is prepared to sell tanks? There is very little chance of building up exports in order to maintain two main tank factories. Will my noble friend further agree that the origins of this problem lie in regional policy supporting the establishment of the Newcastle factory a good many years ago, which increased the capacity without apparently any real rational reason for hoping that there would be sufficient markets for the two?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is unhappily the case that Royal Ordnance, Leeds—that is, the tank-making part of the Royal Ordnance organisation—has not been particularly successful in recent years in securing overseas orders. The fact is that the Vickers tank factory at Newcastle has been rather more successful and also has some exciting prospects currently in hand. The way is now clear for the Leeds organisation to share in the success which has already occurred and, indeed, it bodes well for the future for the Vickers organisation. I believe that the workers there will appreciate that.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, may I repeat two of the questions which I asked the noble Lord? I understand that when he has a number of questions fired at him it is not easy to answer them all. However, there are two questions which I believe to be important.

415
May I assume from what the noble Lord said about Leeds that no other bids were sought, that the matter was not put out to public tender, and that the Treasury is content about this way of securing the highest possible price for one of the nation's assets? Secondly, may I pursue the question of the guarding of defence secrets? What arrangements have been, or will be, made with regard to the purchasing company at Leeds to protect those secrets?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, on the latter point, that is a discussion which I have had with the noble Lord on a number of occasions in parallel circumstances. The fact is that there is a very effective machinery whereby defence contractors are required to maintain the security of their premises, particularly in regard to classified information. As regards Vickers, that will continue to be the case when it becomes the owner of the Leeds enterprise. The arrangements are well-known to Vickers, of course, because it has been a defence contractor in one way or another for a great period of time. I am quite certain that no difficulty will arise.
The noble Lord asked whether we had sought other bids for the Leeds facility. As I said, Vickers was the obvious purchaser of the Leeds facility because of its existing operations at Newcastle. We did not seek other bids, but we took care to ensure that the price we were accepting for the Leeds facility was a proper one.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the noble Lord says that Vickers was the obvious buyer, but is it obviously right to create a monopoly in the production of tanks and to make it impossible for the British Government in future to order tanks on a competitive basis?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have to agree that we would prefer to have two British sources from which we could buy our tanks, but the fact is that we could not sustain two sources. Nor could two sources be sustained by success in foreign markets because, as I have already said, Royal Ordnance, Leeds, did not have conspicuous success in foreign markets. Indeed, the factory had not sold anything of significance abroad in recent years. For that reason the desirable solution—desirable as it is—of having two sources of supply was clearly not practical.

Social Security Bill
5.30 p.m.
Consideration of Commons amendments and reasons resumed.

LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 19, page 24, line 35, after "he" insert "or, if he is a member of a married or unmarried couple the other member of the couple".
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:
4 Line 2, after first "couple" insert "he or".
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree to the Commons Amendment numbered 4 to the Lords Amendment No. 3.
During consideration of the Bill in another place we proposed a minor technical amendment to Clause
416
20(5)(b) to correct a deficiency in the wording of the amendment as introduced at Report in this House. The change is designed simply to ensure that entitlement to family credit is not necessarily restricted to the member of a couple who happens not to be in full-time work. We intend that entitlement should normally rest with the claimant, who, as I have said, will usually be the mother. This amendment removes a slight ambiguity in the present wording. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4 to the Lords Amendment No. 3.—(Baroness Trumpington.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 20, page 27, line 20, at end insert—
"and shall include the whole of the amount which he is liable to pay by way of rates in respect of his home."
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following Reason:
6 Because it would alter the financial arrangements for housing benefit made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 6.
My noble friend the Lord President has already referred to the fact that another place has disagreed with your Lordships' amendment. I should like to add to what my noble friend has said so that your Lordships have an opportunity to reconsider what I believe are strong and persuasive arguments.
Your Lordships' amendment would guarantee 100 per cent. rebate of domestic rates, but only for those with incomes at or below the income support level. The first point I ask your Lordships to ponder is that this would create sharp reductions in benefit as income rises and thus new unemployment and poverty traps which the unified structure in the Bill is designed to avoid. Such effects are universally recognised as unfair and act as strong disincentives to work. The only way round the problems created by the amendment would be to base everyone's rate rebate on 100 per cent. maximum help. Let me explain what that would mean.
At present a substantial minority of households— about 3 million—are insulated entirely from rises in domestic rates. Under the new structure, with 100 per cent. help as the basis for the calculation in all cases, this would apply to much greater numbers. Let me spell this out. At present for standing housing benefit cases the starting point for calculating rate rebates is 60 per cent. of the claimant's rates. This means that if his rates go up by £ 1 a week, unless his income or other circumstances change, his rebate automatically goes up by 60p a week. This is the same for everyone receiving a rebate however big or small that rebate was to start with. But under a scheme based on 100 per cent. of rates, a £1 increase in weekly rates would produce a £1 increase in benefit—again, no matter how much rebate the individual was receiving to start with. Even if he were only entitled to a rebate of a few

417
pence a week, a £1 a week rise in rates would still lead to a £ 1 rise in his rebate if his circumstances remained the same.
The amendment has another quite different but equally unacceptable effect, which I think is unintended, in that it would also prevent any deduction from housing benefit to take account of the contribution toward the domestic rates expected from non-dependent members of the same household. It cannot be right that a head of household should receive 100 per cent. help from the taxpayer with domestic rates when, for example, other members of the household are in full-time work.
Lastly I come to expenditure. We have been entirely open in our commitment to restrain the cost of housing benefit. Total expenditure on assistance with rent and rates has more than doubled over the past six years. Current expenditure is estimated to be about £4¼ billion per annum. At the same time the numbers have risen so that one in three households are receiving some assistance. Overall our proposals would restrain future housing benefit expenditure and our plan that everyone should make a contribution toward their domestic rates is an important part of that objective.
Those are the arguments. I hope that your Lordships will appreciate that the level of help with rates is set out now in regulations and indeed could be changed without the need for this Bill. Equally, I hope that your Lordships also appreciate that even on the illustrative figures published with the White Paper the majority of those people on income support would not experience any reduction in disposable income overall. Mention of the illustrative figures leads me to remind your Lordships that we are not talking about current benefit rates, nor those applying from Monday of next week, nor even those that will apply from the up-rating next April. We are talking about benefit rates which will not be decided until the autumn of 1987 to apply from April 1988. We are clearly a long way from final decisions on actual cash levels of benefit.
In conclusion, I should like to ask the House to recognise that your Lordships' amendment is nothing more than a pre-emptive measure. It does not controvert any substantial provision in the Bill because maximum levels of assistance are not prescribed in the Bill. They will be set out in regulations which your Lordships will have a separate opportunity to scrutinise and debate. My noble friend the Lord President has asked your Lordships to bear in mind that another place has reaffirmed its original position. I have argued that your Lordships' amendment would be unfair, bad for work incentives and bad for local accountability, and I have suggested that its impact on the poorest households would be modest. I have indicated that I suspect that it is technically flawed and I have pointed out that your Lordships will have further opportunity to debate this issue again when considering the relevant regulations. In the face of all these facts, I ask your Lordships not to insist on Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason numbered 6.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am rather confused and slightly amused by the Reason No. 6 which the Commons have given. They say that they disagree:
"Because it would alter the financial arrangements for housing benefit made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient".
There cannot have been financial arrangements in this country which have been altered more than financial arrangements for housing benefits. They have gone up and down and in and out from social security offices to town halls in a state of total confusion. If the Government's only objection—and it is the only objection that is stated—is because of some flaw in the housing benefit aspect of the amendment, which is truly peripheral, then I think that the reason for the rejection is very inadequate.
Last night the Minister said in the House—and I must say that I also think it is most unfair that we have to do our homework under such difficulties and such constraints:
"Above all, the amendment is out of time. It seeks to pre-empt the Government's right to make proposals to Parliament in a vital area of policy".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/6/86; col. 413],
The noble Baroness the Minister has of course repeated that statement today. The reason why this amendment was tabled was because of statements which have been made officially, including a statement by the Prime Minister, that it was the intention to require every claimant for benefit to pay up to 20 per cent. of their rates. There was some criticism in the other place last night that this was not a social security matter but a matter for rates revision, and I could not agree more. I could not agree more with that. It is not we who have thrown the problem into the arena of social security but the Government by their announcement of the proposed changes in the social security assessments.
The Government come along, all innocent, having thrown Andromeda's rock into the pool, and complain about the ripples that they have set up. They are more than ripples. They have referred the matter to the Social Security Advisory Committee. If it is not a social security matter, they have been wasting the time of their advisory committee, especially because it says:
"We are seriously concerned at the proposal to limit eligible rates to less than 100 per cent. and possibly as low as 80 per cent. First, we believe that the proposal could cause real hardship to many claimants, especially those on income support. Second, the proposal will cause local authorities extra administrative difficulties and therefore higher administrative costs at a time when the Government is committed to simplifying administration and controlling costs".
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has officially considered the matter and is opposed to it because of the cost and difficulty of collecting many small sums, and the system could in the end amount to a net loss to some authorities. We have had no answer in either place about the difficulties of enforce-ment; the chasing up of those people, the sending in of bailiffs, and the court sentencing which could result if the provision as it stands became part of the law. The association is also concerned about that. There are these difficulties and I am sorry that the noble Baroness has not fully dealt with them. I know her difficulties; she has to read her brief. She is getting very good at reading, as she is having a lot of practice.

419
On a previous occasion the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that the average cost to the people concerned would be about £1 a week. That shows that the Government are thinking of doing that. I do not know who is pre-empting who. I read in the Government's housing benefit review, which is a report of the DHSS, on page 41, at table 3, that the proposed change could cost £29 in parts of the North-West and £142.40 per year in parts of central London. It is no use telling a man who is being asked to pay £142 a year that the average would be only £52. Many figures have been quoted, but I understand that the Government expect to collect £300 million or more from the change. It cannot be regarded as academic.
Then there is the question—which I know that the Prime Minister is fond of—of local accountability. If it is thought that the pressures of higher rate contributions from poor people will encourage them to vote Conservative, I do not not think that the Government know the rudiments of politics, particularly of local politics. About 4 million ratepayers are involved in the proposal and we have heard little about them tonight. The Widdicombe Committee found that people with rate rebates still regard themselves as ratepayers, especially as often the rebates are only temporary.
It would have helped had we had clearer informa-tion earlier about when the Government intend to implement the 20 per cent. rule. That information may have made our amendment unnecessary. If they are saying that that will not happen until we have the total review of local government finance, on which they are now working, that would be acceptable. But it is unacceptable in the middle of a review of local government finance to pick on the poorest people and say, "By the way, you must pay a bit more while we are still thinking about everybody else". That is what was behind our thinking when we put down the amendment.
The argument has been going on for a long time. I do not feel that we have finalised it by a long way tonight. I remember in 1974 the present Prime Minister saying, when she was asked about this:
"Within the normal lifetime of a Parliament we shall abolish the domestic rating system".
Since then we have had White Papers, Green Papers and reports galore. All we know now is that the Government are still thinking about a Green Paper. We do not have a White Paper. There is much anxiety and uncertainty.
If our amendment was pre-empting any of the decisions, that difficulty could be put right if the Minister could say tonight that the Government's intention is to consider this along with other reforms of local government finance. Had they said that before, the amendment would not have been necessary in the first place. I very much regret that we have not had that assurance. After all these years of consideration and waiting it seems invidious to pick on the poorest people in the community in order to make an initial reform without the full legislation.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, nothing that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said alters the fact that
420
between 1·7 million and 2 million of the poorest pensioners will be worse off because of this measure. We are back where we started, with the fundamental financial basis of the Bill.
What has been proclaimed as the biggest social security reform since Beveridge consists in shifting some £300 million from very poor pensioners to poor families in work and claiming that as extraordinary largesse. That was unacceptable to us when the Bill was introduced and it remains unacceptable. But, having invited the Government to change their mind and not succeeded, I do not imagine that we shall reverse that at this late stage. But people up and down the country will take due note of what has happened and will form their own conclusions.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, we had a long discussion on this at previous stages of the Bill, and the issue, unlike that on the previous amendment, is perfectly clear-cut and simple. I therefore do not propose to take up more than a moment of your Lordships' time.
I simply say this. The amendment which this House, against the advice of the Government, put into the Bill would have secured for a considerable time ahead at any rate that there would be a substantial number of local government electors who would, when they came to cast their vote on the competing policies of local government parties, have done so in the happy knowledge that, however much the result of those policies was to put up the rates, it would not affect them. Those of us who are concerned, as I have been for many years, that local government should be a vital and a responsible democratic organisation would regard that picture with great alarm. It was no doubt because noble Lords opposite take a different view that this amendment was originally moved and put in at an earlier stage in the Bill. I am glad that the Commons have taken it out. If it stayed in our law, it would be damaging to local government.
I also happen to agree with the reasons that the Commons gave. The ultimate financial responsibility lies with the Commons. It has made fairly elaborate proposals in respect of financial support generally. Arbitrarily to say that housing benefit shall cover every penny of rate liability is, quite plainly, to undermine and change that. I think that the other place was quite right to reject the amendment that we put in and I hope that we shall accept its amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, although I agree that everyone should pay rates, will my noble friend please keep in mind the position of housing associations which deal specifically with physically disabled people? They often have considerable difficulty in making their outgoings and income match. Often their tenants rely on housing benefit, which is severely delayed in payment. If they have to pay part of the rates without a full rebate, that will exacerbate the situation.
Housing associations of that sort also have much greater voids than other housing associations because once they have chosen a tenant they often have to wait a long time—sometimes several months—for that tenant to be fit enough to come out of hospital and to go into the flat. That does not help their income.

421
I fear that if that position is not kept under review, such housing associations will find their tenants getting into severe financial difficulties and will have to get rid of them. That will put an added burden on to local authorities.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has sought to alarm people, and she will no doubt do it again. She has claimed that the measure will have dire consequences for poor households. We should be clear that we are talking about benefit rates to be set at the uprating, as I said, that is due to take place in the autumn of 1987, not at the next uprating.
Our present plans for social security reform in 1988 include a minimum contribution to rates from that date, but before then—and it is still a long way off—we have made it clear that the proposal will need to be developed in the light of discussions on local government finance reform.
To sum up, the amendment would not increase accountability in local government; it would reduce it. It would not restrain future spending on housing benefit; it would multiply it. Above all, the amendment is out of time.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
7 Clause 32, page 41, line 23, leave out "directions given" and insert "regulations made".
8 Clause 33, page 43, line 9, leave out "general directions issued" and insert "regulations made".
The Commons disagreed to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 for the following reason:
9Because directions provide more appropriate machinery than regulations.
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder rose to move:
9A That this House do insist on their Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 9.
The noble Lord said: The remaining amendments are amendments of labyrinthine complexity if one attempts to follow the significance of each one separately. I am happy to be able to tell your Lordships, if your Lordships agree, that it will now be possible to deal with all the remaining amendments at the same time.
The amendments all arose out of Part III of the Bill—single payments to be made out of the social fund. If your Lordships will forgive me, because of the complexity of the amendments from the other place with which we are dealing, in a few sentences I may perhaps indicate their effect and where we now stand.
We began in the original Bill, as your Lordships will remember, with maternity, funeral and other single payments to be paid out of the social fund. We began with a proposition by the Government that they should be assessed by a social fund officer who would be a DHSS civil servant, and that there would be a right of appeal to another senior DHSS official who would be called a social fund inspector. We began with a proposition that their proceedings and procedures would be controlled by directions given by the Secretary of State.
The matter then came before your Lordships in Committee and as your Lordships will remember, the Committee decided that appeals should not take that course but should continue to be made as they are now—to social security appeal tribunals, the existing independent bodies which deal with them.
The Committee also decided that instead of directions to be made by the Minister, there should be regulations which would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Those were the amendments that went back to the other place last night. Again in a few sentences, last night what was decided in the other place were two variations of what had been sent back to them by your Lordships. First, it was determined there that maternity and funeral payments in future, but not other single payments, should be subject to the social security appeals tribunals.
That is a concession for which we on this side of the House are grateful. We are perhaps not over grateful, because it is not a substantial concession. The latest figures show that maternity and funeral payments amount to only 4.6 per cent. of the total number of single payments with which we are concerned. However, it is a small concession, even if it does not meet any of the major concerns expressed by your Lordships.
Secondly, as to the appeal mechanism, the other place decided by way of amendment that as to those other single payments, instead of there being an appeal from one DHSS civil servant, nominated by the Secretary of State, to another more senior DHSS civil servant, also nominated by the Secretary of State, an independent element would be introduced.
At this stage, I have to invite your Lordships to restrain yourselves and to keep straight faces while I describe the independent element that has been proposed in the other place. It is now proposed that an appeal should lie from the regional DHSS civil servant, nominated by the Secretary of State, to a senior civil servant who would not be nominated by the Secretary of State, and that that civil servant should instead be appointed by a commissioner. The question then arises, who appoints the commissioner? The answer is, the Secretary of State for Social Services. The commissioner thus appointed by the DHSS will have the power to appoint social fund inspectors, and who are they to be? The amendment from another place prescribes that they are to be people made available to the commissioner by the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Your Lordships will perhaps forgive me for not recognising any substantial degree of independence in the appeals mechansism which has been sent back to your Lordships for consideration.
I have gone through the whole body of the amendments carefully and separately. It seems to me, and I am sure it will also appear to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that it is now possible to treat all these amendments as a whole.
There are two options before your Lordships' House this afternoon. One is to accept the new scheme put forward by the Government, a scheme which, for the reasons that I have submitted, is half-baked, at whichever aspect of it one looks. The other is to go

423
forward with the scheme we introduced in Committee. That is the choice before your Lordships.
It would be insulting of me to repeat the details of the arguments put forward in Committee in support of the scheme which your Lordships approved. Many of your Lordships heard the speeches. Many of those who did not will, I know, have read them in Hansard. It is therefore possible to summarise the matter in a few sentences.
We were arguing in favour of the retention of the right of appeal to independent tribunals—the SSATs—which have existed for something over half a century to deal with single payments and which have for the most part dealt with them satisfactorily. We regarded the Government's proposed abolition of that right of appeal as being a matter that had constitutional implications of importance to your Lordships' House.
After looking at the constitutional aspect, we then went on to consider the practical advantages of going to a SSAT as against going to a senior DHSS official, as the channel of appeal. Many points were discussed. There was the fact that the SSAT would be far more consistent in its adjudications than a system of isolated regional DHSS inspectors. There was the fact that the SSATs would have a great deal of local knowledge—far more than the inspectors would be likely to have. There is the fact that the SSATs will permit oral hearings which are of great importance to a disgruntled or aggrieved citizen. What will happen under the new proposals we do not know. Unhappily, the guillotine caught the Minister for Social Security amidships—if that is the right expression for the guillotine—last night, in another place, just as he was about to tell the House whether or not there would be a right of oral hearing. So, to that extent, we are still in the dark.
There is the fact that local SSATs have expert knowledge, usually a solicitor and two prominent local individuals, who really are in touch with local conditions, whereas a regional inspector, who may be anything from 50 to 100 miles away, is unlikely to have a similar knowledge of those local conditions. There was the fact put forward that clearly the SSATs are much fairer in their adjudications. It is a fact, as your Lordships will remember, that over four years, experience of appeals tribunals showed that the Civil Service approach had been wrong in something like 25,000 cases when assessments of single payments had been overturned by an independent tribunal.
There is the fact that there was public confidence, and is public confidence, in the appeal tribunal system. It is unlikely—I do not want to be sceptical about this—that there will be an equivalent degree of public confidence in the officials who, it is suggested, should be appointed to hear appeals. There is the question of expense. So far as I know, no one has yet suggested that the SSATs will be more expensive than the new system, put forward by the Government, to operate. Indeed, the SSATs are already sitting repeatedly in something like 100 centres and will continue to sit, with the additional task now of the maternity and funeral payments under the Government's own proposals.
There is too the question of speed, which was raised several times at the Committee stage. Which would be the quicker? I had to say that I did not know the answer to that, and I still do not. It is true that the SSATs sometimes take a considerable time to hold hearings. That is more often than not because the DHSS is not able to get the papers in order to pass them to the appeal body. It will be the same situation if there is a single person rather than an appeal tribunal. In any event, if I may say so, in case the question of speed is raised again, I would put it that there is no real virtue in coming to a bad decision quickly.
There was the question raised, finally, of discretion—the argument that, in some way, because these are discretionary payments, it is not suitable for an SSAT to deal with them. That overlooks the fact that SSATs have dealt repeatedly with discretionary matters and still do in many ways, generally, I think, to the satisfaction of the public.
Those were in outline the practical advantages of the appeal tribunal as against the method proposed by the Government. All of them, I believe, are still relevant against the new method proposed by the Government. If it were only a matter of practical advantage, however overwhelming, I believe, speaking for myself, that I would hesitate to say at this stage in the parliamentary calendar that it would be right to invite your Lordships to ask the other place to think again after expressing its view last night. It is not only a question of practical advantage. It is, as I said when I began, a question of real constitutional importance.
The tribunal system in this country is deeply embedded in its public life and in its administration of justice. It carries the confidence of a large number of people. An attempt to remove a right of appeal that has worked perfectly satisfactorily for over half a century on the basis put forward by the Government in this Bill is, in the view of those of us who oppose it, profoundly unsatisfactory and has wide constitutional implications. For that reason, I would think it appropriate, in addition to the practical advantages, that your Lordships should consider insisting on the amendments passed at Committee Stage.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, your Lordships decided on 30th June, by a majority of 131 to 115, that the right of appeal that has existed for over 50 years to applicants for relief by way of social security benefit should continue, and rejected the proposal of the Government to get rid of it. Fifty years of history lies behind that right. It goes as far back as the 1930s in regard to unemployment assistance. It was continued as a right through the national assistance scheme. It is indeed a vital part of the social provision system, that has been relied on by thousands of the most needy elements in our community over those years.
The continuing need for the existing appeal machinery has been indicated in the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. The statistics that I call in aid are that about a quarter of the supplementary benefit decisions adverse to applicants have been overruled on appeal through this appeal system. So there is need for it; there is room for it.

425
The value of the tribunal in enabling an aggrieved applicant to put his or her case before an independent body in which he or she could have complete confidence because of the fact of its obvious independence has been a considerable factor in inspiring confidence in our social security system. No one has ever questioned the disciplined way in which the tribunals have applied the law. Indeed, perhaps the conclusive and, in my submission, the most decisive verdict on what we are considering tonight was passed by the Council on Tribunals, an eminent body presided over for years by a distinguished Member of your Lordships' House, with most eminent representatives of the professions and of the British political and social scene. It felt inclined to produce a special report upon this issue. Its conclusion is this:
"The people most affected by this proposal"
That is, in effect, what is still the Government's proposal—to get rid of the independent appeal system,
"are among the most vulnerable in our society. Very good reasons are needed before the abolition of the right to an independent appeal in such circumstances, an appeal which has existed for over 50 years. It would probably be the most substantial abolition of a right of appeal to an independent tribunal since the Council on Tribunals was set up by Parliament in 1958, following the Franks Report. It is for these reasons that we are so critical of the proposal. In our last Annual Report we described it as highly retrograde".
That is the judgment of a highly responsible public body in which we have placed confidence over the years and to which we have given increasing powers and increasing authority. What is proposed in place of this existing system is a last minute, patched-up proposal that has been accurately described by the noble Lord.
The significant figure in the new scheme is to be the social fund commissioner. What precisely his powers are is not clear. He has monitoring powers. I do not know whether he has any power to rescind a decision of the social fund inspector who was to hear appeals in the first instance. It is not clear whether the social fund inspector will allow an oral hearing at all. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has pointed out, with regard to the social fund commissioner—it is a high-sounding title but it has little in common with what we regard as commissioners—he is to be appointed not, be it noted, by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor; I believe that normally the social security appeal tribunal chairmen are appointed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It is to be done in the safe political scene of the Secretary of State who is to be in charge of the operation.
There is no indication that the commissioner need be a lawyer at all. I know that one cannot attribute infallibility to lawyers, but they have certain advantages in the conduct of tribunals before whom conflicting views are submitted and brought forward. We are not told in this cooked-up scheme what his qualifications are to be, and indeed what his powers are. It would seem that there is to be a monitoring duty, and there is to be a report to Parliament. But there is no indication that it is a fresh appeal hearing. Whether or not the applicant will be heard by any of these people is totally unclear in what is recommended.
Accordingly I submit that it is a wholly unacceptable alternative to the present arrangement.
426
The Council on Tribunals dismissed what was proposed by the Government not so long ago—at the beginning of this year—as highly retrograde. In my submission what is proposed would be flagrant denial to the most needy in the realm of a well-established constitutional and civil right. Accordingly 1 greatly hope that your Lordships will stand by your earlier decision and enable and require another place to think again.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not insist on the original amendment. I hope that you will accept the amendment put forward by the Commons. I have had experience of all these appeals up to the appeal tribunal. They have even come as far as my court. The machinery is far too elaborate, too long, too costly, with too many insurance commissioners and the like. It is all very well to have that elaborate structure in the pursuit of justice, but if it is too elaborate, it ought to be replaced by simpler machinery. The objective of the Commons amendment is to have a social fund officer. He will make the initial decision. These are not cases of very large amounts. They are very important to the individual—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Denning: Yes, I agree; they are very important to the individual. From the social fund officer the matter can be referred to an inspector. There might have been a query under the original pleas put forward that the inspector might not be sufficiently independent. He is to be appointed by a commissioner; a commissioner is to appoint these new inspectors, to monitor their work and to see that they deal with the matter properly and succinctly.
On procedure, if it is a proper case, one can arrange for oral hearings. One can arrange for all kinds of papers if need be. I see this new proposal coming from the Commons as being simple, fair and just machinery. I have seen a lot of over-complicated, over-lengthy and over-costly procedures. I hope that your Lordships will not insist on your original amendment but will agree with the Commons in that which they prefer.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and I entirely agree with the speeches of both noble Lords. I look at matters from the point of view of the claimants. I would therefore say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that one has to think of how the claimant sees it. It is true that sometimes the tribunals have not been as quick and efficient as they might have been; but I think that they have grown to be much more efficient.
I know many claimants; I know them and work with them. They are the most vulnerable in our society. When one is vulnerable and on the edge of real problems and difficulties, one can be difficult, very awkward, and one can feel a sense of terrible injustice even if there is not injustice. Therefore if there are claimants who have a sense of injustice, that makes life

427
very difficult for the supplementary benefit staff. I urge very strongly on behalf of the claimants that there must be, and continue to be, what they are used to—the outside tribunal, outside the supplementary benefit commission.
Many years ago when we had the Police Bill before the House of Lords I remember that there was a great debate to whether there should be an independent person on the police boards investigating complaints by the public against the police. Your Lordships will remember that this House voted that the police should investigate their own complaints. I wonder whether what has happened in Manchester would have happened had there been an independent person on that appeal panel. I draw that point to your Lordships' attention.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I quote Shakespeare:
"to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man".
Under that dictum I am in a terribly distressing dilemma. On the one hand, I wish to be loyal to the claimants whom I know so well. On the other hand, I wish to be loyal to my party that has—I have to say—regrettably put forward this amendment. I am therefore in a very real dilemma. I hope that when the Minister replies she will give us a very clear explanation, which we asked for before, as to exactly why this has been done. While I deeply regret this amendment, nevertheless I do not wish at this stage of the Bill to impede its passage and I shall therefore abstain.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I have read much that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has written about the nature and procedure of justice. I have read it with great profit and illumination. I was surprised at what he said about this amendment, because I think that his sense of justice failed him in this instance for the reason given by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. He neglected to consider the attitudes and the feelings of the complainant.
The proposal being made is to move these appeals away from tribunals, the function of which is to mediate between citizens and the state—between the decisions, that is, of officials who are servants of the Government and citizens who are aggrieved by their decisions. We are moving to an entirely administrative procedure, and calling those civil servants by fancy names alters nothing for an aggrieved claimant. An appeal to an official does not have the appearance of justice, and it is not just according to our notions of justice throughout our judicial system. We all expect our appeals to be heard by independent people who are seen to be independent. Further, I think that the amendment is unjust to the officials. I should expect them to adjudicate just as fairly as anyone else, but they could not, in that position, avoid the charge and the appearance of partiality.
There was, when this matter was debated on a previous occasion, a good deal of talk about the effect upon public confidence in the system. I can state what the effect of the propsoals has been upon people who are claimants, or who are likely to be claimants. These people come to citizens advice bureaux, they come to
428
the National Council for One-Parent Families, and I know what their views are. I know what the grass-roots feeling is, and it is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said, a situation in which the least well informed, the most vulnerable and the poorest of our fellow citizens feel that justice is being degraded for them by this sort of arrangement.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in moving Amendment No. 9A and speaking to Amendment No. 27, is asking the House to reinstate the changes made here at Committee stage and Third Reading. At the same time the noble Lord is seeking to correct an anomaly in the Bill as it left this House. At that stage the Bill would have provided for two parallel routes for a dissenting applicant in any one case—both an appeal tribunal and an inspector's review. That would clearly not have been satisfactory. The noble Lord therefore proposes to delete the references in the Bill to social fund inspectors.
I recognise the purpose of the noble Lord's new amendments in terms of ensuring a consistent approach, but I would ask your Lordships to consider whether it is in fact the right approach. Following our debates in recent weeks we have thought very carefully about the amendments which have been passed in this House. Clearly, some of the changes made would have a fundamental impact on the nature of the social fund. We have debated the principles behind the fund on a number of occasions, and I do not need to rehearse them all here. Suffice it to say that the fund is intended to provide help quickly and flexibly, but in a controlled way, with exceptional needs, and that we believe that the discretionary social fund is a better means of achieving these ends than, say, the single payments system with its regulations and appeals. So we needed to think twice before adopting wholesale the changes made here. On the other hand, we recognise the concern expressed by noble Lords, first, that the pendulum should not swing back too far towards discretion; and, secondly, that when someone is dissatisfied with a social fund decision it should not only be handled impartially but should be seen to be handled impartially. The Government were anxious to respond positively to that concern.
I should therefore like to outline to your Lordships what our conclusions were, and to explain why we believe that the new proposals which were made yesterday in another place offer the best way forward. We have taken yet another look at the types of need which the social fund is intended to cover. We have examined whether some types of payments are in fact more suitable than others for defining in regulations. We have concluded that maternity and funeral payments are in fact rather different from other social fund payments. We have made clear all along that people receiving certain income-related benefits would be eligible for this help without a separate means test, and that these payments would not be subject to budget constraints. They would have been governed in the main by the Secretary of State's directions rather than guidance. There would have been little role for the exercise of discretion by social fund officers. So we have decided to accept the spirit of the amendments passed by your Lordships as far as funeral and maternity payments are concerned by defining entitlement to them in regulations.

429
We also believe, having accepted this change, that it would be right to make these payments subject to the full adjudication process. Our position has always been that the procedure for taking and reconsidering social fund decisions must fit the nature of the fund. Establishing entitlement in regulations changes the nature of decision-taking. Its effect is to import adjudication into the social fund. We therefore propose to go all the way and put these payments on to the same footing as the mainstream social security benefits. That means that decisions on entitlement will be taken by independent adjudication officers following the guidance of the chief adjudication officer and not by social fund officers. There will be a right of appeal to a social security appeal tribunal, and a further right of appeal to the Social Security Commissioners.
I think noble Lords will agree that for these two forms of social fund payments it would not be possible to go any further. These changes represent complete integration with the adjudication system. However, we still believe that entitlement and adjudication are not the best way of providing the other kinds of help which the social fund is designed to offer, where all sorts of different needs may arise, and what is required is the flexibility to respond to the particular circumstances of each individual case.
We have been over the arguments many times, and in fact there is much common ground. There is, for example, general agreement that the right balance between entitlement and adjudication was not struck in the 1980 reformof supplementary benefit. We were right to think that entitlement and adjudication would apply to decisions affecting regular weekly benefit, but we should not have extended it as far as we did to cover the totality of exceptional extra needs requiring one-off payments. A number of commentators (not all Government supporters by any means) accept that any flexible scheme must have a place for discretion. The question is not whether you need some discretion but where the boundary lines should be drawn. We think that, in so far as loans, community care payments and financial crisis payments are concerned, social fund officers must have discretion to assess the need of each individual in each situation. The rigidity of regulations has not worked well in this area, and we have no reason to believe that it can be made to work well. That is why we think it right to ask noble Lords to agree to the changes made in another place, which would make social fund payments, other than those for maternity and funerals, subject to directions—not regulations—and guidance.
Perhaps I could now turn to the question of appeals and reviews of social fund decisions. We have always argued that one cannot sensibly operate a flexible scheme involving the discretionary judgments I have described within the current adjudicated system of benefits and within the current structure of appeal tribunals and commissioners. Of course we believe that claimants who are dissatisfied with decisions should have a right to have the decisions reconsidered, but the form of that review must fit the nature of the benefit. The appeal system represented by the Council on Tribunals has been developed over the last 50 or so years in a different context to meet different require-
430
ments. The social fund is not like other benefits, nor will it be administered in the same way. It would not be right for it to take over an appeal system designed for other needs just because it is familiar, nor to set up a new independent appeal system which is different in name only from the present one.
I must therefore ask noble Lords to accept, as has been accepted in another place, that not all social fund decisions should be subject to social security appeal tribunals. I have already explained that maternity and funeral payments would be subject to tribunals—that is covered by the amendments passed yesterday in another place. However, for other types of social fund payment, we still believe that we need procedures which fit the nature of the decisions about those payments. They need to be flexible; they need to be informal; and they need to be quick.
By now some noble Lords may be familiar with the arrangements which we are proposing to review social fund decisions. The point I want to stress is that people have a right to a review, and this will be handled professionally and impartially.
When an applicant is dissatisfied with the decision, the social fund officer will look again at the case to see whether there are good grounds for changing his mind. Where the social fund officer cannot satisfy the applicant's objections by looking at the papers, then the applicant will be invited to an interview where the whole case can be talked through in detail and any new information brought to light. The social fund officer's manager will then decide the case, if necessary changing the original decision. The aim would be to give the applicant an answer as quickly as possible.
But where he is still dissatisfied, he will have the right to ask an outside inspector to review his case. We introduced this provision at Report stage in another place in response to concern that reviews conducted by local management alone might not be, or appear to be, sufficiently impartial. The inspector's job will be to decide whether the local officers have taken their decisions properly. He will, for example, check whether they had got enough evidence to take a decision, and whether the decision is reasonable in the light of all the facts. What the inspector will not do is meticulously interpret detailed regulations. Nor will he second-guess—or perhaps "third-guess"—every social fund officer's decision.
The amendment will allow my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to appoint a social fund commissioner whose stature and independence are beyond doubt and to whom all social fund officers would be answerable. His responsibilities would include the appointment and training of social fund inspectors. He would monitor the quality of their decision-taking and report on it to the Secretary of State. He would also report annually on the standards of service by social fund inspectors to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who would publish his report. This is similar to the arrangements now for the independent chief adjudication officer—who advises local adjudication officers on how to decide claims for benefit—to make an annual report.
The objectives of his appointment are, first, to ensure that social fund inspectors' decisions are of a

431
consistently high standard; and secondly, to ensure that the inspectors taking the decisions act, and are keen to act, impartially.
I deplore the jeering remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, concerning his proposals to appoint a commissioner. We already have the example of the chief adjudication officer who is appointed by the Secretary of State, but who is independent of both Ministers and officials in advising adjudication officers and reporting on standards of adjudication. The social fund commissioner will indeed be independent, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, does his cause no good to imply that such a person's integrity would be suspect simply because he is appointed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
I am going on at length because noble Lords complained about the guillotine in another place. Therefore, I feel that I must answer fully the questions that have been put to me this afternoon. The social fund commissioner would be able to rescind an inspector's decision. His job is managerial and his responsibilities are to ensure that inspectors act impartially and carry out their functions to the highest standard. I do not think it would add anything to the performance of his duties if he was also able to act as a social fund inspector.
Finally, we have taken the opportunity of this change to the provisions relating to social fund inspectors to correct a minor defect in the Bill as drafted. Before amendment there was no power in the Bill to change an inspector's decision. We concluded that this was too rigid. Nevertheless, we have brought forward an amendment to give social fund inspectors the power to review their own decisions so that problems can be avoided.
I hope that I have shown that the Government have responded flexibly and positively to the concerns expressed here and in another place while maintaining the basic principles underlying the social fund. I commend the amendments made in another place to your Lordships. In view of what I have said, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, not to press the amendments which he has introduced today.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me five sentences only. First, as to the discretionary side of the benefits payable from the social fund, the fact is that before 1980 the SSATs administered a discretionary system, and since 1980 they have been administering a system which often includes interpreting words such as "reasonable", and they have no problems with it. It gives satisfaction to the great British public, even if it may not give entire satisfaction to Her Majesty's Government.
Secondly, I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for many years presided with great distinction over an extremely elaborate court of law. That had no resemblance whatever to three people sitting round a table discussing a citizen's problems informally with him, which is how an SSAT works.
Thirdly, as to the oral hearings, I still await the answer.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thought that I had gone on long enough, but I have all the information for the noble Lord. Where the social fund officer cannot satisfy the applicant's objections by looking at the papers, we intend that the applicant will be invited to an interview where the whole case can be talked through in detail and any new information brought to light. The social fund officer's manager will then decide the case, taking into account all the information that has so far been gathered. Where the individual is still dissatisfied, he will have a right to a review by a social fund inspector. However, the question of how inspectors will conduct their reviews is one for discussion with the social fund commissioner. We would not exclude discussing with him the possibility that if the inspector felt that he needed to seek further information from the applicant face to face, the inspector might arrange to interview the applicant and his representative again.
As I am on my feet, I may have omitted a "not" in what I said earlier. The social fund commissioner would not be able to rescind an inspector's decision.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I take it that, undecided although the matter is at present, it is perfectly possible that under the Government's system there may be an oral hearing before the social fund inspector?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there could be.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, that may be 100 miles away. Can the noble Baroness help us as to who will pay for that? Finally, as my last observation and as a small footnote on this matter, but it does indicate the haste with which these matters have been entered into over the last day or so, I ask your Lordships to look at the provisions for the establishment of the social fund commissioner. Your Lordships will see that the Bill will now provide that the Secretary of State may appoint the commissioner. There is no provision anywhere for him to remove the commissioner. No doubt this time next year we shall be having a Social Security (Amendment) Bill before us. I invite your Lordships to stand firm on this matter.
6.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether this House do insist on their Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 9?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 113; Not-Contents, 202.

DIVISION NO.2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Airedale, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Amherst, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ardwick, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Attlee, E.

Darwen, L.

Avebury, L.

David, B.

Banks, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Barnett, L.

Denington, B.

Beswick, L.

Diamond, L.

Birk, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Donoughue, L.

Bottomley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Brockway, L.

Ennals, L

433

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mayhew, L.

Falkender, B.

Meston, L.

Falkland, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mishcon, L.

Foot, L.

Molloy, L.

Gallacher, L.

Monson, L.

Gilford, L.

Mountevans, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Oram, L.

Grey, E.

Phillips, B.

Grimond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hampton, L.

Plant, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

[Teller.]

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Rea, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Richardson, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hunt, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Rochester, L.

Hylton, L.

Seear, B.

Ingleby, V.

Seebohm, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jacques, L.

Serota, B.

Jeger, B.

Shackleton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shepherd, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Kagan, L.

Stallard, L.

Kennet, L.

Stedman, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Underhill, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Lockwood, B.

White, B.

Longford, E.

Wigoder, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Willis, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

McNair, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Camden, M.

Ailesbury, M.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Aldington, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Allerton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Annaly, L.

Carnock, L.

Arran, E.

Cathcart, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Chelmer, L.

Bagot, L.

Clinton, L.

Bauer, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Coleraine, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Bellwin, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Beloff, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Belstead, L.

Craigavon, V.

Bessborough, E.

Craigton, L.

Bethell, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Birdwood, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Blake, L.

Croft, L.

Boardman, L.

Cross, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Davidson, V.

Braye, B.

De Freyne, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Brocket, L.

Denning, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Derwent, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Dormer, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry,

Dudley, E.

D.

Dundee, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Elibank, L.

Butterworth, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Caccia, L.

Elles, B.

Caithness, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Caldecote, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

434

Elton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Erne, E.

Morris, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Mottistone, L.

Falmouth, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Feversham, L.

Munster, E.

Forte, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Norfolk, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Norrie, L.

Freyberg, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gainford, L.

Pender, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone,

Gisborough, L.

L.

Glanusk, L.

Portland, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Portman, V.

Gray, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Radnor, E.

Greenway, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gridley, L.

Reay, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Reigate, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Renton, L.

Marylebone, L.

Renwick, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rochdale, V.

Hanson, L.

Romney, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rootes, L.

Harvington, L.

St. Davids, V.

Henley, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Hertford, M.

Salisbury, M.

Hesketh, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hives, L.

Sandford, L.

Holderness, L.

Sandys, L.

Hood, V.

Selborne, E.

Hooper, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Howe, E.

Shannon, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ironside, L.

Slim, V.

Jessel, L.

Southborough, L.

Keyes, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Killearn, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Kimball, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

King of Wartnaby, L.

L.

Kinnoull, E.

Sudeley, L.

Kitchener, E.

Suffield, L.

Knollys, V.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Lane-Fox, B.

Teviot, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Layton, L.

Torphichen, L.

Limerick, E.

Townshend, M.

Lindsay, E.

Tranmire, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Long, V.

Trenchard, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lurgan, L.

Tryon, L.

McFadzean, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vinson, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Vivian, L.

Mancroft, L.

Watkinson, V.

Margadale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Wigram, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wilberforce, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Windlesham, L.

Avon, L.

Wolfson, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wynford, L.

Mersey, V.

Yarborough, E.

Middleton, L.

Young, B.

Milverton, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

6.50 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think my noble friend Lady Trumpington now has a speaking part.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
10 Clause 33, page 43, line 13, at end insert—
"(11 A) A person applying for a social fund payment may appeal to a social security appeal tribunal constituted in

435
accordance with section 97(2) to (2E) of the Social Security Act 1975 against any determination of a social fund officer with respect to the appication.
(11B) On an appeal under subsection (11A) above the appeal tribunal may—

(a) confirm the determination appealed against;

(b) substitute for that determination any other determination which a social fund officer could have made; or

(c) if the appeal is against a determination under subsection (3) or (4) above, set aside that determination".

The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof:
11 Page 41, line 22, leave out from "fund" to "shall" in line 28 and insert—
"(1A) Payments may be made out of that fund, in accordance with this Part of this Act—

(a) to meet, in prescribed circumstances, maternity expenses and funeral expenses; and

(b) to meet other needs in accordance with directions given or guidance issued by the Secretary of Slate.

(1B) Payments under this section.".
12 Page 41, line 28, at end insert—
"(1C) Social fund payments to meet funeral expenses may in all cases be recovered, as if they were funeral expenses, out of the estate of the deceased, and (subject to section 51 below) by no other means.".
13 Page 41, line 35, leave out subsection (4).
14 Page 42, line 6, at end insert "such as are mentioned in subsection (lA)(b) above; and the Secretary of State may allocate an amount, or allocate different amounts for different purposes, for such payments by a particular social fund officer or group of officers in a financial year.".
15 Page 42, line 10, after "payment", insert ", such as is mentioned in section 32 (lA)(b) above".
16 Page 42, line 18, leave out "under section 32(l)(b) or (c) above".
17 Page 42, line 22, leave out subsection (6).
18 Page 42, line 26, leave out "made under section 32(1)(c) above".
19 Page 42, line 28, leave out "made under section 32(1)(c) above".
20 Page 43, line 7, leave out "(4)" and insert "(6)".
21 Page 43, line 36, leave out from "inspector" to end of line 37 and insert "appointed by the social fund Commissioner under section [The social fund Commissioner] below".
22 After Clause 34, insert the following new Clause—
A.—(l) There shall be an officer to be known as the social fund Commissioner (in this section referred to as "the Commissioner.").
(2) The Commissioner shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Commissioner—

(a) shall appoint such social fund inspectors;

(b) may appoint such officers and staff for himself and for social fund inspectors, as he thinks fit, but with the consent of the Secretary of State and the Treasury as to numbers.

(4) Appointments under subsection (3) above shall be made from persons made available to the Commissioner by the Secretary of State.
(5) It shall be the duty of the Commissioner—

(a) to monitor the quality of decisions of social fund inspectors and give them such advice and assistance as he thinks fit to improve the standard of their decisions;

(b) to arrange such training of social fund inspectors as he considers appropriate; and

(c) to carry out such other functions in connection with the work of social fund inspectors as the Secretary of State may direct.

(6) The commissioner shall report annually in writing to the Secretary of State on the standards of reviews by social fund inspectors and the Secretary of Slate shall publish his report.''.
23 Page 44, line 2, at end insert—
"(4A) A social fund inspector may review a determination under subsection (3) above made by himself or some other social fund inspector.".
24 Page 55, line 8, at end insert "and any social fund payments such as are mentioned in section 32(1A)(a) above".
25 Page 56, line 9, at end insert "and any social fund payments such as are mentioned in section 32(1A)(a) above".
26 Page 59, line 16, at end insert "and any social fund payments such as are mentioned in section 32(1A)(a) above".
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No.10 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11to 26 in lieu thereof.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 10 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 26 in lieu thereof.— (Baroness Trumpington).
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 27G not moved.]

Public Order Bill
6.52 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee—(Lord Glenarthur).
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD WELLS-PESTELL in the Chair.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 31:
Before Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("General
. Subject to the provisions in this Part contained, persons shall be lawfully entitled peacefully to demonstrate or peacefully to hold assemblies.")
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak briefly to this important amendment on the Public Order Bill. As the Committee will see, the amendment proposes a clear statutory provision that, subject to the provisions of Part II, which we are now embarking upon,
"persons shall be lawfully entitled peacefully to demonstrate or peacefully to hold assemblies."
The Committee will realise that Part II of the Bill deals entirely with provisions which restrict the right of assembly and the right of demonstration. The Committee may decide one way or the other about the propriety of those restrictions. But nowhere in the Bill, which is a public order Bill and not a public disorder Bill, is there a statutory right peacefully to demonstrate, peacefully to assemble. It is one of the rights which many of us, indeed, all of us, I suppose, take for granted. It is a safety valve which from our point of view as a nation has proved to be very useful in times of crisis and on occasions when people have wanted perfectly peacefully to demonstrate by way of protest or by way of supporting a cause that they favoured.
It may surprise the Committee to learn that nowhere in any statute is a right enshrined to demonstrate or to assemble. I promised the Committee that I would be brief, and I shall quote only one sentence from Dicey, the great authority on our constitution. I quote from page 271 of that famous volume, the Tenth Edition:
"it can hardly be said that our constitution knows of such a thing as any specific right of public meeting".
Only one more sentence do I quote, and it is from Lord Chief Justice Hewart when delivering judgment in the case of Duncan v. Jones in 1936. This is what he said:
"There have been moments during the argument in this case when it appeared to be suggested that the Court had to do with a grave case involving what is called the right of public meeting. I say 'called', because English law does not recognize any special right of public meeting for political or other purposes."
The Committee has the opportunity at a time when we are dealing with provisions relating, I repeat, to the restrictions on public assembly and the right to demonstrate clearly to put into an Act of Parliament that if people do it lawfully and peacefully, they are exercising a legal right. As mentioned in another place, it is not good enough merely to say that the police will be informed that this is a recognised right. People other than the police deserve to be informed of this, and our nation as such deserves to have it as a right enshrined in statute. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: This right or duty is amply provided for in common law. My learned friend—I call him learned in this respect—goes back to Dicey and so forth. I do not want to be too modest and if he turns to the case of Hubbard v. Pitt in 1976, reported in the Queen's Bench Division at page 178, he will see what I said. I do not like to quote myself, but no one disagreed with me:
"Here we have to consider the right to demonstrate and the right to protest on matters of public concern. These are rights which it is in the public interest that individuals should possess; and, indeed, that they should exercise without impediment so long as no wrongful act is done. It is often the only means by which grievances can be brought to the knowledge of those in authority—at any rate with such impact as to gain a remedy. Our history is full of warnings against suppression of these rights."
Most notable was the Peterloo case, though I shall not go further into that. I went on to say:
"Such is the right of assembly. So also is the right to meet together, to go in procession, to demonstrate and to protest on matters of public concern. As long as all is done peaceably and in good order, without threats or incitement to violence or obstruction to traffic, it is not prohibited … I stress the need for peace and good order. Only too often violence may break out: and then it should be firmly handled and severely punished. But so long as good order is maintained, the right to demonstrate must be preserved."
Although I said that, I affirm that the right is in the common law of England. It is better to be stated in common law by the judges than to have it put in a statute. I say that because the others disagreed with me on the facts because there was a nuisance there. One does not have all the exceptions stated in the statute. If the right to demonstrate causes a nuisance, the common law will restrain it. But the real point—I stress this—is that these principles are enshrined in our common law. It is much better stated in the common law because the judges can moderate it, deal with it, or give exceptions, as the case may be. The same is true
438
of the right of assembly. All these have been protected by the judges for all these years by the common law. Let them still be protected by the common law. Do not let us start writing words in statutes.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I am sure that with his usual courtesy he will allow me to say that he is much too modest in thinking that I have not read his judgment. I have it here. It was a judgment which dealt with the common law position. In my speech I made no mention of the fact that it was not part of the common law which was interpreted by our judges. I said that we were dealing here with statutory limitations on that right. If there are statutory limitations, with all due respect to the noble and learned Lord, the right to which those limitations apply ought themselves to be in a statute.
7 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: With some temerity I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I am unable, of course, to quote my own words in any case, Hubbard v. Pitt or any other; and if I were to do so I do not think that your Lordships would pay very much attention because they would have been words of counsel crying in the wilderness. The whole thrust of this Bill is restrictive. It creates numbers of new offences, it criminalises whole areas of behaviour which in a tolerant democracy should be accepted as part of living in a free society. And it repeatedly shifts the burden of proof of offences, placing the onus on the person charged to prove his innocence. There is almost nothing in this Public Order Bill that can be said to uphold, protect or extend the civil liberties of the citizen.
In this Bill, the police are called upon to make numerous wholly subjective judgments. Increasingly, they are asked under the various clauses of this Bill to become interpreters as well as enforcers of the law, with the widest discretionary powers. It is because the provisions of the Bill are so loosely drawn; because the interpretation and the discretion are so wide in their scope and the powers are so extensive that there is a need, I would suggest, for the clearest statement of the principles which should guide the implementation of the provisions of the Bill.
After all, this is only the second occasion in our history that it has been felt necessary to propose a measure dealing with public order. Surely, in passing a Bill that deals with the limitation and the potential suppression of the exercise of some of our liberal democratic freedoms, we should at the same time proclaim clearly just what those freedoms are and, if I may say so, provide the police with a touchstone by which they can exercise their very extensive powers.
Lord Butterworth: I shall be very brief. It seems to me that we are at the moment on very dangerous ground. We are about to change some of the fundamental principles of the English law, if I may put it this way, by a side wind before dinner. The right to protect, the right of assembly, is unwritten and depends upon the right that every citizen has to undertake such conduct as seems to him to be proper, subject to not breaking the ordinary law of the land. The danger, if we pass this clause, is that we shall leave

439
the law in an unbalanced condition. We shall give the right to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to assemble, to protest; but we shall remain silent about the rights of all ordinary citizens to go about their business, their right to go shopping, their right to catch the train at Euston Station.
What I wish to say this evening is simply this. If you are going to include in this Bill the right of noble Lords to protest and to assemble, then I ask that you should also put into the Bill my right to go shopping, my right to catch the train at Euston Station—because the rights of assembly, the rights of protest, must be exercised with discretion, having regard to the rights of ordinary citizens to go about their business. If we were to allow this, or indeed the next, amendment to be passed, we should leave, in my submission, the law in an unbalanced condition and the rights of ordinary citizens desperately unprotected.
Lord Glenarthur: This short debate on this amendment has in many ways gone much wider than a debate on a fairly straightforward amendment, because, as my noble friend Lord Butterworth has said, we are grappling with a subject that goes towards the heart of our legal system. I understand the feelings that lie behind the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in this case. We are all rightly and passionately proud of our democratic values and traditions. Throughout their review of public order law and, consequently, during the passage of this Bill, the Government have thought long and hard about whether we should have a statutory right to demonstrate.
We have decided that to attempt such a provision would have serious repercussions for our civil liberties and individual rights. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, it is a fundamental precept of English law that we are all free to do anything not prohibited by law. Other countries and other systems of justice have taken a different route. They have enshrined in law certain basic rights against which to balance other conduct or behaviour. That is not an approach that I favour because as a matter of principle I believe that it limits freedom rather than guarantees it; but I can see the logic involved.
The new clause before us starts down this path but it does not go the whole way. It seeks to enshrine in statute a right to demonstrate and assemble peacefully subject only to Part II of the Bill. It is silent on other rights: the right to live in peace, the right to privacy, the right to go to work and the right to carry on one's business unmolested by others. At present, our law draws no distinction and establishes no hierarchy between such rights. But this new clause implies that the right to demonstrate and assemble is so important that it alone deserves to be recognised in statute. Are we to conclude that it is the most important right? Will that be the effect of this new clause? We canot be sure that it will not have that effect; and such a result would be fundamentally wrong.
That is an argument of principle on which we may legitimately and honourably disagree but it has important practical implications as well. The new clause states baldly that there is an absolute right to demonstrate or hold assemblies peaceably, subject
440
only to the provisions in Part II of the Bill. That may have serious and unwelcome consequences. It may mean, for example, that there would be an absolute right to hold a procession or assembly on anyone's private land, whether the owner wishes such a gathering to take place or not; because the powers contained in Part II do not extend to private places. The landowner might have no recourse to the law, not even if the assembly or the procession was tortious.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord only to save time. He has not caught the word "lawfully" which is in the amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: In that case, I could perhaps cut out half of what I was going to say and speed towards my conclusion. If the police wish to use their powers to prevent obstruction of the highways to stop people blockading others on the way to work, as far as I can tell from the noble Lord's amendment, the demonstrators may say, "No, we have an absolute right to demonstrate and there is nothing you can do about it". That does not seem entirely to concur with the last expression of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. And they would be right unless conditions could be imposed under Clause 14.
The provisions in Part II of the Bill provide a balance—and I think that this is a point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was hinting at—between the right to demonstrate and the right of others to go about their business in peace. They do so because the law recognises a person's freedom to do anything not prohibited by law. So anyone can demonstrate, assemble or protest, subject only to limitations imposed by law, of which Part II would be a part, but not the whole.
This new clause really does overturn that balance. It does not provide greater protection under the law, or a balance of rights. It does, I submit, produce a jumble, a conflict of rights which cannot be resolved. It is for that reason, above all others, that it is not acceptable. That is why I hope the noble Lord will see the force of that argument and will accept the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: A debate would be very interesting but I think we have had most of it by way of interjection in the various speeches. I think it would possibly be the wish of the Committee that the view of your Lordships should be taken now without a further speech from me.
7.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 31) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 134.

DIVISION NO.3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Banks, L.

Amherst, E.

Barnett, L.

Ardwick, L.

Birk, B.

Attlee, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Avebury, L.

Brockway, L.

441

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Darwen, L.

Longford, E.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Diamond, L.

Mayhew, L.

Donoughue, L.

Meston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ennals, L.

Molloy, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Plant, L.

Fitt, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Foot, L.

[Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Gifford, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

[Teller.]

Seear, B.

Grimond, L.

Serota, B.

Halsbury, E.

Shepherd, L.

Hampton, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stallard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Underhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kagan, L.

White, B.

Kennet, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Freyberg, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bauer, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gray, L.

Bellwin, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Beloff, L.

Greenway, L.

Birdwood, L.

Gridley, L.

Blake, L.

Hanson, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Brocket, L.

Henley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hesketh, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Hives, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hood, V.

Caithness, E.

Hooper, B.

Caldecote, V.

Hylton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Ironside, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Keyes, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kimball, L.

Carnock, L.

Knollys, V.

Cathcart, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Chelmer, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Clinton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Coleraine, L.

Layton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Limerick, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Craigavon, L.

Long, V.

Craigmyle, L.

McFadzean, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Croft, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Davidson, V.

Margadale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Denning, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Drumalbyn, L.

Avon, L.

Dudley, E.

Merrivale, L.

Dundee, E.

Mersey, V.

Elibank, L.

Middleton, L.

Elles, B.

Milverton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Molson, L.

Elton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Monson, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

442

Morris, L.

Southborough, L.

Mottistone, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Moyne, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Munster, E.

L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Suffield, L.

Norfolk, D.

Swinfen, L.

Norrie, L.

Swinton. E. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Teviot, L.

Pender, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Torphichen, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone,

Townshend, M.

L.

Trefgarne, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Trumpington, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Renwick, L.

Vickers, B.

Romney, E.

Vivian, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Whitelaw, V.

St. Davids, V.

Wigram, L.

Salisbury, M.

Windlesham, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Wynford, L.

Sandys, L.

Yarborough, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Young, B.

Shannon, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

7.19 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: In rising to move that the House do now resume, I suggest we do not return to the Committee stage before 20 minutes past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

British Council and Commonwealth Institute Superannuation Bill
7.20 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I beg to move the Motion for Second Reading standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for acting with characteristic chivalry and for the concise way in which he has introduced this Bill. We on this side give the Bill our general support, which in the circumstances and against the background of what we have experienced today is a generous gesture which is not often witnessed in this House! I have one or two questions which I should like to put, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will be able to deal with them in due course.
Both the institutions which are dealt with in the Bill are very well known to us. The British Council and the Commonwealth Institute have an excellent reputation, and they are well known to most noble Lords in the House. I certainly admire and support the important work that they perform—the council abroad and the institute, primarily at least, here at home. I do not overlook that part of the work of the institute which operates abroad. I refer, if I may, to the China Centre, to the East Europe Centre and to the

443
USSR Association. I think it is proper that people of all parties and of none should encourage the activities of the British Council and of the Commonwealth Institute.
It is right, I believe, that we should accept the recommendations of the committee set up under Sir Leo Pliatzky's chairmanship, and the committee recommended, inter alia, that the superannuation arrangements of these bodies should be changed and brought into the Civil Service arrangements. It has been stated that the transfer will result in substantial savings in administration costs. I was glad to note that all those who are affected have been properly consulted. The question which must concern us is that of cost, especially in the light of the financial difficulties experienced by the British Council. It is on this that I should like to concentrate, and I would appreciate the comments of the noble Baroness when she replies to the debate.
The cuts have been severe, and I shall give some of the figures. In 1980–81, they were 7½ per cent.; in 1981–82, they were 12½ per cent.; and in 1982–83, they were 17½ per cent. The council's annual report states:
"If present policies continue, it is estimated that by 1989–90 the cumulative cuts in the principal grant since 1979 will reach 25 per cent. in real terms".
That would, of course, create an extremely difficult situation for the British Council, and I am sure that on reflection the noble Baroness and her right honourable and learned friend will agree with that. It would be helpful to the council and to all of us if she was able to give us an assurance that cuts of that magnitude will not continue during the next few years.
I now return to the point I made previously; namely, that it has been stated that substantial savings will accrue. I should like the Minister to tell the House whether they will accrue to the British Council or to the Exchequer. I think that is a very important point. I have noted that the Commonwealth Institute's annual report shows that the grant from the Government has fallen as a total of its receipts; the percentage has fallen, and the actual amount has also fallen. The report also shows that, although the percentage of grant used for salaries and wages has fallen, that used for superannuation has risen. Any measure which will alleviate this seemingly growing burden must therefore be welcomed by all of us.
Finally, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the new Director General of the British Council, Mr. Richard Francis. We know him in connection with the British Broadcasting Corporation. He had a distinguished career with them and he assumes his office at a crucially important time. We wish Mr. Francis every success in his new post. We know that during the next few years the British Council will go through difficult times, not only because of the international situation but because of the economies to which I referred and which have been imposed upon it. But I am quite confident that, in view of the esteem in which the council is held, both here at home and internationally, the Government and all parties in Parliament will do their utmost to ensure that the British Council can look forward with confidence to the future.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to give a general welcome to this sensible little Bill, which deals with the new arrangements for superannuation. I want to raise a rather narrower point than that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. As we are discussing the welfare and superannuation of British Council officials, it is not, I feel, stretching a point too far to raise a matter of mounting concern to the council and its employees over the past two or three years—a matter of which I have given notice to the noble Baroness's office.
Superannuation is fine if you are lucky enough to live to take advantage of it, but not everyone is so fortunate. Two British Council officials were murdered in Athens in the spring of 1984 and, as far as it has ever been possible to ascertain, it appears that they were assassinated by a Palestinian extremist. Consultations with the appropriate authorities made it clear that the British Council had to consider the possibility that its staff would henceforth be a possible target for terrorists. As a result of this, between the spring of 1984 and the spring of 1986 the council spent an additional £8,000,000 on security measures. Then, following the American raids on Libya three months ago, further security precautions were considered necessary, and I understand that the council is now spending at the rate of an additional £500,000 a year on these precautions.
So far, I gather that the council has not been reimbursed for any of this additional and unforeseeable expenditure. I understand that there is a possibility that the Foreign Office will come to the assistance of the council, but the Foreign Office's own additional security expenditure has also not received any additional reimbursement, so there may be a difficulty there. What I am suggesting is that expenditure of this nature should properly be borne by the Government from the Contingency Fund rather than taken from main stream British Council resources.
I hope that the noble Baroness will not consider it improper that I should raise this matter today. It was the subject of an Early-Day Motion in another place which will not be debated at any rate until the next Session of Parliament. Obviously I cannot raise it as a separate question in this House until October, but I think it is desirable that we should have an earlier indication of the Government's thinking on this matter. I assure the noble Baroness that I have absolutely no intention of interfering with the passage of this Bill, with its limited objectives, which we support; but I shall certainly revert to the matter unless we can have an assurance from the Government that money will be provided for additional security measures—money which at present can only be subtracted from the council's own slender resources, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred. That is the only point I wanted to raise, and I should be grateful to the noble Baroness for an indication of the Government's thinking on that matter.
7.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, I should like to start with an apology to the House. Due to what I fear was a misunderstanding, I had been told that the order

445
of business had been changed, and so I was not in my place when this debate started. But I have listened with great interest to what the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Kilmarnock, have had to say on this short but I think important Bill. I am very grateful to them for the welcome the Bill has received.
I should beg to move formally that the Bill be now read a second time.
Noble Lords: It has already been done.
Baroness Young: A further confusion, my Lords. I shall now return to where we were.
The Bill is designed to make certain changes to the pension schemes run by the British Council and Commonwealth Institute. I listened with particular interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, had to say about the activities of the British Council, which is responsible for co-ordinating Britain's cultural activities overseas. The council was founded in 1934 and now employs more than 4,000 staff. We as a Government think highly of the work of the British Council, and no one who has visited its institutions overseas can be other than impressed by the good work that it does and continues to do for British education and cultural activities.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked a number of specific questions about the funding of the British Council. As I am sure he will understand, most government departments and government-funded bodies could make use of extra resources, but the council, like others, is subject to the Government's policy on public expenditure. However, thanks to its increasing revenue activities the council has been in a position to maintain its activity levels in many areas. I would very much recommend noble Lords, if they have not had an opportunity to do so when travelling abroad, to visit British Council institutions. The number of people who apply, particularly those on English language courses, is very impressive. This has meant a considerable increase in resources to the British Council, which I think we all greatly welcome.
The noble Lord asked specifically about the savings that will accrue as a result of this Bill. The British Council estimates that it will save about £120,000 a year in direct staff management time plus a large saving in senior management involvement—for example, trustees' meetings and committee time. The Commonwealth Institute estimates that it will save approximately between £20,000 and £25,000 a year in legal, actuarial and associated administration changes. This will mean a direct benefit through this efficiency to the organisations concerned, but will be taken into account in the annual grant in aid.
The Commonwealth Institute, which exists to organise exhibitions and other activities to foster knowledge of the Commonwealth through education and culture, has 126 permanent staff. Separate pension schemes are administered by both organisations. Since 1972 these funded superannuation arrangements have provided benefits which are very similar to those received by civil servants under the principal Civil Service pension scheme. The close links between the work of these bodies and the Civil Service have raised the question as to whether
446
separate pension arrangements are really necessary. Arising from Sir Leo Pliatzky's report in 1981 on non-departmental public bodies it was suggested that it might be simpler to bring the staff of such organisations under Civil Service pension arrangements. This move would be appropriate for both the British Council and the Commonwealth Institute. After careful consideration of all the effects of such a proposal, this primary legislation has been drawn up to make the necessary changes.
The Government Actuary's Department assessed the liabilities and assets of the British Council and Commonwealth Institute pension schemes in September 1985. This demonstrated that a transfer of assets would not quite fully cover the accrued liabilities for past service. The bodies will therefore need to make contributions which will be no greater than those paid at present, but will include small deficiency payments. From the administrative point of view, both organisations would benefit from significant savings. All members of both pension schemes have been consulted and overwhelming support for this move has been shown.
Before concluding my remarks I should like to respond to the very important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, about security. Security has been a matter of very great concern to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and to all Ministers. It is a terrible fact that members of the diplomatic service and the British Council have been assassinated. Therefore, security is a matter of high priority to us. I can assure the noble Lord that we take most seriously our responsibility for ensuring the protection from terrorism of members of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Council. The implementation of the action plan following the efficiency scrutiny on overseas security in 1985 will enable us to make the right response to the long-term threat.
In recent years the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been successful in increasing expenditure on security by allocating resources from within its existing programmes. During the course of the 1986–87 financial year the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will adjust its grant in aid to the British Council to take account of the increase in the risk which its officers face overseas. As regards future years I cannot anticipate the results of the public expenditure survey but I should like the House to know—and I very much appreciate the opportunity of being able to put this on record—that it is a concern which I am sure is widely shared. Indeed, it is interesting (and I am glad to note it) that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in another place wholeheartedly supported the provision of new money for the council for increasing its security. This, alas, is one of the less agreeable problems of the modern age.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the Minister of State in a position to say by how much the Foreign Office will be able to increase the British Council's allotment for security purposes?
Baroness Young: Not at the present time, my Lords, but perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, as I have said to the House, that I entirely understand

447
his concern. It is a concern shared by Ministers. We have increased the amount of money. If the figure is available I will, of course, write to the noble Lord and advise him of what it is.
Points have been raised which I am sure noble Lords will agree are slightly wide of this narrow technical Bill. I responded to them because I felt they were matters of concern, particularly on the funding of the British Council. I am glad to take this opportunity publicly to pay tribute again to the work that it does and to the concern on security. That is another matter about which we are all deeply concerned.
I hope the House will agree that the Bill is a sensible administrative reform. Both bodies depend on Government funds, and their staffs enjoy conditions of service closely linked to the Civil Service. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 8th July), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Dockyard Services Bill
7.43 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Trefgarne.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL
[References are to Bill (117) as first printed by the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Page 2, line 19, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
"(4) The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 shall apply to the transfer of the dockyard undertaking or any part of it whether or not, apart from this provision, the undertaking would be treated as an undertaking in the nature of a commercial venture for the purposes of those Regulations, and, for those purposes, the services of the qualified dockyard service employees together with the rights in or over the dockyard and property used for the purposes of the undertaking shall be treated as a part of that undertaking capable of being transferred as a business whether or not the company which is to become their employer also provides designated dockyard services.".
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:
2Line 3, after "shall" insert ''subject to subsection (4A) below''.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree to the Commons Amendment No. 2 to the Lords Amendment No. 1. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak at the same time to Commons Amendments numbered 4 to 13 to the Lords Amendment No. 3 and to the Commons consequential amendments to the Bill, numbered 14 to 16.
When this Bill was considered at Third Reading on 10th July your Lordships agreed to an amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, which sought to provide that part of the Transfer of
448
Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which referred particularly to an employer's duty to inform and consult trades union representatives about a transfer, should be set out in the Bill itself.
Your Lordships may recall that I questioned the value of spelling out in the Bill selected parts of regulations which are already the law of the land and which the Government are not only obliged to follow under Clause 1(4) as drafted but which the Government wish in any case to follow. Be that as it may, in view of the strength of feeling of your Lordships at the time I have not sought again to reject the amendment: rather, I have accepted the principle of the amendment which your Lordships agreed to.
In order to give full effect to the wishes expressed at Third Reading on this amendment I have discussed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and other noble Lords, the amendments which need to be made to your Lordships' Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 in order to set out more precisely the particular sections of the regulations concerned and to ensure that they fit properly into the Bill as a whole.
I am most grateful to the noble Lords concerned, and in particular to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I believe that Amendments Nos. 4 to 13 to Lords Amendment No. 3, the resultant technical amendment to Lords Amendment No. 1 and the consequential Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 have overcome the drafting difficulties and give full effect to the wishes expressed at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Denning: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for the way he has met the points we raised during the progress of this Bill through the House; so much so that in a way we are in agreement. However, I want to make sure that the amendments we made to Clause 1 are properly printed. If one refers to the amendment to the Bill as originally passed—Amendment No. 117, to subsection (2) on page 2, which is important in many respects—I do not see it mentioned in the Bill. However, that is a printing matter.
At an early stage we took objection to the legal structure proposed under the Bill. We said that the Government were separating the bees from the hive and that they ought not to do that. If a transfer was being made they should transfer the bees and the hive together. Amendments were tabled for that purpose and accepted by this House. I do not see them mentioned and I presume that it must be an oversight. At all events, I felt that I should mention that printing query first.
I should like to give the reason underlying the discussion in this House and the course which we followed. I refer back to the report of the Defence Committee of the House of Commons in July of last year. Paragraph 20 stated:
"There is strong reason to suspect that 'consultation period' is in any case a misnomer, and that the Government has already decided for its preferred option".

449
A little further on the report continues:
"By its handling of the consultation process, however, the Government has forfeited much of the goodwill that might have been forthcoming for a resolute attempt to secure the long-term future of the yards. If genuine consultation had been attempted, it is hard to conceive of methods less calculated to lead to the Secretary of State's 'wide, constructive and fruitful discussion' than those which have been employed on this occasion".
That was the criticism of the Defence Committee. It said that there had not been full or proper consultation with the trade unions on the matter, and if there had been all the trouble might have been avoided.
Because of that the amendments which we put forward, taken straight from the directive of the Community and the Transport Act 1981, secures for the men full information and consultation. Full information is to be given in writing as to when the transfer is to take place, to whom it is to take place, the legal, social and economic implications of it, and the measures which are to be taken which affect the men. All those details have to be put down in writing for the trade unions to consider.
The trade unions can then study those matters and put forward their objections and representations. The Government will then have to consider them and if they reject the trades union representations they have to give adequate reason. It is to see that there shall be full information and proper consultation that the amendment was tabled and passed by your Lordships' House. I am glad to say that it has now been virtually accepted by the Government.
Apart from that, in some of the 1981 regulations the only remedy for the union or the men if there was not proper consultation was to go to an industrial tribunal with appeal to an employment appeal tribunal, and no further. Owing to the importance of this case we took the view that the recourse should not be just to the industrial tribunal but should be to the High Court in England and to the Court of Session in Scotland, because that deals with both sides. If there has not been proper consultation and information, then the trade unions can go to the High Court or the Court of Session to ensure that there is proper consultation. I am glad to say that after some discussion the Government have agreed to recourse to the High Court for a declaration as to whether they have done their duty or not. I think it follows that if they do not do their duty, the transfer must be held up until they have done so.
So, that is a most important provision in the Bill, which will now leave your Lordships' House and receive the Royal Assent. However, I cannot leave this matter without making one or two further observations. In the Commons last night—or rather early this morning between 3 and 5 o'clock—the Government made it clear that their timetable remains unaltered and that they will nominate the contractor in, I think, November and will have the vesting date on 1st April next year. They mean to go forward with their plans without anyone knowing at the moment what their option will be, which company will take over the show, whether it will be British or foreign owned, and so on. Nothing of that appears in their timetable, which they mean to push through.
450
I feel I must pronounce a warning that in the first place they must go through this further information and consultation process properly with the trade unions and I very much doubt whether they will be able to keep to the timetable which they have set themselves. They may come under the same criticism as the Committee of the House of Commons made earlier, that there is strong reason to suspect that the consultation period is in any case a misnomer and that the Government have already decided on their preferred option. It has already been decided to force the matter through and to steamroller the business. All I have to say is that I think if that is the intention of the Government they are seriously mistaken because by application to the High Court the trade unions can insist on having proper information and proper consultation before this matter is carried through.
It is very right that it should be so, because if this project is to succeed then in my view there must be agreement between the Government and the trade unions, or the project is bound to fail. The co-operation of the trade unions must be obtained, otherwise they can disrupt the work with go-slows, or they can work to rule and so on. If the project is to succeed it seems to me to be fundamental that there must be agreement between the Government and the trade unions. I think that all of us want to ensure that because progress and change are certainly necessary in the dockyards. When this legislation is passed it will facilitate that. My only plea to the Government is this: please go through all the procedure properly as it is now proclaimed in this statute; go through the proper information and consultation process which is required by the statute.
I thank the Minister very much for the help which he has given on a Bill which at the beginning was obscure. There were at first two or three pages of it and now that we have added to it with amendments I think there are three or four pages more. But I am afraid that it is still terribly obscure, though we have done the best that we can, and I hope that the lawyers will not have to construe the Act afterwards. I hope that after proper information and consultation there will be agreement and that a proper solution can be found to this problem of the Devonport Dockyard.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can help me. I have listened very carefully to what he has said, which was most interesting and very much to the point, but we are dealing here with the Dockyard Services Bill. As the noble and learned Lord rightly said, TUPE '81 is in place. Am I correct in thinking that these regulations apply not only in the case of the Dockyard Services Bill but also in the case of any other transfer or any other undertaking which may take place?
Lord Denning: My Lords, they apply to transfers of commercial undertakings from one company to another—maybe from the gas company to whatever. They do not apply to a mere transfer of shares. This is a transfer whereby a man has a new employer. In those circumstances the 1981 regulations certainly apply to all those affected and therefore this Bill is of great importance in drawing that to the attention of everybody.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Thank you, my Lords.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I apologise for coming in rather late on this saga. I do so because of the death on Monday of our noble friend Lord Crawshaw, whom we all mourn.
We join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in welcoming the Government's change of view about this legislation and we welcome the amendments and the amendments to amendments that were agreed in the House of Commons in the small hours of today. I should like to speak not about the past nor about the Bill which we have now, which I think is in the right shape, but about the future. I want to raise two points which I think that the Government should consider during the Recess. I know that it is wrong to try to make a Second Reading speech during consideration of certain of the Commons amendments to the Lords amendments at the fourth stage of a Bill, but there are just two points I want to raise.
First, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, raised the question of what the unions were going to do with their reinforced powers to enforce certain consultation periods. I understand that there are 18 separate unions at Devonport and to that must be added the unions at Rosyth. I do not know what the total is nationally, but it is considerable. If each of them were to use their new possibility of recourse to the High Court—and I am not proffering any advice to them, still less do I have any knowledge of what they intend to do—they would each have to go separately. That is the way the land lies at the moment. This could impose such a delay on the Government's intended timetable that I think it might be wise of the Government even now to consider the following course of action. They will have an Act of Parliament. They do not have to use it. They could, and in my submission they should, even now reconsider the plc option. I shall not spell it out; time is short, we are in the dinner break debate and the Government know what I mean. It would not be impossible to do that even now, and we believe that it should be done.
The second and wider point concerns the workers in the dockyard industry who now have the added protection for their right to consultation that has been conferred upon them by the noble and learned Lord's amendment, which was effected as a result of a brilliant operation, carried out with exemplary speed by not the youngest of our Members. I for one am struck with great personal admiration for what he has done. So the workers have that. But there are many workers in recently denationalised industries who did not have that protection when their turn came. They were operating under TUPE '81 without the "High Court knobs" on. Presumably however that is water under the bridge. I would not presume to say—and perhaps the noble and learned Lord can help us on that.
However, it is pretty well known that the Government have certain plans for further privatisation of public sector industry. What is to be the position of the workers in British Airways, the privatisation of which is postponed for the moment? What is to be the position as regards water, where legislation is also postponed for the moment? I do not
452
rule out the possibility that the Government may win the next election and carry on with those proposals. I think that it is unlikely but it is possible. What are to be the possibilities as regards the Royal Ordnance factories (except Leeds about which we heard a statement this afternoon) and for gas, which of course is here and now?
Mr. John Lee in the House of Commons was in communication with an Opposition Member of that House at an earlier stage and he said that the questions that I have raised were an effective bar to the Government favouring the noble and learned Lord's amendment. He said that it would not be right to pick out the dockyard workers alone for that added protection, when so many others have not had it and so many others in the future did not stand to have it. I think that there is force in that argument
No doubt the Government being rational and in their heart of hearts quite kindly will bring forward proposals immediately after the Recess to ensure that all the workers in public sector industries whose jobs are to be privatised from now on will benefit from the protection which the noble and learned Lord has dashingly introduced for this one industry—and I mean immediately after the Recess.
8 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I hope that this is the opportunity for me to make a general response to what has happened, but I know that various amendments need to be moved.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have spoken to all the amendments and it is therefore open to the noble Lord to do likewise.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is fine, my Lords. I begin by acknowledging that at the end of a difficult period agreement was reached, which, so far as we are concerned, will not be breached either here or in another place. However, we are greatly puzzled about the import of what we have achieved. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I and many others are convinced that we have strengthened protections for the trade unions. But in some discussions people say that nothing has changed; the timetable has not changed and neither have the procedures. We know that there is recourse to the High Court. But as Mr. John Lee said last night in another place, the timescale remains unchanged. We are labouring under some difficulty without recourse to the precise report, but in winding-up he said that we were talking about a full four-month period between the selection of the contractor for the particular yards and the date of 6th April 1987, when commercial management begins.
I think that the Government should take fully on board what the noble and learned Lord said. They may believe that nothing has changed, but the trade unions and the courts may believe that there has been a change, and that may be a matter of dispute which in the event may need to be tested. I am an optimist. I accept what the Government say, that they fully intend to carry out all the provisions of TUPE '81, but they certainly did not intend to do so at eight o'clock on 24th July, with the Bill in the shape in which it is now. They have had to be dragged, step by little step, along the way.

453
All attempts to write on the face of the Bill bits of TUPE '81 in respect of redundancies, pensions, and so on, were resisted. We were told that all that was taken care of in TUPE '81: "Don't worry lads, it's all there". However, when light was thrown on that document we saw even more than we were told was there. Using the word in its best sense, we have exploited what was there and brought it out into the light of day.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. We cannot advise anyone on what they should do in the light of the changed circumstances. But I can say to those outside the House that circumstances have changed. The Government resisted alterations month after month at various stages of the Bill in this House and in another place. Two weeks ago tonight in this place they were faced with reality, to their surprise and no doubt to their disappointment—
Lord Trefgarne: It was a surprise, my Lords.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord can say that again, my Lords. Three cheers for the Garden Party! The reality was the timescale. Had agreement not been reached by tonight, they would have been faced with another defeat in this House—and I make no forecast—or a delay of three months. As I said this afternoon, the Government are pragmatic. They want in their possession by tomorrow this Bill, and it is a new Bill when we talk about opportunities. It is a great victory not just for the noble and learned Lord, who declared his passionate and emotional interest in the issue by virtue of the long association that he and his family have had with all things naval and with the dockyards. I believe that that was an extra spur, and he has done his duty not only to his conscience but to the city of Plymouth, to Rosyth, to the trade unions and to the nation. I certainly am grateful to him.
The Minister has always sought to be fair. He should not ignore the fact that there is a new spirit in the air, not only in the House but in communities and bodies such as the council of the city of Plymouth and the regional authority of Rosyth. They can now see words on the face of the Bill which give them various opportunities. They will not have to take advantage of them if the Government intend to consult much more positively than they have in the past.
The noble and learned Lord quoted passages from a report which indicated that the committee felt that the Government were treating their responsibilities in a cavalier way. Let us just say that they have learnt from that stricture. I am prepared to be generous. The trade unions have certainly learnt. They have learnt that they have an opportunity to get a better deal. We are not trying to lead them. We hope that out of all this will come the opportunity for common sense and for reflection.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in an attempt to be constructive asked the Government to reflect. They have the opportunity to think again. We on this side of the House are grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. His victory was almost single-handed. But the troops were required to be here and they did not come solely from one part of the House. They came from the Alliance and Labour Benches, and
454
some from the Conservative Benches; but, more important, every single Cross-Bencher in the House that night listened to the debate and came out against the Government's view.
I firmly believe that more people should have taken the trouble to listen to the arguments over the years, without the advantage of the presentation of the noble and learned Lord. They are convincing. We on this side of the House are pleased that agreement was reached. We played a small part. I cannot say that we wish the Bill well. So far as I am concerned, such a Bill dealing with the dockyards could not go to a better place than the knacker's yard. But I wish the trade unions and others well in using the provisions given to them by the amendments to make sure that they can get as much as they can out of the Government.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I gather that we are taking Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 at the same time. I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for the trouble that he has taken. He came to Plymouth. We did a tour of the dockyards. He asked innumerable questions. We both came back very much enlightened.
I am disappointed that there were no consultations with the trade unions before the Bill was introduced. I have done my best to get the industrial and non-industrial trade unions together. I am sad that they were not consulted. Surely it is much better to consult before a Bill, because we would then know where we were. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, there are 18 different trade unions in the yard. They all have their own ideas. I have raised this point before. We may have further difficulties if we are not careful.
Amendment No. 3 provides:
"Before any employee in a Royal Dockyard is transferred compulsorily without his consent".
But the Bill is called something different; it is called the Dockyard Services Bill. Is "Royal Dockyard" a misprint? This point has not been mentioned before. I had an opportunity to discuss the Bill with the Secretary of State before I saw that point. I understand that one has to have the Queen's Agreement if a dockyard is to continue to be called a Royal Dockyard. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me whether that is correct or not.
I should also like to know what contact we will have with the dockyards in the future. We have a defence debate every year. Until now we have been able to debate the Royal Dockyards. The Royal Dockyards are tied up with the Royal Navy. I should like to know what tie there will be in the future. For instance, will the dockyards be allowed to have Navy days? We never got down to discussing what communication there would be in the future between the dockyards and the Navy. Those points are essential. I have asked about those matters but have received no answer. I have heard nothing new tonight.
I want to know what action will be taken against apprentices and whether the dockyards will keep their apprentices in the future.
Subsection (4C) provides:
"The Secretary of State shall enter into consultations with the representatives of the trade unions and in the course of those consultations shall"—

455
and the matters are then set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). If the Secretary of State rejects any of the representations, he must give his reasons. How will that be done? Will the trade unions be consulted and then told whether the answer is yes or no? Will the matter be reconsidered? Is my noble friend listening or gossiping?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am listening.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, paragraph (d) provides:
"The measures which the transferee envisages he (the transferee) will, in connection with the transfer, take in relation to such of those employees as become employees of the transferee after the transfer".
Perhaps my noble friend will explain what that means.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has mentioned other points. I hope that in future there will be good contact between the city of Plymouth and local people; that people will be treated as human beings and will not have to accept all these points without consultation. It is unfortunate that all this should happen after the dockyards have existed for nearly 300 years. I hope that when the Bill is passed matters will be on a better level. We do not want trouble. We have not had much trouble in the past. I have known the dockyards for 30 years now. I feel that we should do everything we can to make the dockyards work well.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for what he has tried to do and the Secretary of State, who was kind enough to see me on Monday last. I hope that as a result of those conversations the Government will take a wider view in future. I hope that the human side of such proposals will be taken into account. Transfers are not easy. We want to do the best we can to ensure that people have the jobs that they want.
Some 22,000 people go into the Devonport dockyard each day. They are not all dockyard employees. We must think of the other people who work in the yard and see that they are given the right help in the future. I should like to thank my noble friend for his patience, but I should like to see the more human side of proposals taken into account in the future.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for his acceptance of what I now propose and to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, who likewise, as I understood it, despite a number of reservations, accepts what is now in front of your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked me about the implications of what we propose tonight in respect of this Bill in other circumstances where the TUPE regulations may apply. I made it clear on three occasions that with regard to this Bill the Government did not consider that the amendments which your Lordships agreed were necessary. That remains our position. We do not think that they are necessary because they call upon us to do what we were going to do anyway, and that remains our position.
My noble friend Lady Vickers asked about the details of consultation. The requirement upon us is spelt out fully in the regulations to which I have
456
referred and which have been referred to on many occasions during the passage of this legislation. The Government are bound by them. A part of those regulations is now spelt out on the face of the Bill, as was your Lordships' wish. The additional point about access to the High Court has also been included at the instigation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
My noble friend Lady Vickers also asked me a number of other points which do not directly arise from the amendments. I will, if I may, reply to her by letter. I hope that that will be satisfactory.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 to the Lords Amendment No. 1.

LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Page 2, line 26, at end insert—
"(4A) Before any employee in a Royal Dockyard is transferred compulsorily without his consent from the service of the Crown to the service of any other employer the following provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 shall be fulfilled.
(4B) Long enough before the transfer to enable consultations to take place between the Secretary of State and the representatives of the trade unions, the Secretary of State shall inform those representatives of—

(a) the fact that the transfer is to take place, when approxi- mately it is to take place, and the reasons for it;

(b) the legal, economic and social implications of the transfer for the effected employees;

(c) the measures which he envisages he (the Secretary of State) will, in connection with the transfer, take in relation to those employees; and

(d)the measures which the transferee envisages he (the transferee) will, in connection with the transfer, take in relation to such of those employees as become employees of the transferee after the transfer.

(4C) The Secretary of State shall enter into consultations with the representatives of the trade unions and in the course of those consultations shall—

(a) consider any representations made by the trade union representatives, and

(b) reply to those representations, and, if he rejects any of those representations, give his reasons.".

The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendments:
4 Leave out lines 2 to 6 and insert—
"(4A) The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 in their application to the transfer of the dockyard undertaking or any part of it, shall have effect as if, for regulation 10 (duty to inform and consult trade union representatives), there were substituted the provisions of subsections (4B) to (4D) below, and (unless the remedy provided by section (Failure to inform or consult trade unions: High Court and Court of Session remedies) is invoked) the remedies by way of complaint to an industrial tribunal provided for by, and the other provisions of, regulation 11 shall be available and shall apply in relation to those subsections as they would in relation to regulation 10 or any corresponding provision of it.'.
5 Line 9, leave out 'trade unions' and insert 'independent trade unions recognised by him in respect of the employees'.
6 Line 9, after 'shall", insert 'in accordance with subsection (8) below.'.
7 Line 15, leave out 'effected'.
8 Line 16, leave out '(the Secretary of State)'.
9 Line 18, after 'employees', insert 'or, if he envisages that no measures will be so taken, that fact'.
10 Line 19, leave out 'transferee envisages he (the transferee)' and insert 'company which is to become their employer envisages that it'.
11 Line 21, leave out from 'to' to end of line 22 and insert 'those employees or, if the company envisages that no measures will be so taken, that fact.
(4BB) The company which is to become their employer shall give to the Secretary of State such information at such time as will enable him to perform the duty imposed on him by virtue of subsection (4B)(d) above.'.
12 Line 23, after 'State', insert', where he envisages that he will, in connection with the transfer, be taking measures in relation to employees in respect of whom an independent trade union is recognised by him,'.
13 Line 29, at end insert—
'(4D) If in any case there are special circumstances which render it not reasonably practicable for the Secretary of State to perform a duty imposed on him by subsection (4B) or (4C) above, he shall take all such steps towards performing that duty as are reasonably practicable in the circumstances.'.
Lord Trefgarne: I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their amendments Nos. 4 to 13 and Lords Amendment No. 3.

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
The Commons have made the following consequential amendments to the Bill:
14 Page 2, line 13, leave out "each employee" and insert "the employees".
15 Page 3, line 19, at end insert—
" "trade union" and "independent trade union" have the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 and "recognised", in relation to an independent trade union, means recognised to any extent for the purpose of collective bargaining (within the meaning of the Employment Protection Act 1975);
and any information which is to be given to the representatives of a trade union shall be delivered to them or sent by post to an address notified by them to the employer, or sent by post to the union at the address of its head or main office.".
16 After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
'Failure to inform or consult trade unions: High Court and Court of Session remedies.
(1) A trade union as respects which the Secretary of State has a duty under section 1 (4B) or (4C) above to give information or enter into consultations may, where it alleges that the Secretary of State has failed to fulfil that duty, bring an action in the High Court for a declaration as to whether or not he has failed to fulfil that duty, and the Court may make a declaration accordingly.
(2) In Scotland, a trade union as respects which the Secretary of State has a duty under section 1(4B) or (4C) above to give information or enter into consultations may, where it alleges that the Secretary of State has failed to fulfil that duty, raise an action in the Court of Session for a declarator as to whether or not he has failed to fulfil that duty, and the Court may make a declarator accordingly.
(3) No proceedings may be brought under this section if a complaint to an industrial tribunal has been made under the provisions applied by section 1(4A) above.'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their consequential amendments Nos. 14 to 16.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, this stage is as good as any other to ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, whether he is ready to say something in answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, about the disappearance of the word "Royal" from the title of the Bill.
458
I put down a Question at an earlier stage asking what the precedent was for calling a private company the "The Royal something company" as in the Royal Dockyard Company, which would result from the Bill. I received the Answer that it was not customary publicly to give the reasons why Her Majesty the Queen assented or refused the use of the description "Royal" before a private body. That clearly implies that the question has been put to the Queen and that she has accepted the idea.
Unless I am mistaken, the word has vanished from the Bill's Title. An explanation to the House may be in order at this point.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, this was a matter about which I wrote to my noble friend Lady Vickers recently. Perhaps with my noble friend's permission I may pass a copy of the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, why are the words "Royal Dockyards" printed in the Bill?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the question of what appears on the face of the Bill and what may ultimately emerge as the name of the organisation is, if I may say so, a different one.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, with the leave of the House, this is a matter that may be of wider interest than is simply to be satisfied by a letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and myself. Two questions should be of interest to the House. Has there been a change in the Short Title of the Bill during its passage through Parliament? And, if so, why?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I have your Lordships' permission to speak for the third or the fourth time on the matter, no, there has been no change—I have not noticed it anyway—to the Short Title of the Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House. If the noble Lord wants wider dissemination of the letter that I have written to my noble friend Lady Vickers or of this matter generally, I should be happy to reply promptly to any further question, say for written Answer, that he may like to table.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read a first time, and to be printed.

Public Order Bill
8.22 p.m.
House again in Committee.
[Amendment No. 31A not moved.]
Clause 11 [ance notice of public processions
Lord Silkin of Dulwich Lord Silkin of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 6, line 40, after ("procession") insert ("in which not less than one hundred persons are expected to participate and which is")
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 11 of the Bill provides a new procedure for notifying the police of an intention to hold a procession. What it does not do, and I have not been able to find this anywhere else, is tell the police or the public what, in fact, is a procession so far as numbers are concerned. The clause limits the requirement to certain types of procession, excluding for example funeral processions although not, perhaps oddly, wedding processions. But numbers are not provided. The effect is that the public will not know how many people are required in a procession to make it obligatory upon them to give this notice. So they will be in difficulty. On the other side, if the police are constantly plagued by people coming to them and saying that they are going to have a procession when it is only going to consist of a dozen people or thereabouts, the police will not find this provision very much to their liking. It seems desirable therefore that some limit should be set below which this obligation would not extend.
We, in our Amendment No. 32, have put it at 100 persons, which seems not unreasonable. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, in Amendment No. 32A, uses the same wording but makes it 50 persons. I hold no strong feeling as between 50 and 100. If the Government can show some good reason why it should be the lower number rather than the higher number, we shall think about it.
Another amendment about which, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word, while moving Amendment No. 32, is Amendment No. 33. Clause 11 provides that, where notice is given to the police of an intention to hold a procession, they should be told the time of starting, the proposed route and other matters. If there is to be a number limit of the kind that we are discussing, it seems common sense that the police should also be told the anticipated number of people expected to take part in the procession. One may not know exactly. In many cases, one may have to make a guess. If someone goes to the police saying that it is intended to hold a procession and that 40 people are expected to take part, the police will be able to say that there is no need to give notice of it either under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, or under mine. There must be an advantage to the police in knowing the approximate number that people have in mind. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: It is quite unnecessary to put in any numbers here. One may not know before a public procession how many are going to join it. Surely, the words "to hold a public procession" are quite good enough. Those holding a public procession may not know how many—50, 20 or whatever the figure—will be taking part. I should have thought it was unnecessary to put in the numbers.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: It gives me great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and once more to disagree with him. That seems to be our constant habit. It does neither of us great deal of harm.
460
As regards the amendment, the requirement for notice at the moment is much too wide. There is no limitation. Any two persons gathered together in the name of whatever it may be might suffice. The aim of requiring notice—perhaps, here, the noble and learned Lord will agree with me—is to avoid serious disturbance and disruption. It should not extend wider than is necessary for that purpose. Apart from other matters, it would burden the police with yet more unnecessary paperwork.
What inspires this amendment is our view that notice should not be required where the number of demonstrators believed likely to attend is less than the number with which the police would find it difficult to cope. It would be most surprising if most police forces could not handle 100 or fewer persons without difficulty. That is the explanation of the proposed amendment moved by my noble and learned friend.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I have put down my name in support of the amendment. I should like to know from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, how he would view having to decide under this Bill what is in fact a public procession. The only assistance available from the definition section is one that takes place in a public place. That does not really take matters much further. If one looks up the definition in a dictionary, the first definition that I find is a body of persons going along in an orderly succession. Surely, there must be some limitation on what constitutes a public procession. There must be some limitation when the question of giving notice actually creates a criminal offence.
One cannot criminalise, I should have thought, totally harmless and innocent people who wish to share each other's company in order to celebrate some event or to show their identification with some small cause or other celebration of solidarity and togetherness. Quite apart from protests, these are surely part of the pleasure of ordinary social life. Are you going to ask a local cricket team walking through the village with their cup which they have just won, or ramblers opening a new section of a walk and congregating together, and walking together, to give notice to the police? Are you going to ask a group of handicapped people who have got together to raise some money for a local hospital—four or five or seven of them in their chairs—to give notice to the police if they are to walk through a small town or village?
In the Committee stage of another place the Minister accepted that the definition was inadequate and introduced an amendment, which is now Clause 11 (2), at the Committee stage in order to meet the criticisms which are similar to those now being voiced to this Committee. But there all that is covered are processions which are commonly or customarily held, and the funeral procession. If I may say so without being facetious, the fact that one has to put into an Act of Parliament dealing with public order an exception for a funeral director with a funeral procession, surely highlights the enormous breadth and the stupidity of the breadth of this definition.
An assembly in the following clause is defined as 20 or more people. Here we have in the procession no

461
definition and no limitation at all. I would ask the Minister this. What, for instance, does one do about a sponsored walk which is so fashionable nowadays? What happens on a sponsored walk? Does a sponsored walk have to give notice to the police six days beforehand, and so on? There must surely be some limitation on this definition.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to speak at this point to Amendment No. 32A, which is an alternative to Amendment No. 32. It is fairly self-explanatory. It represents a compromise between the Government's position and the position of noble Lords who have moved Amendment No. 32, although it is not compromise for the sake of compromise; there are more practical reasons for suggesting a limit of 50. I tear that coping with a procession of as many as 100 people could indeed impose a strain upon police resources. A procession of no more than 50 or thereabouts is very much more manageable.
Many processions of 100, or in excess of 100, are more likely than not in practice to be political, and therefore inherently more likely to be potentially troublesome. The kind of procession which attracts 50 people fewer on the other hand will tend, by and large, to be the kind of non-political procession which aims to demonstrate, for example, against the absence of pedestrian crossings or speed limits in a town or village where a child has been run over by a car or lorry. In other words, those taking part are likely to be more mature both in age and behaviour and therefore less likely to get out of control than the kind of people who go on a purely political demonstration. One must bear in mind the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that in the absence of any such amendment as has been discussed, a procession of as little as two people would be caught by this provision. I therefore hope that the Committee will regard my amendment as a reasonable compromise.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether I might intervene before the noble Lord the Minister replies only so that his reply can be complete.
I shall not repeat any of the points that have been so worthily made already. I am not talking now about the difficulties of a court, as was addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I am talking in terms now of an adviser. With the clause standing as it is, I would not know how to advise any clients as to whether they were under a duty to give notice of a proposed procession. Let us consider a group who told me that they were eccentric people. They knew that their cause was a lost one, and that there were only five of them who were going to march down a little street saying that they wished the church to which they belonged was to take on a certain type of service as against the one that now existed. If they said, "There will be only five of us", I would have to tell them this. "This clause as it left Parliament is so vague, you had better be on the safe side. You had better give notice". This is absolutely absurd from the point of view of bureaucracy, of troubling the police, and troubling human beings.
462
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, was in no way in a mocking mood, as he said, when he directed his attention to the funeral director. May I in the spirit of yesterday, and on a more joyous note, refer to a wedding procession and not a funeral procession. Clients have come to me and said, "We are having a very happy event, a wedding in our family. We shall get married in the local church. There will be a procession of cars but quite a few of us are walking together to the church. Could you please tell us whether we have any statutory duty in the way that this Public Order Act left Parliament?"
I must tell noble Lords that I would not have the vaguest idea whether I was giving correct advice if I said, "No, it is a wedding procession and you are walking down the road to the church and"—looking under Clause 1 l(l)(c)—"it is to mark or commemorate an event. There is no doubt about it. You are marking or commemorating an event. This is a wedding in your local village. I am extremely sorry but under Clause 11 of the Bill as it left Parliament it has left you in complete and absolute doubt." There must be some definition. If the Minister cannot accept the question on numbers, would he at least say that what we have to do at Report stage is to come forward with an amendment—it will be a Government amendment I hope—which covers all the matters which have been referred to in this short debate and to make sense of it instead of it being such vague nonsense as at the moment? It is in that spirit that I know the amendments have been moved. It is to get some real definition for citizens to know where they are, and for the police to know where they are, We cannot leave it as it is at present.
Lord Hylton: One can sympathise with the points that have been made about how one defines a procession. One can also sympathise with the intention of my noble friend and the noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench, in trying to have a de minimis provision to exclude very small events. But the weakness of the amendments as printed lies in the words "are expected". Let us imagine a situation of industrial dispute, or an area in which there has been racial harassment. Somebody may organise a procession intending it to be small but it snowballs, What was intended to be below 100 ends up as 1,000 or any number you like. That is where serious problems are likely to arise in special situations. I do not think therefore that the wording of the amendments is quite adequate.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord who moved this amendment, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and his amendment, have explained their purpose. It is to remove the burden of giving advance notice from the organisers of small marches. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, would exempt marches with an expected attendance of less than 100 persons, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, as he said, in the form of a compromise, would put the threshold at 50. I assume that in both cases the organisers themselves would be left to estimate the likely numbers involved and either give or not give notice accordingly, whether the march grew as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, suggested it might well do or whether it did not.

463
I have some sympathy with the general idea behind these amendments. The Government recognised in another place that it was certainly not necessary for the police to have advance notice of all processions. Therefore, Clause 11 was substantially recast in order to limit the kinds of processions for which advance notice was required. In this way we excluded processions such as school crocodiles or processions of tourists having the simple aim of getting from point A to point B. However, I am afraid that we cannot accept a further limitation based on numbers, both because that would exclude processions which the police ought to know about and because it would be impossible to operate such a provision in practice. I entirely accept that most small processions will cause little trouble for the police or for the local community, but this is sadly not true of all of them. I understand from the police that small marches are by no means unknown. The police have of course been consulted about numbers, and they are quite firm that they do not want to exclude small processions by means of a numbers threshold. To some extent I believe that takes care of the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin.
So far as the description of a public procession is concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, gave one definition. I have to say that the definition which we believe to be the current and accepted one is that a public procession is a moving body of persons, moving along a route. I believe that this was given in the case of Flockhart v. Robertson in 1950 by Lord Chief Justice Goddard. I believe that that is the accepted definition.
The National Front can seldom muster more than a couple of hundred marchers these days. Indeed, a rally they recently held in Liverpool attracted only about 50 people. However, I am sure the House will be aware of the difficulties of the kind which such marches cause and of the need for the police to know about them in advance. The National Front have taken to concealing their plans from the police because of the risk of encountering a ban, and they could quite plausibly claim in relation to many of their marches that they did not reasonably expect more than 50 or a 100 persons to attend. That brings in just the sort of point that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has raised. Under the terms of these amendments, this could exempt them from the need to give notice; but it is vital that the police should know where the National Front are going to march. In the example I have just give there was a counter-demonstration of more than 400 persons.
I believe that sponsored walks are covered by the fact that individuals walking separately are not a procession under the definition I have given. If they walk as an organised body they will indeed be a procession, but a sponsored walk whose only purpose is fund-raising would not be required to give advance notice. Notice would only be required under Clause 11(l)(a), (b) or (c) if the walk was intended to publicise a campaign or cause of some kind. I do not in fact believe that in general any sponsored walk would be seeking to publicise in that way.
As for a wedding procession which is simply proceeding from the church to the reception, that is
464
not caught by Clause 11. The wedding procession is only caught if the procession is itself celebratory and therefore falls within Clause 1 l(l)(c). So far as I can tell this is true, but similar considerations may apply to other small but difficult groupings. I referred to the National Front just now, but I will also mention the anarchist group Class War and the Stop the City campaign. The following of these groups may not be large, but they have a considerable capacity to cause trouble. The Stop the City campaign has in the past deliberately split into small groups in order to make life more difficult for the police. They think nothing of dividing into separate marches, each pretending to be less than 50 or 100 persons strong, but all converging on a single rallying point where they plan to cause some mischief. This would lead to the handling problems which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, thought the police would be able to handle but which clearly the police would find it extremely difficult to handle. Those groups are not co-operative and do not readily discuss their plans with the police. Hence it is vital that they give notice.
I realise that in the light of yesterday's events what I have just said about wedding processions may not fully cover all the matters of concern. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is shaking his head, and clearly he believes that i am right to say that. I will certainly look at wedding processions, without any commitment, because I should like to examine precisely how they stand. I believe we can find a way forward on that point. I will examine it very closely; but I hope that in the light of the explanation I have given about the more serious aspects of those who split up into smaller bodies and they come together, and the possibility of counter-marches, the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Before the Minister sits down, may I ask one question about a recent sponsored walk which received a great deal of publicity and which was undertaken by Mr. Ian Botham from John O'Groats to Land's End? If I remember rightly, that was specifically undertaken to publicise the cause of, and to raise money for, leukaemia patients. Are not many of these sponsored walks for just such a specific purpose?
Lord Glenarthur: They are certainly intended to attract attention; I have no doubt about that. However, I do not think that they necessarily fall within the close definition of Clause ll(l)(a), or indeed (b), if it can possibly be said that leukaemia is a cause or campaign. However, I understand the force of the noble Lord's argument and I will undertake to look at that problem and see whether or not we do in fact meet the point concerning those who wish to take part in sponsored walks and wedding processions. I hope that with that undertaking the noble Lords will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monson: Could the Minister clarify one point? Assume that a small child has been knocked down by a lorry in a village where there is no pedestrian crossing or 30-mile an hour speed limit, and at very short notice angry parents decide spontaneously to assemble at the village post office and walk twenty yards to the

465
main road, where they sit down across that road and hold up traffic for twenty minutes as a protest. How would they fare if there was no amendment along the lines that the other noble Lords and I have suggested?
Lord Glenarthur: I believe that is covered.
Lord Mishcon: It is covered in the third line on page 7.
Lord Glenarthur: The third line on page 7 covers the case where it is not practicable to give advance warning of the procession, and the noble Lord's particular case is covered.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: The more I listen to the noble Lord the Minister the more I feel that this clause as it stands is full of holes and anomalies. The Minister has kindly said that he will think about wedding receptions, and I hope he will also think about sponsored walks and events of that kind which may fall within Clause 11(1)(b). Indeed, there must be other events analogous to those which will be caught by the provisions of the clause as it stands at the moment. If we do not have some form of limitation by numbers, what we are going to have, if we want a clause which is logical on the basis of excluding those who clearly ought not to be within it, is a whole series of exceptions. That would be nonsensical and contrary to what is intended.
I quite agree with the Minister that it is difficult to know where to draw a numerical line. I entirely agree that it happens that people genuinely believe that the procession will not be more than, say, 40 and then they find that others tack themselves on so it becomes more than 50 or more than 100. That is the kind of difficulty which cannot be avoided.
If there was a genuine intention that there should not be more than, say, 40 then under either of the amendments before the Committee there would be no obligation to notify and no breach of the criminal law if there were not notification. However, if a body like the National Front, knowing perfectly well that it was likely to get more than the 50 or 100 marchers, did not notify because it thought that in due course it could persuade the police or the prosecuting authorities that it really did not expect to have more than 40, and then a number of people tacked themselves on to the procession, I do not think that any court would be likely to accept that kind of excuse. Therefore, I believe that that difficulty has been very much overrated. I entirely accept the point which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made on it and occasionally it might genuinely happen. That I accept. However, it seems to me that the balance of convenience is to accept that there will occasionally be anomalies of that kind rather than that there should be no limit at all.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon, is, as he said, in a position where he is quite unable to give proper advice—the more so as a result of what the Minister told us: that, certainly as regards the police, they do not want a numerical limit of any kind. If that is the position and if that is to be the approach of the police to non-notification, then my noble friend Lord Mishcon will have to tell his clients that, if they fall
466
within paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) when commemorating some event or other, they will have to notify even if there are only four or five of them, because that is what the police think is necessary. Surely that is an absurdity and, therefore, I very much hope that the Minister will take the advice which my noble friend Lord Mishcon gave and come forward at Report with a sensible Government amendment which will cover all these points.
Lord Glenarthur: I accept the difficulties that have arisen on one or two issues. I am not quite sure that the difficulty about the National Front and the figure of 40, which the noble and learned Lord quoted just now, is really valid when one considers that the National Front and perhaps one or two other organisations, such as those which I quoted earlier, are capable of whipping up an enormous amount of opposition, and in so doing they are likely to promote disorder. That surely is another very important point when considering whether or not one ought to apply a number, because it can grow unexpectedly. It is very much the same as the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, except that the number is growing not with the crowd that is starting to march, but with these people who are in opposition to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, referred to Mr. Botham's sponsored walk, which attracted an extraordinary variety of people and, from time to time, a pretty considerable crowd. It also provided a pretty serious obstruction to traffic, about which I believe the police should have known in advance, because it would seem perfectly reasonable to suppose that those who would otherwise find themselves in all sorts of difficulties might have been able to be helped if the police had been able to make proper plans. I do not think that just because advance notice is given that means that conditions will be imposed; it is merely that to make the knowledge gained available to those who have to try to steer traffic around the sort of processions which we are talking about—and traffic is only one aspect and no doubt there will be others as well—does not seem to me to be unreasonable. It is only a way of getting discussion going between the police and the organisers so that both can be served in the best possible way.
As I said, I shall of course study in particular the very valid point which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised about a procession. There may be more to it than this, especially when one is talking about the military being involved in the way in which they were yesterday. I am afraid that I do not know the answer to that, but I believe that there is a statute which deals with it. I shall study that, but, in the light of those two further expressions, I hope that the noble Lord may feel somewhat appeased.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will accept that it goes further than simply weddings and funerals. For example, quite a few Churches process on various occasions, particularly at Whitsun. There are also pilgrimages and processions of that kind, and groups of people who go in procession on Armistice Day. Do all these people have to inform the police that they are going to process? There are quite a few events of that kind going on.
Lord Glenarthur: Armistice Days are covered because, if the noble Baroness looks at subsection (2), she will see that it says:
"where the procession is one commonly or customarily held".
That will cover Armistice Days. I accept that there may be other aspects which suddenly spring to mind. There are difficulties, and that is why I said earlier that I accepted that there was some force in the arguments. However, the difficulty is an apparent difficulty; it is a real difficulty; it is one which the police have to face day by day. We owe it to the police to provide them with the safeguards which they need in order to deal with these difficult processions, especially the ones that split up in the way in which I have described.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: I am grateful to the Minister for promising to think about this again, even within the limits that he has indicated. I cannot help feeling that at the end of the day we may find that a numerical limit of some kind is the only practical solution. However, by all means let the Government think about other possibilities. We, for our part, will also think about the very real problem, and no doubt we shall return to it at the next stage.
Lord Mishcon: With the permission of the Committee, which I do not really need but which I think out of courtesy I ought to seek because I have jumped up again, in order that the discussion is complete and as all of us are trying to help and make a sensible clause and not, as I have said, make a sacrifice to bureaucracy and put burdens upon citizens and the police which are inapplicable, perhaps I may give another example that readily springs to mind. It is that of the Salvation Army, which, most likely, will hold its procession every Sunday but not necessarily in a particular area. It may come from another area, and the fact that it happens to be a different branch of the Salvation Army which does not customarily process by way of march in the particular area will bring it outside this exemption.
However, in order to complete the discussion of this matter, and only for that purpose, I want to read again to the Minister the words which he very properly quoted as being an answer to, for example, a Church procession, to which the noble Baroness referred. Let us look and see how very vague these words are:
"Subsection (1)"—
which is the whole of what we are discussing—
"does not apply where the procession is one commonly or customarily held in the police area (or areas) in which it is proposed to be held".
If the National Front annually, biennially or whatever holds a procession or march in an area, is it entitled to claim exemption from the provision which obliges it to give notice on the basis that it says that it has been doing this for the last five or six years before the Bill became an Act?—as they have been doing in Brick Lane, as I am reminded by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. This clause must be
468
examined, as the noble Lord the Minister has been gracious enough to say, but I hope that the discussion that we have had this evening will help the Government to come forward with some suggestions to see that the vagueness of this clause and the all-embracing nature of it is relieved before the Bill leaves this House.
9 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: Before the noble and learned Lord—finally, I rather hope—withdraws his amendment, may I answer the point about Salvation Army marches? Where a march by the army or a particular troop is a regular or customary event, then the exemption should be sufficient.
Lord Mishcon: No.
Lord Glenarthur: May I just finish before the noble Lord completes what he is going to say? A one-off procession called for a particular purpose would not, however, be covered. Clearly, there is a need to exempt common processions of whatever type, of which the police will already be aware. The exemption provision was drawn from a number of precedents in local Acts and from recent Scottish legislation which seem to have worked well in practice. The noble Lord is obviously not convinced, so I think I had better stand where I did earlier and agree to look at it in the same light.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: It is my intention in not more than 30 seconds from now to ask leave to withdraw my amendment. Perhaps I may first say one word in support of what my noble friend Lord Mishcon said with regard to subsection (2). The provision there is that the exemption applies
"where the procession is one commonly or customarily held in the police area (or areas) in which it is proposed to be held".
In other words, it need not even be over the same route again and again, provided it is within the same police area, or areas, which is a wide exception to the rule and one that could be taken full advantage of by, for example, the National Front. However, the point is well in the Minister's mind now and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 32A:
Page 6, line 40, after ("procession") insert ("in which not fewer than fifty persons are expected to participate and which is").
The noble Lord said: On the understanding that I reserve the right to return to this matter if the Government do not come forward with a satisfactory amendment of their own at the next stage of the Bill, I do not intend to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 32A not moved. ]
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 7, line 18, at end insert—
("(c) the traffic commissioner in whose area the procession is to be held: and
(d) the management of each registered bus operator who runs a local bus service on a route along which the procession is to be held.")
The noble Lord said: I am dealing with a very different amendment on this same clause. It is incumbent on me, before I start, to make a few paving remarks. It has been fascinating listening to the speeches on this clause. One has been having a lesson in either etymology or lexicography. In the recess and before we come to the next stage I shall look up "procession" and "demonstration". Sir James Murray, whom we must not forget, began the Oxford English Dictionary in 1878 and got to the letter "P" or the letter "T" in 1915—and it was not finished until 1928—and I think we must always refer to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, was talking about sponsored walks, I think slightly with his tongue in his cheek, and I felt his glances in my direction, because I occasionally walk over that area referred to in the territorial part of his title. It is only a sort of pocket handkerchief, a mere few acres. I think he is probably one of a total population of 10 in Lullington, and that is absolutely excellent. But there are walks other than sponsored walks. Other people do it for pure escapism, and they are not sponsored and belong to the Long Distance Walkers Association.
Here, without going beyond the rules of the House, one must pay tribute to the very recently deceased Lord Crawshaw of Aintree who walked 255 miles in 76 hours, and I think must have been the world record holder for this. There are people who do this, and it is not inappropriate to pay tribute to the late noble Lord.
Having said that, I shall now refer to this amendment, which is very different. I have not even done the formalities. I beg to move Amendment No. 34. It is because the organisation of public demonstrations has become a growth industry that Part II is included in the Bill. It is because of the degree of disruption this causes to public transport that I ask for provision to minimise this disruption.
We are all conscious of the number of demonstrations in London, if only because of the frequency with which Parliament is besieged by mass lobbies, but that is only a small part of it. To give another example, which I know well, I shall refer to Brighton. Scarcely a week goes by without a procession or public assembly. Brighton is vulnerable to these processions because the main thoroughfare, Western Road and North Street, which runs parallel to the coast, is most frequently chosen by organisers of processions. Because it is a focal point, 90 per cent. of the local buses also use the route—60 an hour in each direction. Yet other buses have to cross these roads. The processions may be fun for those taking part and for passers-by, but they are frustrating for the people in the buses, who may be delayed for up to 20 minutes while the walking road blocks make their way through.
It is no exaggeraion to say that bus services are thrown into chaos on some occasions. However, when there is advance warning, some rerouting and alteration to bus services can be achieved to the general benefit of the public. Without warning, the bus operators can do nothing. Surely Brighton's 46 million-plus bus passengers are entitled to out consideration.
It is the same all over Britain, but the hope of free media coverage is a great spur to demonstrators to advertise their cause without cost to themselves and without regard to its value to the community as a whole. As I reminded your Lordships at Second Reading, there are in all 6,200 million bus passengers every year and they are particular sufferers from the activities of a minute fraction of this number who become involved in public processions—often just for the fun of it. As was stressed in the White Paper Review of Public Order Law (Cmnd. 9510), it is all a question of balance. Most people agree that the right to demonstrate is a safety valve and is not lightly to be taken away, but we have to find ways of reducing to minimum the inconvenience caused to the great majority.
Again at Second Reading one was at some pains to stress co-operation by the police with others affected by demonstrations. Even so—and it is not always the case—the sooner bus companies receive information regarding a procession on their bus routes, the more they can do to reduce the disruption caused to their passengers.
We take our buses for granted when they run to schedule—the same thing goes for trains—and either complain vociferously or with silent resignation if they do not. Few ever give a thought for the art of the scheduling clerks who make our complex city services possible. Like most things in life, the end product is taken for granted with scant consideration for the complexity lying behind its production. I would assure your Lordships that it is a considerable skill to prepare bus schedules, and this is actually underlined by the problems which occur when just one bit of the schedule goes wrong. When we have a demonstration a large part of the schedule goes wrong and our schedulers must do their best to cobble over the hole left in their network. Staff rotas—which, as the word implies, share the duties regularly between bus crews—have to be reworked; suitable alternative routes have to be established; and connections between different services have to be taken into consideration. The more time there is available to unravel and recreate the schedules, the better it will be for the travelling public.
It is for this reason that I ask that notice should be given at the earliest possible moment to the management of bus operators affected by a procession; otherwise we may face the problem of waiting bus queues themselves becoming riotous assemblies! Perhaps I exaggerate but I think the Committee will
see the point in that remark. Undoubtedly there is advantage in early notification to affected bus operators and it is little to ask that, while notification is given to the police, the same notice should be given to the bus operator. I hope that the Committee will

471
find it is a small requirement when weighed against the interests of 6,200 million people.
At the same time, it is appropriate that this notification should be given to the Traffic Commissioner in whose area the procession takes place. The Traffic Commissioner is the disciplinary body responsible for the proper operation of authorised bus services and many other matters. If there are complaints from members of the public that there has been unreliable operation of the buses, contrary to Section 111 of the Transport Act 1985, the commissioner should know if this has been due to circumstances wholly beyond the control of the operator and caused by a public procession.
I repeat that this is a small but important amendment, intended solely to benefit the greater part of the public and to help them to view with greater sympathy the emotional, but usually unproductive, action of the lesser part.
I seek the support of the Committee, and I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to my noble friend for raising a matter of understandable concern, not least to bus operators whose services can sometimes be severely disrupted by large demonstrations. I am afraid that the Government find considerable difficulty with my noble friend's amendment. We fully acknowledge the need for bus companies to be given advance warning of demonstrations which are likely to disrupt their services, but we do not believe it is necessary to require march organisers to give notices direct to the traffic commissioners or to bus companies to achieve that result. We are, as I think my noble friend will be aware, anxious to keep the advance notice requirement as simple as possible while nevertheless making it effective.
We believe that both these aims can be achieved by requiring an organiser to give notice to the police and relying on the police to contact any other services which are likely to be affected. This would not just be the bus companies, as I believe my noble friend recognises in his second amendment, Amendment No. 53, to which he will come in due course; it could be the local authority, the ambulance service, or the gas, electricity or water boards. To require the march organiser to contact each and every agency which might be affected really would be unduly onerous. But the police are the central agency involved and it is right that they should contact other agencies when the need arises.
My noble friend seems to suggest that on occasion bus companies may not have been given adequate warning, but he does not say whether the police themselves had more information. That is the important point. If necessary, we may need to include in the circular about this Bill a reminder to the police to contact the other services likely to be disrupted by a march—in particular the bus companies. I hope that my noble friend realises that we accept that we may need to do that and I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teviot: I shall be very brief, and I shall certainly withdraw my amendment. My noble friend says that if the police had warning of demonstrations, they would pass it on to others. If there were any infringement of that, I should certainly table another amendment. That was my noble friend's second point, to which I shall return. I thank him very much for explaining it. But underlying this point—which I think is going on to my next amendment—I may say that of course, it is all right to demonstrate; and I am sure that many of those who demonstrate have a great point to make. But I believe that they should be aware that others may be inconvenienced. For example, in travelling by public transport, when one has allowed oneself, say, an hour to get from one place to another or perhaps even half an hour, one can find that, totally without warning, the journey time stretches to perhaps two hours because one has to take a most circuitous route because of a demonstration. But I shall not delay the Committee any longer and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 19, after ("delivered") insert ("to a police station").
The noble Lord said: Since putting down this amendment, I have had an exchange of letters with the Minister and I no longer need to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Gifford: I have held my peace during discussions on the amendment to this clause because I thought it neither proper nor practicable nor principled to tinker about with Clause 11. I find Clause 11, the requirement that a citizen is to give notice to the police if he or she wishes to exercise in a group the right of passing down the highway, to be absolutely repugnant. Unless there are compelling reasons why it is necessary, we should not allow it. I speak as someone who has been involved in organising a great number of marches and demonstrations, some of which, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot might like to know, achieve a lot of points and a lot of purpose. I recall once organising 15 in a week when the dictator of Portugal, Mr. Caetano, visited Britain. His visit was a fiasco; and nine months later he was booted out of office. I do not say that it was because of demonstrations but they certainly underlined the unpopularity of that regime.
There are two main kinds of processions which will be caught by this clause. The first kind is the large, well-organised procession which relies on attracting as many people as possible in order to make it a success. Those processions nearly always are organised in collaboration with the police, and even if they are not the police are in no way disadvantaged if they were not told about the procession because they are advertised in the newspapers and in the political press, which the police clearly study and will continue to study, in order

473
to keep themselves informed on what is going on. I have not heard of any inconvenience caused to the maintenance by the police of order by the absence in the present law of any requirement for notice of that kind of well-planned demonstration which is organised weeks, and sometimes months, in advance.
The second kind of procession is one which is held at short notice in an impromptu way by a smaller gathering of people in order to make their protest or their point about something about which they feel concerned. Sometimes, the reason for such impromptu, short-notice processions will have occurred only very recently; for instance, if there is the death of a popular figure. I recall organising a procession to a foreign embassy after the assassination of the leader of a liberation movement when many people were very grieved and wanted to express that grief. Sometimes the reason for the procession will have been in existence for many weeks but the impetus to organise the procession will have emerged only shortly before it is to take place.
For instance, it may be known that a local authority is to debate a certain issue at a certain time or that a local employer is to make his workforce redundant. But it is only when people come together in a meeting that they decide that they want to make their protests by walking, either there and then or the next day or in three days' time, to the place where this is to take place—to the town hall or to the factory. Sometimes it is a political event. The bombing of Libya was followed about three days later, the next week-end, by a major procession down Oxford Street.
Let us see how the Bill impinges on those kinds of impromptu processions. First of all, the Bill says:
"Written notice shall be given … unless it is not reasonably practicable to give any advance notice of the procession".
It will nearly always be practicable to give some advance notice even if a demonstration is to be organised, let us say, on the following day. It can be argued, and with force, that it is perfectly practicable to deliver the requisite notice to the police station in the evening of the day upon which the decision is made. Therefore, the occasions on which the requirement for notice can be completely dispensed with are going to be rare.
What form does this notice have to take? It has to be in writing. There is nothing in the Bill which allows the requirement to be dispensed with by, for instance, ringing up the police station. The telephone appears not to have been invented for the purposes of this clause. The notice has to be in writing and it has to stipulate, in accordance with subsection (3), a lot of details. It may be easy for someone who is advised by my noble friend Lord Mishcon to comply with that, but it is not people who are regularly advised by solicitors who want to organise demonstrations. On many occasions they will not know the law and, even if they do, they will not know its detail; and unless there is some overriding reason, why should they be told that they are committing a criminal offence unless they get it right as to the route of the procession, the time of the start, the name and address of the organiser, and so on?
If the provision for notice is not complied with and if no notice is received by the police and they observe,
474
or are told about, a group of people processing down the street, what is then the situation? It is then for the police to decide whether in their view it has been reasonably practicable to give notice. Let us say they take the view, probably on inadequate evidence, that they could have been told about this and therefore it is an illegal procession. The organisers are therefore committing a criminal offence and all those who take part in it—provided they have some knowledge of the lack of notice—will be taken to be aiding and abetting that criminal offence.
The user of the highway, which normally is completely open to those who want to pass down it, will become an illegal user, and although there is no power of arrest for the actual criminal offence specified in the clause there is a power of arrest for obstructing the highway. Obstruction of the highway is caused by any illegal user of the highway, and the police will be within their rights to arrest all the people proceeding down that highway, at any rate if they express the intention of continuing with their march. Therefore the police are in the position of having to decide on those criteria whether or not effectively to ban or to stop a group of people walking down a street.
Do we really want to give that sort of power to the police—the power to judge whether, for instance, the procession in which I took part after the Libyan bombing ought to have been notified to the police because there were one or two days between the bombing and the procession in which that could have been done? I do not believe that we should thrust upon the police that discretion. The judgment that needs to be made is not one we would normally want the police to be making in the course of their important duties.
Of course, if everyone is arrested it is then for the magistrates to decide whether a criminal offence has been committed; and again the issue will have to be argued in a magistrates' court months after the event, by which time the opportunity to express the protest has gone, the impetus has been lost and important freedoms of the citizen will have been interfered with. Of course, if the group that wanted to organise this impromptu protest had decided instead to organise a static protest the group would not have to give notice at all under this Bill because the requirement only affects processions, even though static protests are capable of causing just as much, if not more, obstruction than a moving protest which moves down the highway.
Why is this? We look at the White Paper to find out, and in paragraph 5.4 of the White Paper we find the reasons why it has been thought not to be proper to impose this requirement upon static assemblies, pickets and the like. The Government said this:
"Discussion of an advance notice requirement has made it clear that it would produce much unnecessary work for the police to little purpose. There is no legal definition of a static demonstration: an assembly covers the whole range of public gatherings, from political rallies to religious services and pop festivals to football matches. The Government has considered possible definitions based on the nature of an assembly, or its likely size; but it has not proved possible to devise a definition which restricts the category to those events of interest to the police. An advance notice requirement would therefore inundate the police with notifications of perfectly peaceful meetings. The administrative burden would far outweigh the information gain."
We therefore learn that this requirement is being imposed upon processions, not because there is some

475
overriding necessity for the police to be informed in advance in order to make their dispositions, but because it happens to be in the Government's view not administratively inconvenient for the police to be told about processions, but it is administratively inconvenient to be told about meetings. This is an argument not of principle, but of expediency
I suggest that we regard infringements of basic rights of protest and of freedom to move down the highway as matters of principle. One therefore has then to see whether there is anything about a procession down the street, as opposed to static assembly, which makes it so much more necessary for the police to be informed in advance. I suggest to the Committee that there is not. There is no overriding reason. In fact, if a group of people is seen to be proceeding down the street in a disorderly manner, the police are likely to be told very quickly and to come on the scene. I have certainly organised marches to embassies on this sort of occasion. I have sometimes not bothered to tell the police, because there has not been very much time and there is always a police officer there anyway, because the word has got around. It is usually known that the issue is a serious one and one then liaises on the spot.
What then are the reasons for this clause? The Government will no doubt pray in aid the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and I am sorry that he is not in his place tonight. It is true that in the Brixton Report he said that he was persuaded of the need to give notice, and because of the importance of that, which may well be relied on, I should like to quote some words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, on an earlier occasion when he reported on the Red Lion Square disorders. He said this of the requirement for notice:
"I do not think the need for it has been established and it does present really insuperable difficulty for the urgently called demonstration. Certainly, the lack of any such requirement played no part in the causation of these disorders, for the police had all the notice they needed. In the few instances where no notification is given, the police have so far experienced no difficulty in finding out that a demonstration is planned. An effective demonstration needs a degree of advance publicity. The police therefore are seldom ignorant of what is planned. I do not therefore recommend this change in the law."
That is why one hoped that the noble and learned Lord would have been here, to see whether we could change his mind back again to the view that he had in 1978. A requirement of this kind comes perilously close to giving the police a power to licence the holding of processions down the highway when one couples this with the power given in the next clause to impose conditions, because that will immediately come into play when notice has been given.
The only point of any substance that has been made in the debate so far is that made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, about the kind of processions organised by the National Front. We must hesitate long before allowing the actions of an organisation like the National Front to be used as the pretext, or the excuse, for infringing basic liberties which have stood for many centuries to use the highway for public procession. It is, I suggest, a dangerous argument.
I am quite sure that the National Front and other organisations of that kind would wish to make a virtue of not giving notice of the sort of marches to which the
476
noble Lord the Minister referred. They would wish to make a virtue of being accused of holding an illegal march. They will not be deterred by a £400 fine nor coerced in that way into giving notice to the police. Those organisations are exactly the kind of organisations that would defy a law such as this. Therefore this is a serious clause. I oppose it absolutely and that is why I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Motion, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Earl of Halsbury: One man's freedom for some particular action and its reconciliation from some other man's freedom from that particular action is what government is all about. A point of view which refuses to recognise that reconciliation is necessary is, I think, naive and superficial. That condemnation I would apply to the arguments deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. I shall vote that Clause 11 stand part of the Bill and I hope that noble Lords will do so too.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: What the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, failed to mention is that advance notice of processions is already required in some 92 local authority areas in Engalnd and Wales, by virtue of local Acts. I have not heard it suggested before that these existing provisions constitute some terrible infringement of civil liberties in the way the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, seems to feel that Clause 11 does. There is also a national advance notice requirement in Scotland, which I understand works well. So there is nothing unprecedented whatsoever about Clause 11. Where advance notice provisions already exist, they have none of the untoward side effects which the noble Lord seems to think would exist if Clause 11 were on the statute book.
The Home Affairs Committee of another place recommended that there should be a national advance notice requirement. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in his report on the Brixton riots also recognised the need for such a provision and the majority of commentators on the Green Paper were in favour. So there is really a great deal of support for the proposal.
The arguments in favour of advance notice were well described by the Select Committee. It should help to encourage discussion between the police and organisers, to agree the ground rules well in advance and reduce the need for the police to exercise more formal powers. It would underline for the organisers their responsibilities for the safety and good behaviour of their supporters. Thirdly, as the Select Committee puts it:
"It is obvious that although the police may come to know of intended marches, additional expense and pressure on a public service might be reduced if a reasonable period of notice and full details as to expected numbers and the like were given. There is an element both absurd and slightly sinister in the police of a democratic country having to resort to chance and intelligence in order to obtain knowledge about matters touching upon their duties to minimise traffic disruption and to preserve the peace".
The Government most certainly agree with that analysis. Of course the vast majority of responsible march organisers already discuss with the police their proposals, and they do so well in advance. Nothing in

477
the Bill will discourage that in any way whatsoever. But there are some who deliberately avoid giving details of their proposed marches. I have already given the example of the National Front which has taken to concealing its plans from the police in order to avoid banning orders. I really do feel that it is a rather astounding suggestion of noble Lords that the National Front or anybody else might defy the law should this particular clause remain part of the Bill. That surely is a rather terrible thing to suggest that anybody should do. The law is the law and must be upheld wherever and whatever it is.
On Tameside some years ago the Troops Out Movement and the National Front both decided to hold marches. Troops Out refused to disclose to the police any information about the route or the time of its march. In the event, the march passed off peacefully, but the police had to deploy much larger numbers of policemen than they would have done with better information. In Staffordshire last year the March for Jobs caused similar problems. No notice was given to the police of the route for the march. In consequence, larger numbers of policemen had to be deployed in order to keep open a number of alternative routes.
No one is in any sense criticising the value that people attach to particular causes. That is not at issue. What is at issue is the fact that the police had to deploy large numbers of men because notice had not been given of what was intended to take place, where it was to take place, and in what detail. In neither case would the civil liberties of the organisers have been infringed by giving the police advance notice of their proposed route.
The police will not be in the position of giving permission for a march to be held. I thought from what the noble Lord said that he was under the impression that they would be. That is quite wrong. The elements of Clause 11 are qualified, as the noble Lord himself confessed when towards the end of his speech he referred to the conditions imposed by Clause 12 and the prohibition on public processions in Clause 13, both of which are amply described in the need to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of a community; or intimidation in the case of Clause 12.
If advance notice is not given in accordance with Clause 11, the organisers may be liable to prosecution. But the march itself cannot be stopped. Marches can only be banned under the special procedure in Clause 13, which I have briefly described. Nor is the failure to give advance notice a reason for imposing conditions. This can only happen if one of the four tests in Clause 12 is satisfied. So the advance notice requirement is not a serious infringement of civil liberties. It is no more than a useful regulatory measure designed to encourage discussions between organisers and the police, to their mutual benefit. I should have thought that would give practical effect to the need for balance which was described by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
I am surprised at the suggestion made by the noble Lord that the requirement does not recognise the need to provide an exception for marches arranged at short notice. I thought I had made clear earlier that Clause 11(1) provides for just that. If it is not reasonably
478
practicable to give notice because a march is spontaneous, then none need be given. I do not know how short the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is in arranging the marches which he has organised in the past, or whether he proposes to organise them more shortly in the future—that I cannot tell—but if a march is called at short notice then the organisers need only give such notice as they can reasonably manage in the time available. I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of the noble Lord opposite to walk into a police station and fill in the form, or whatever, to say precisely what is proposed. Surely that is not too much to ask—and he would have complied with Clause 11.
We have done our best to minimise the impact of the requirement. There is no requirement to give advance notice for the organisers of processions which are commonly or customarily held, and I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that I would look at the particular question of weddings. Regular events such as May Day parades, and so on, will be exempt. We amended the clause in another place to enable the organisers to give advance notice by post rather than have to take it by hand to the police station. As I said, for the march organised at short notice the obligation is only to give such notice as is reasonably practicable.
In the light of all this I find it difficult to accept that Clause 11 is in any sense a serious infringement of civil liberty or represents any threat to peaceful and lawful marches. It is a useful regulatory measure designed to encourage early discussions between organisers and the police to the benefit of both. On that basis I hope that your Lordships will agree that Clause 11 should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

Dyfed Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before ten o'clock.

  FAMILY DISPUTES: NEW ZEALAND STATISTICS
  FAMILY DISPUTES: NEW ZEALAND STATISTICS
  FAMILY AND DOMESTIC JURISDICTION: REVIEW
  FAMILY AND DOMESTIC JURISDICTION: REVIEW
  WASTE MANAGEMENT: ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT
  WASTE MANAGEMENT: ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT
  DOG LICENSING
  DOG LICENSING
  CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT: RADIOACTIVITY LEVELS REPORT
  CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT: RADIOACTIVITY LEVELS REPORT
  NORFOLK BROADS: PROPOSED LEGISLATION
  NORFOLK BROADS: PROPOSED LEGISLATION
  ENTERPRISE ZONES: CONTINUATION OF PLANNING PERMISSIONS
  ENTERPRISE ZONES: CONTINUATION OF PLANNING PERMISSIONS
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE: SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE: SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT
  STANSTED AIRPORT: RAIL LINK
  STANSTED AIRPORT: RAIL LINK
  AIRPORTS ACT 1986: IMPLEMENTATION
  AIRPORTS ACT 1986: IMPLEMENTATION
  GIBRALTAR SHIPREPAIR LIMITED: AID GRANT
  GIBRALTAR SHIPREPAIR LIMITED: AID GRANT
  MARINE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
  MARINE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
  SEED AND PLANT RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS: PRIVATISATION
  SEED AND PLANT RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS: PRIVATISATION
  MEDIA AND THE GOVERNMENT: RELATIONSHIP STUDIES
  MEDIA AND THE GOVERNMENT: RELATIONSHIP STUDIES
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS: STORAGE
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS: STORAGE
  SHEEP: MOVEMENT AND SLAUGHTER CONTROLS
  SHEEP: MOVEMENT AND SLAUGHTER CONTROLS