Sitting of 13 June 1986

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

  Enterprise and Deregulation
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
  9.35 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): I welcome this opportunity to discuss enterprise and deregulation. To my knowledge, this is the first occasion on which the House has debated these subjects together. The debate shows the priority which the Government attach to encouraging enterprise and removing unnecessary regulations and it is particularly appropriate following the recent publication of the White Paper "Building Businesses … Not Barriers".
  I am particularly pleased to be taking part in this debate because of my own involvement within the Government in enterprise and deregulation. I have been the Minister responsible for small firms for three years now, both at the Department of Trade and Industry and now with my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment at the Department of Employment. Enterprise and deregulation are, of course, linked and in my remarks I shall show that one of the best ways to encourage enterprise is to remove unnecessary regulations, which act as barriers to business success and the creation of more jobs. The Government have acted consistently to create favourable conditions for enterprise, through our economic and other policies. We have also taken action to reduce barriers to business success and new jobs. As the new White Paper shows, further action is planned to remove restrictions which prevent business from providing more opportunities for enterprise and employment.
  Our policies have aimed at creating the right conditions for enterprise and growth, and the attack on inflation has been rewarded with the lowest level of price increases since 1968. Competitiveness has been improved and the labour market made more flexible. The benefits of this strategy have been seen in a sustained period of growth with increases in manufacturing investment, exports and the creation of new jobs.
  We intend to continue this process. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General told the House last week, it is important that we keep our industry competitive by keeping unit wage costs down, improving further the working of the labour market—linking pay with performance, improving training for both young people and adults, and encouraging business and enterprise of all kinds.
  In addition to squeezing inflation out of the economy, the Government have taken a wide range of action to free markets and to remove unnecessary obstacles. On coming into office in 1979 the Government took early action to
  666
  remove controls on foreign exchange, hire purchase, dividends and bank lending. We have also liberalised markets in telecommunications, bus and air services. Privatisation has encouraged wider share ownership and improved business understanding in the economy.
  We have cut down bureaucracy in reducing the number of forms and statistical inquiries sent to businesses, and more recently we have produced two White Papers on removing controls which are a burden on business and act as a brake on enterprise. Our aim has been to reduce the time and resources that people in business are obliged to spend in meeting the requirements of Government Departments. Time spent filling in a form or writing to a Government Department could more profitably be spent in running the business, generating products, services or sales.
  "Building Businesses … Not Barriers" contains a balanced series of steps, some admittedly modest, which are intended to help enterprise and employment. It also shows the action that the Government have taken to follow up the proposals in "Lifting the Burden" which was published last year. "Building Businesses … Not Barriers" also marks a first for the Department of Employment in that my right hon. Friend has included for the first time the objectives of the Department. These set the proposals on deregulation in the wider context of the Government's objectives for employment and enterprise.
  The White Paper reflects our balanced approach to deregulation. We still need regulations — every society does. We must ensure proper protection for employees and consumers and the environment. The Government do not want to see a free-for-all where the strong exploit the weak. As my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State has said, the line between liberty and licence is a fine one. Where controls are necessary, they will be retained.
  The new White Paper also describes the new arrangements that have been established within the Government to pursue deregulation: there is the small central task force on deregulation, known as the enterprise and deregulation unit, based at the Department of Employment and including staff on secondment from other Departments or the private sector; there are the deregulation units in all Departments reporting direct to a Minister with responsibility for reducing burdens on business; and there is a new system to assess the cost to business of complying with new regulatory proposals.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham rose——
  Mr. Trippier: I shall give way to my hon. Friend when I finish this point, because it will particularly interest him, with his concern for small firms. An advisory panel on deregulation, which is a group of nine small business men, has recently been appointed to advise on the problems of deregulation in the real world.
  Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is a deregulation unit reporting to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who introduced a Bill on Wednesday night that calls on businesses to keep records for as long as 15 years? That seems an excessively long period when the EEC is looking only for 10 years. Will my hon. Friend comment on that burden on business?
  Mr. Trippier: Now that my hon. Friend has raised that point, I am under a moral obligation to look at it carefully. I was not aware of the provision introduced by my hon.

  667
  and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, but I shall look at the matter further and come back to my hon. Friend on it next week.
  "Building Businesses … Not Barriers" contains some 80 proposals for action to reduce burdens on business. I shall not attempt to explain them all in detail, or even to list them, but it is worth picking out some of the main proposals which meet important concerns of business.
  The Government's aim is to make it easier to construct or alter business premises, and the White Paper includes measures to remove from the planning system altogether developments and changes of use that cause no harm to the environment and do not therefore need to be subject to specific controls. My right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be announcing on Monday the detailed proposals for changes in the use classes order. These and other planning proposals are being taken forward in consultation with business, the planning authorities and other interested groups.
  Taxation — whether through Customs and Excise or the Inland Revenue — is a major preoccupation of business and the White Paper makes a number of important proposals to help enterprise.
  The major review of VAT and small business will provide an opportunity to identify precisely the problems being encountered by businesses with the working of VAT regulations, and suggest means to alleviate them. This will be a wide-ranging review, but it will look in particular at the possibility of cash accounting for VAT, annual VAT returns with a possible instalment system of payments and the special schemes for retailers. I know that these are matters of concern to small businesses. The recently introduced VAT penalties will also be the subject of a separate review.
  On the Inland Revenue side, we will be modernising the PAYE form P35 which is used for end of year pay summaries and looking further at form P11D on payment of expenses and benefits in kind.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a broad and widely held feeling among small businesses that the Inland Revenue in particular is adopting an unhelpful attitude to small business? I am inundated with letters from small businesses, which seem to have suffered considerably at the hands of the Inland Revenue, which is taking action against them that is unnecessary and damaging to their continued existence.
  Mr. Trippier: That is why we think we should review this matter, and the Department of Employment has made representations to the Treasury on that point, which will be reviewed. My mail bag is heavy with complaints about Customs and Excise, but I have some sympathy with its proposals.
  The evidence of the Keith committee showed that two thirds of those liable to pay VAT were paying late. I do not see that any right hon. or hon. Gentleman could possibly countenance that, because if we were to allow it to continue it would discriminate against those who were paying on time. The penalties introduced by Customs and Excise for the late payment of VAT are not particularly onerous. People are given two opportunities to delay payment, and on the third occasion Customs and Excise imposes its penalties. All that said, the Treasury has given
  668
  us the undertaking that it will review both matters, and I would have thought that that would be welcomed by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Have my hon. Friend's representations to the Treasury included—or will they include—finding an easier test of self-employment and enabling it to be possible for people to be self-employed without being harassed by the Inland Revenue, which has been the experience of many in our constituencies?
  Mr. Trippier: That point concerns me in my role as Minister with responsibility for small firms, and I am aware of the ten-minute Bill that was recently introduced by my hon. Friend. Again we have made representations to the Treasury and it has undertaken that, wherever possible, it will explore the progress that can be made to make it more easily discernible as to who is self-employed and who is not. I hope that that will, to a large extent, meet the point.
  The White Paper also includes some further proposals to reduce the burden on employers of employment legislation. It has, of course, been said on the Labour Benches that the Government have dismantled the system of rights that we inherited. This is of course absurd. There is in this, as in all matters concerned with employment protection, a balance to be achieved between safeguarding the rights of employees and the encouragement of employment opportunities. The proposals in the White Paper are intended to modernise the system of employment rights to meet the present-day patterns of employment and in particular to encourage the provision of part-time jobs, which are much in demand. Those who say that we have not got the balance right should remember that employment protection legislation has never created jobs.
  Mr. John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman believes that employment protection has not created jobs, but we are concerned about employment protection rights. What jobs are created, and what help is given to small businesses, by providing for the payment of a deposit by people who wish to go to a tribunal to appeal against unfair dismissal, and restricting yet again the rights of pregnant women to return to work?
  Mr. Trippier: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the proposals in the latest White Paper are open to discussion. He will be aware that in the Committee debating the Wages Bill we spent a considerable amount of time saying that it was seen by employers to be a considerable burden, when, from memory, 75 per cent. of claims were settled outside the tribunal. It is seen not only as a cost, but as something of a harassment to those who are concerned about whether they would be taken to an industrial tribunal at a disproportionate cost. That militates against increasing the number of people they employ. Some employers believe that it is not worth having the hassle, trouble and cost of employing people, and rather than make that decision they avoid it and keep the work force at its present level.
  Mr. Prescott: I understand what the Minister is saying. Does he mean that, whatever the justification for the unfair dismissal case, the deposit is to be a deterrent to people going to the tribunal? Presumably that is the case because fewer will go to the tribunal and that will be less of a deterrent to the employer to take people on. What about justice?
  Mr. Trippier: There will be a reduction in the number of people who might be trying it on taking cases to an industrial tribunal. It has to be made clear, as it was in the White Paper, that the deposit is returnable if the industrial tribunal upholds the case brought by the employee. The White Paper is also a consultation document, and we invited comments from both trade unions and employers' organisations.
  Mr. William Cash: Despite the intervention of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), does my hon. Friend agree that on many occasions money is paid into court? That is well understood by litigants and other people, and in many respects this proposal does not depart from the normal state of affairs.
  Mr. Trippier: That is right. I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention.
  Our proposals on health and safety are based on the report of a special study to see whether the law on health and safety at work and its administration causes difficulties for employers, especially small ones. I am glad to say that the study revealed that the great majority of firms contacted had a strong commitment to health and safety. [Interruption] If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) would pay attention, he might welcome what I have just said. It is worth repeating, because I think that he would agree with me about it. The study revealed that the great majority of firms contacted had a strong commitment to health and safety. That commitment is shared by the Government and, as we said in "Lifting the Burden", we have no intention of lowering standards or of removing the necessary protection. We want to ensure that health and safety controls are practicable and as clearly understood by employers as possible. We are keen to improve consultation on new proposals and intend that paperwork or administrative arrangements which do not have practical benefits should be removed.
  Mr. Prescott: I should like to make a point about health and safety. All hon. Members agree that standards of health and safety have improved since the setting up of the Health and Safety Commission. If the Minister looks at the evidence, he will see that accidents in the construction industry and in manufacturing industry have increased considerably in the last two or three years, coincidental with the reduction in the number of health and safety inspectors and the relaxation by the Government of some of the regulations.
  Mr. Trippier: I do not think that the increase in accidents is related to the reduction in the number of inspectors. It is a cause of anxiety to me that there has been an increase in the number of accidents in the construction industry. I can meet the point made by the hon. Gentleman by telling him that I am more concerned about simplifying the regulations than about deregulation.
  When I assumed my new responsibilities for health and safety and combined them with other responsibilities for relatively small firms, I asked for all the leaflets that we were sending out to employers to be brought in the Department. From memory, the number of leaflets was 71. Perhaps we are mad enough to assume that all employers read these leaflets. I found some or the leaflets extremely difficult to understand, and I think that the hon. Member
  670
  for Kingston upon Hull, East, and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), would also find them difficult to understand. There is a case for repackaging some of these leaflets and for simplification, and that is one of my tasks in the Department of Employment.
  If one looks at a pamphlet that one expects an employer to read, one might ask oneself whether the pamphlet is necessary. That might lead us down the track of asking whether the regulation itself is necessary. We ought to concentrate on the matter to see whether we can deregulate, but simplification must come first, and the Opposition ought to welcome that.
  Mr. Prescott: What about reducing accidents first?
  Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman has a valid point and I am trying to meet it. I would love to show him some of the pamphlets that I examined. They are so full of verbiage, perhaps parliamentary language, and certainly legalese, that in most cases they would confuse the very people whom we are seeking to encourage. If we can simplify them and make them more easily understood, we would get increased compliance.
  There are, of course, proposals on other subjects, such as company law, exports, transport and agriculture, and general proposals on licences, communications between the Government and business and on dealing with European Community regulations.
  We are anxious to help those in business to get on with their job with a minimum of interference. It is the cumulative effect of regulations that places burdens on businesses, and especially on smaller businesses such as the owner-managed concern. The regulations which must be encountered when moving premises, or when the business grows so that it must register for VAT, or, most important, when the business man or woman wants to take on an employee, can mean that the business simply does not bother. The business does not grow and valuable opportunities for enterprise and employment are lost.
  We aim to remove some of the mystery from setting up in business by removing some of the complications so that more people see running their own business as an attainable rather than a remote goal. We are also anxious to encourage people to go into self-employment, to work for themselves and their families.
  There has been an encouraging expansion in the number of small businesses and self-employment and in the number of jobs being created in the United Kingdom. There was a net increase of 130,000 new businesses in the last three years for which figures are available. After declining steadily in the 1970s, the number of people in self-employment has increased to 2·6 million, the highest level for 60 years and representing 11 per cent. of the employed labour force.
  The Government are keen to encourage small business and self-employment, while it seems — in fact I am certain — that the Labour party did not even mention small businesses in either of its last two manifestos. We are not concerned only with small businesses because we want to see enterprise succeed throughout the economy. Certainly we do not want to place any restrictions on small businesses to stop them from becoming large ones.
  Mr. Peter Snape: There are record bankruptcies.
  Mr. Trippier: There are also record start-ups, and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and his hon. Friends should remember that the net increase in small businesses is the highest in recorded history.
  Mr. Prescott: Not established businesses.
  Mr. Snape: I do not envy the Minister his task of having to read that dross. Since his Government came to power in 1979, 83 companies in the borough of Sandwell, each of which normally employed more than 100 people, have closed. The result is that 25,000 people have been thrown out of work. That is just one borough in the west midlands. Let us have less complacent nonsense and more action from the Minister.
  Mr. Trippier: As an example of my interest in Sandwell, not long ago I opened the enterprise agency there. We are well aware that larger firms have shed labour. No one has a monopoly of compassion for people who, tragically, have found their way on to the dole queue. The Opposition assume that it is the largest companies that will increase their share of the labour market. They will not, and the major reasons for the shedding of labour in Sandwell and elsewhere are increased productivity per man and high technology. Sandwell has one of the best enterprise agencies in Britain, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and the enterprise agency. The agency will stimulate the growth of small firms and encourage people who have never in the past considered self-employment as an option to become self-employed. Instead of being so negative about the things that are going on in his constituency, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East should be much more positive.
  Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that in Japan and the United States, where enterprise and small businesses flourish to a great extent, 50 per cent. of all businesses fail? That shows that the failure and bankruptcy rates do not necessarily suggest that America and Japan are not enterprising. Quite the opposite is the case, because those are the most enterprising countries in the world.
  Mr. Trippier: There is another major difference between the United States and Britain. It is that firms that fail in the United States set up again very quickly. In Britain there seems to be something of a social stigma attached to firms that go down, whereas in the United States it is seen as part of the education process and the people who, unfortunately, go into liquidation learn from their mistakes. They have little or no difficulty in getting a second loan from the bank or in getting Government assistance. When a firm goes down in Britain, it is difficult for it to get a loan from the bank to start up again.
  The rate of survival and growth is that much better here than in the United States. Although many people refer to the one in three failure rate over three years, saying that two out of three businesses succeed shows an encouraging record. It is a matter of saying whether the glass is half empty or half full. It is my main responsibility to ensure that the survival rate increases, but we want there to be growth and development as well. My hon. Friend's intervention met that point head on.
  Mr. Prescott: I do not even understand it.
  Mr. Trippier: Well, my hon. Friend knows more about enterprise now than the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will ever know.
  Mr. Prescott: When comparing the success rates of companies, we must consider their character and that of those that are collapsing. New companies might employ only one or two employees, but the ones that are collapsing are probably established. They are altogether a much more serious proposition and are being replaced by small companies which are highly likely to fail.
  Mr. Trippier: I must try to convince the hon. Gentleman otherwise. Unemployment in my consitituency reached 19·1 per cent. in the early 1980s — that is Rossendale alone, and not including the Accrington part of the travel-to-work area. We have now managed to get unemployment down to 13 per cent., which I accept is still far far too high, only through growth and the generation of small firms. All the evidence shows that we shall have growth in employment and a reduction in the unacceptable level of unemployment only through small firms.
  I have not met one person in the past three years during which I have had responsibility for small firms who believes that large firms will increase their share of the labour market. The official Opposition should be aware that they will kid nobody at the next general election if they try to convince the electorate that large firms will take on more people. All the international and national evidence contradicts that view.
  Mr. Thurnham: Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the nationalisation that Britain has suffered? Does he not think it surprising that the Opposition are not joining us in pressing for more privatisation immediately?
  Mr. Trippier: Absolutely. The record of denationalisation proposals shows the success of the Government's policies. The difference between the official Opposition and us is that they see the future in terms of Government interference, whereas we believe that we should stand back. If we are to stand back, however, we should take with us an awful lot of the paraphernalia, by which I mean regulation and red tape, which successive Governments have slapped on the statute book. It is one thing to say that we should stand back, but entirely another to say that we should stand back and take with us much of the red tape which is acting as a brake on enterprise.
  There are many signs of successful enterprise in the economy. Since its inception in 1980, the unlisted securities market has seen 443 companies raise£750 million. The United Kingdom is creating more jobs than any other European country, more than 1 million new jobs being created since the spring of 1983.
  Mr. John McWilliam: When talking about creating new jobs, will the Minister be clear whether they are full-time or part-time?
  Mr. Trippier: That question has been asked often. The hon. Gentleman does a great disservice to people in part-time jobs — he is rubbishing the work that they are doing. He is aware that unemployment remains stubbornly high because more young people are coming on to the job market than there are people reaching retirement age, and because more women are looking for work outside the home. That makes our task that much more difficult. The evidence shows that there is an increasing number of jobs in the small firms sector and that the vast majority of them are real.
  We are also witnessing the development of new business opportunities with substantial employment potential in

  673
  the leisure and tourist sectors. Tourism is Britain's biggest growth industry, accounting for £13 billion worth of business each year and employing almost 1·5 million people. New jobs in tourism are being created at the rate of 50,000 each year, and there is scope for substantial further growth. There is nothing more annoying to those who work in the tourist industry than to hear Opposition Members say that theirs are not real jobs. Where employment provides a living it is real enough. Tourism is a major industry, and a very successful one.
  The Government have been supporting enterprise throughout the economy through our broader economic policies and in practical terms through schemes of assistance and advice to businesses large and small. The loan guarantee scheme provides an important source of funds for companies which need to raise up to£75,000. The scheme has been extended for three years as a result of a Budget measure, and the premium has been reduced to2·5 per cent., which is 1·75 per cent. net. Because interest rates are so low, and because of the reduced premium, the scheme is cheaper now than it has ever been. It has been very successful in creating many new jobs at a net cost of£700 each. This bears favourable comparison with many other schemes for which the Government are responsible.
  The business expansion scheme has also been successful. It has helped more than 700 companies to raise more than£100 million. It has been extended and is now targeted towards businesses with special potential for job creation.
  The enterprise allowance scheme has helped more than 150,000 people to set up their own businesses. A recent survey which we commissioned shows that, for every 100 businesses which have survived for three years, 99 additional jobs have been created. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, we will have 100,000 places by the end of the current year. The scheme has helped many people, and two out of three of the businesses that have been set up have succeeded. That is a real attempt at job creation and self-employment.
  Financial assistance for enterprise in innovation and exports is also available from the Department of Trade and Industry's support for innovation schemes and the British Overseas Trade Board. The Government also provide advice and guidance to businesses through the small firms service of my Department, which has doubled in size during the past three years. It is a service of which I am extremely proud. We have also launched the regional enterprise units, which are another way in which to have a presence at regional level and get away from Westminster.
  The Government also help business through their own purchases. Government contracts offer many valuable business opportunities for small firms. Departments place contracts worth more than£14 billion each year with that in mind. I am pleased to launch formally today a new Prestel information system which will complement the booklet "Tendering for Government Contracts—Advice For Small Firms". It provides detailed information on tendering procedures, the products purchased and who to contact. Initially, the information covers three Departments — the Ministry of Defence, the Crown Suppliers and Her Majesty's Stationery Office, but I intend to expand it to cover more Departments as soon as possible.
  The Government also have a substantial commitment to training—both to skills training and training for
  674
  enterprise, and to equipping people with the skills required for enterprise and employment The two-year YTS will cost almost£1 billion in 1986–87, and we arc also increasing our commitment to adult training with around 800,000 training starts planned at a cost of£270 million in 1986–87, as well as 60,000 places on the training for enterprise programme in 1986–87. The revised enterprise allowance scheme contains a new management training scheme that I have introduced to help new businesses to survive and grow.
  The Government are also helping the long-term unemployed through the restart and job start schemes and support for job clubs. The community programme is being expanded to over 250,000 places by November.
  We are also taking action to improve the awareness of enterprise and the nature of wealth creation. There is always much talk about how to slice up the economic cake. The Government are trying to get across, particularly to young people, the factors which determine the size of the cake, and how we go about making it bigger. We are also seeking to stress that wealth creation paves the way for job creation.
  The Government are supporting Industry Year 1986, the campaign being run by the Royal Society of Arts to improve the understanding of industry and to encourage young people to take up the challenge of a career in industry. Our targets for Industry Year include the introduction of mini-enterprise projects in each secondary school to teach schoolchildren how business works, and to have a schools industry liaison officer in each local education authority by the end of the year. These initiatives contribute to the better understanding of business in schools and in society, and go towards creating an enterprise culture where entrepreneurship and initiative are respected and encouraged. Enterprise and education also come together in collaboration in high technology industry. The universities are realising that there is no place for the ivory tower in the modern world. There are 21 science parks already in operation, with another six under construction. Putting ideas into action creates new jobs.
  It would be wrong to conclude my remarks without referring to local enterprise agencies, although I touched on them earlier. Enterprise and new businesses are encouraged not only by central Government but by established businesses, local authorities and other organisations, through local enterprise agencies in England and Wales, involving mo -e than 4,000 companies and organisations as sponsors, and funds from both the public and private sectors.
  To assist the valuable work of the local enterprise agencies we have launched the local enterprise agency grant scheme. Our aim is to help to establish a network of viable self-supporting enterprise agencies with funding from non-Government sources. We are providing pump-priming funds for the first five years, matching other contributors pound for pound up to a maximum of£20,000. I commend those working in local enterprise agencies for the invaluable support that they provide for small businesses.
  I commend to those hon. Members who have not already seen it the leaflet entitled, "Business in the Inner Cities" which is produced by Business in the Community — the umbrella organisation responsible for helping to strengthen and develop the local enterprise agency movement. That leaflet is very interesting. It covers a wide

  675
  range of projects throughout the country where established businesses have been helping others to get started. I refer to help in staff, premises and advice. I draw attention, in particular, to one of its paragraphs, which states:
  "The primary contribution of companies to assist the inner cities is by remaining competitive, staying in business and growing. In this way a major contribution is made to the creation of wealth and the local economy through wages, rates, taxes and indirect employment in addition to the production and sale of goods and services."
  That is true not only for the inner cities but throughout the country. Obviously the economy as a whole is vital in the encouragement of enterprise, and that is perhaps our overriding concern, but the Government also have other responsibilities. We have a responsibility to allow businesses to grow and expand and to stop people from being prisoners of their in-trays, so that they can get on with doing the job.
  I conclude by referring to the United States and to the practical example of enterprise, deregulation and the creation of jobs, which is there for all to see. The United States' economy has been thriving and creating jobs—20 million jobs between 1974 and mid-1985. The United States has also been losing regulations, while Europe has gained regulations and lost more than 2 million jobs in the past decade. Within Europe, the United Kingdom has been creating jobs more rapidly than any other country. We hope that by reducing regulations further we can create the conditions to gain more jobs. Freeing the spirit of enterprise is the only way to create lasting prosperity and employment.
  10.15 am
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Listening to the Minister, one would not think that the chilling unemployment statistics published yesterday were the grim reality. That is the backdrop to this debate, despite all the ebullience of the Minister at the Dispatch box. To give him credit, he seemed to give us a Cooks tour of the enterprise initiatives introduced by the Government. However, the grim reality is that we again have an upward trend in long-term unemployment. The Government have thus failed to come to grips with the economy's problems.
  The Opposition welcome a debate on enterprise and deregulaton, because we take the subject very seriously. The Labour party very much values the notion of enterprise, but abhors unnecessary regulation, because it makes the lives of our citizens and companies more difficult.
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sheerman: I should like to continue my speech further before giving way.
  We believe that two challenges face the country in our search for the successful creation of wealth. During the past seven years the Government have failed to create that wealth. When we refer to wealth, we mean wealth for all our people.
  Those twin challenges in our search for the creation of wealth are meeting the challenges of international markets and of fast-changing technology. The country must overcome those challenges if it is to create wealth and jobs. However, there are fundamental differences of view between Labour Members and the Government over what
  676
  enterprise and deregulation mean. We believe that enterprise and deregulation should be liberating our country so that it can create that wealth. But the Government have given those twin notions a rather sinister and unique interpretation. They have come to mean not, as many of us might have thought, the liberation of our fellow citizens and their enrichment either individually or as a group, but the taking away of the fundamental rights that people have had for many years. I refer, for example, to rights such as safety and health at work, the right to a decent wage, the right to maternity leave, to trade union activity and to job security.
  Mr. Trippier: If the hon. Gentleman is serious about enterprise— and it is quite a revelation to us that the Labour party is interested in it——
  Mr. Snape: Come off it.
  Mr. Trippier: It is a revelation to us. Today is only the second time that I have heard the Opposition Front Bench say that. But if the Labour party is serious about enterprise, why did it omit to mention small businesses in its last two manifestos?
  Mr. Sheerman: The Minister had three quarters of an hour in which to make his speech, and he knows that what he said about our last two manifestos is not correct.
  The Government's interpretation of enterprise and deregulation is not what we mean when we use those words. Many of the measures supported by the Government are rather sinister. Indeed, I hope to discuss some of the aspects which are more likely to enslave our people than to set them free.
  The measures contained in the two most recent White Papers have been offered by a Government who offer precious little else to the unemployed, the employed, small businesses or the economy as a whole. The Minister's presentation was not complete, and my hon. Friend the Minister for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) drew attention to that when he intervened to refer to local enterprise in Sandwell. Since 1979 we have seen the devastation of industry throughout the country. My constituency, which was so strong in textiles, engineering and chemicals, has been devastated. Large and medium-sized firms have been devastated. This has happened because of the exchange rates that the Government have inflicted on them, as well as cripplingly high interest rates.
  Mr. Cash rose——
  Mr. Sheerman: I shall give way later.
  Companies went down like ninepins throughout the 1980s, and many companies are still facing serious difficulties. When we ask our local business men what they want, they tell us that they do not want numerous small enterprise schemes: they want a Government with a sense of direction, interest rates brought down and a stimulation of the overall economy by Government-led enterprise.
  The measures offered in the past two packages of deregulation offer precious little to most sections of our community. They are part of the Secretary of State's baggage. We know that the real power in the Department of Employment lies with the Secretary of State, Lord Young, not the House. Lord Young carts his baggage around Whitehall as he glides from No. 10 to the Department of Trade and Industry and now the Department of Employment. He cuts regulations and encourages enterprise everywhere he goes. I have no doubt

  677
  that many of those now languishing in Her Majesty's prisons cannot wait for the day when the noble Lord becomes Home Secretary and promptly sets up schemes to punish the wicked prison officers who are responsible for all the red tape and regulations, and begins to reward the enterprise of those planning or aspiring to escape.
  Only a touch of humour is allowed when talking about Lord Young, because humour plays a small part in the story of everyday regulation and entrepreneurs. The story involves people losing their jobs. Of course, the Opposition do not like us talking about job losses.
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is the Opposition.
  Mr. Sheerman: Not for very much longer.
  The Government cannot bear it when we discuss unemployment statistics. They cringe in their seats when we talk about 4 million being unemployed. The story involves people losing their jobs, often unfairly and without redress, having been stripped of the protection of wages councils. They are unable to resist environmental deterioration.
  Mr. Trippier rose——
  Mr. Sheerman: They are unable to protect their lives, even in terms of the environment, because of a lack of planning protection. People encounter serious risks at work because of the weakening of health and safety safeguards.
  Having considered carefully the Government's actions over the past year and the two White Papers entitled "Lifting the Burden on Business" and "Building Business … not Barriers", we find that the Government could be trying to do two things. First, to give them the benefit of the doubt, they could genuinely believe that their measures will help the economy and do some good. I suspect, however, that there is another deeper and more sinister motive. I believe that they understand that the sort of measures that they have introduced help to deflect attention from their total and absolute failure to tackle the fundamental problems that besiege our economy and their incapacity to begin the process of rebuilding it on firm foundations.
  We know only too well of the Government's belief in the virtues of the market. They have a profound ideological belief that merely to free market forces will free the individual and the company and bring about inevitable wealth creation. No one likes unnecessary regulation or red tape. The Opposition applaud the sweeping away of rules that have outlived their usefulness, or the eradication of regulations that make life more difficult for successful business generation. The Minister was talking to his Parliamentary Private Secretary and did not hear my last remarks. I repeat, the Opposition applaud the cutting of unnecessary red tape, but cutting through red tape is very different from doing away with rules and regulations that are often the hallmark of a civilised society, giving and ensuring rights of citizenship, employment protection, fair play and limiting the dislocation that is caused by planning abuse. We must be exceedingly careful in arriving at a balance. The Minister thinks that the Government have the balance about right, but anyone reflecting on the Government's proposals would be dubious about that claim. One person's red tape is always, or possibly, another person's personal protection.
  678
  The Government claim to be striking the balance, but we cannot agree with that. Their belief in deregulation and the market has been elevated to an article of faith. As we know, it is part of the Prime Minister's rhetoric and the ideological baggage of the Secretary of State for Employment. That is dangerous because, as a creed, it is so simplistic that it leads to ideological fixation.
  Mr. Thurnham: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will enlighten the House on the Opposition's ideological fixation on Clause Four which has been the cause of so much loss of enterprise. When does the Labour party intend to get rid of it?
  Mr. Sheerman: In pursuing Clause Four we are applauding enterprise. We believe that the rewards of enterprise should be shared among all the people, not just a few of them. I take that intervention much amiss from someone who in Committee said that we should return to sweat shops. I believe that the pursuit of Clause Four is compatible with the spirit of enterprise, but enterprise that creates wealth for all our people.
  Mr. Thurnham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has misquoted me. If he cares to refer to the Hansard report of the proceedings of the Committee on the Wages Bill, he will see that I referred to wealth shops., not sweat shops.
  Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his own speech. I presume that it will be more of the same.
  The Government's creed is dangerous because it is so ideological and simplistic that it will lead to an ideological fixation. Those who peddle it court the label "ideologue", and there is no better example in the Government than the Under-Secretary of State. The evidence of this is the single-mindedness with which the market philosophy has been presented as the saviour of the British economy. The Government can see nothing but the freedom of market forces. That doctrine continues to be presented despite all the evidence of the past seven years, the disaster that has befallen our manufacturing capacity and the testimony of the 4 million who are unemployed.
  We now have the emergence of Lord Young's review unit — the enterprise and deregulation unit. There is policing of Whitehall thinking in every Government Department to ensure that the correct ideological line is toed. That is the centrepiece of the recent and most pathetic White Paper.
  It is clear that we have a Government with an ideological fixation rather than a practical programme of measures to help British industry. We know that that is so because of the gap between the rhetoric of Ministers and the reality of what they are doing. The claims made for the proposals in their White Papers and other similar measures are pathetically over-inflated. They range from the claim of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who says that unnecessary regulation has lost 1·6 million jobs to the British economy, to the claim from other quarters of the Government that their measures will help to generate an enterprise culture and free business to create significant new wealth.
  Indeed, The Times leader of 23 May commented:
  "Even judged by such sympathetic standards, however, the upbeat presentation cannot disguise the disappointing contents of the latest deregulation White Paper."
  In similar vein, the Financial Times said:

  679
  "Micro-economic reforms are necessary but they need to go together with appropriate macroeconomic policies and to be directed towards those areas of the economy on which they will have a really significant effect."
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman has quoted from newspapers. I am sure he will have read The Times of 5 June, which contained a special report on small business. The newspaper said:
  "The Labour Party, taking the wide view in its economic policy, has yet to examine the situation at a small business level."
  I am sure The Times consulted the hon. Gentleman's party before it published the article. That article shows that the Labour party has done almost nothing to examine the question of small business, and what we have heard today has added very little to it.
  Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman does not know what is going on in the Labour party. The Labour party is, and has been, committed to the generation of small business and to helping small business and enterprise. The Labour party will present to the electorate, at the next general election, a package of policies for small business and enterprise that will be more acceptable and attractive to the electorate and the small business man than anything the Conservative party has done, will do or promises to do.
  The claims that we have heard this morning about Conservative party policies far exceed any possible achievable results. That part of the Department of Employment which the Paymaster General retains must know what a limited effect, in terms of job and wealth creation, the range of measures has. Perhaps the Paymaster General lives in a different world from most of us. Recently, he was quoted as asserting that he and the Government were doing the same things that Lord Salisbury would have done 100 years ago. I must tell the Paymaster General that the world today is different from the world in Lord Salisbury's day. This is the age of microchips and multinationals. We have lost an empire and protected markets. We are struggling to survive in a turbulent international environment against a background of rapid changing technology and with a wholly inadequate capital machine and manpower stock to compete effectively. None of the policies mentioned this morning by the Government Front Bench do anything to create that kind of base. Indeed, the Minister actually boasted about the freeing of exchange controls.
  Mr. Trippier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sheerman: No.
  The freeing of exchange controls has allowed footloose British capital to flow and to invest not in Britain, but in our competitors in other parts of the world.
  Many of the implications of the recent measures are illustrated in their effect on real workers in real industries, many of which, such as the printing and the building and construction industries, are dominated by small business. Let us consider the implications for them. Labour Members have mentioned, by way of intervention, the amazing suggestion that, in this day and age, sacked workers must pay a fee of£25 to appeal against wrongful dismissal before a tribunal. If a worker wins his case, he will get the£25 back. If he loses his case, he will lose not only his job — and all that means to persons who, in most parts of the country, have poor prospects of getting
  680
  another—but his£25. A caring Government would not come forward with such a proposal. The Minister said that is still open for negotiation, but it is appalling that it had to be mooted even in the first place.
  The qualifying period for providing detailed reasons for dismissal has been extended from six months to two years. That is another blow to workers' rights, which the Minister says does not matter. In this day and age, we must be interested in the rights of women in the workplace. Many talented women have never been allowed to use their abilities to the full—to get jobs that do justice to their talents and to be rewarded properly for those abilities. The Government have struck a further blow on working women. Until now, a firm with fewer than five employees was exempt from the obligation to allow women to return to work within 29 weeks of the birth of a child. That will be increased to apply to firms employing up to 10 employees. That is another cruel blow to the rights of women to work, to pursue a career and to return to it after they have had a child. It is a disgraceful and mean suggestion. I am surprised that the Minister supports such a measure. I see that he is not begging to intervene.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Italy all firms which employ fewer than 15 people are exempt from all regulations regarding health and safety benefits and so on? The effect has been a dramatic expansion in employment and the growth of such firms. Does he condemn the ideology of the Italian Government for that?
  Mr. Sheerman: I should have thought that my responsibility and that of the Government was to the rights of people in this country. We believe in the protection of workers at work. We believe in the rights of women to work and to go back to work. We do not have to look to Italy in terms of the rights and the abilities of women to make their way in society. In fact. Italy is one of the last countries I would look to in that respect.
  Regarding the right to time off for trade union matters, another damaging blow has been struck against genuine trade union activity in the workplace.
  Amazingly, firms with fewer than 20 employees will be exempted from producing a written health and safety policy. The Government may think that it does not matter if they start trimming health and safety regulations in small business. Once again, health and safety at work are seen by the Government as not important in small firms. The Minister glided over the fact that most accidents at work occur in those small firms on which he has turned his back.
  Mr. Trippier: I have already made that point. I wish to make it clear to Opposition Members that one of the major reasons for a higher incidence in accidents is that the material for which we are responsible, through the Health and Safety Commission, is misunderstood or not complied with in many instances. It is simplification, not deregulation, which will put that right. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to accuse me of wanting to deregulate health and safety.
  Mr. Sheerman: The Minister is absolutely obsessed with pamphlets. It is not a matter of the clearness of pamphlets. The fact is that in real industries, such as the building and construction and manufacturing industries, the accidents occur in small firms. If we give up on regulation, having

  681
  cut back the number of factory inspectors by 200 between 1979 and 1984, how can we police and regulate whether employers adhere to proper health and safety standards? The fact is that the Under-Secretary of State and the Government do not care. The increasing number of deaths and serious injuries in small firms is a national scandal, taking us back to Victorian days when people were killed and maimed and no one cared. That is what the Government's deregulation policies are doing.
  Mr. Trippier: Private enterprise.
  Mr. Sheerman: That is private enterprise — private enterprise according to the Government.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I heartily endorse my hon Friend's remarks about the Tory attitude to health and safety. Does he accept that one problem is the inadequate number of health and safety inspectors and the many loopholes in the regulations? Many serious health hazards and accidents at work could be prevented if the health and safety inspectorate were strengthened.
  Mr. Sheerman: I agree with my hon. Friend. We do not want to inhibit small firms, but we owe a duty to people to protect and ensure their health and safety at work. That has been a long tradition. It used to be a bipartisan policy. We used to take it for granted that civilised Governments and political parties believed in protecting people at work, but obviously that policy is long gone in view of the present ideological climate of the Conservative party.
  Mr. Trippier: Will the hon. Gentleman, either now or later, refer to that part of the White Paper that says we will deregulate on health and safety matters?
  Mr. Sheerman: I have already given chapter and verse on the reduction in standards. Does the hon. Gentleman deny that firms with fewer than 20 employees will be exempted from producing a written health and safety policy? If that is not the document, will he say so?
  Mr. Trippier: That is not deregulation.
  Mr. Sheerman: If I start speaking in Italian, perhaps some Conservative Members will start to understand what we mean by health and safety at work. Unfortunately, my competence in Italian is not sufficient for me to use it at the Dispatch Box. I challenge the Under-Secretary of State to deny that policy.
  What is worrying about the Government's proposals is their simplistic solution and rigid ideological trains of thought at their worst. Real problems are set to one side; they are not taken seriously. The Under-Secretary of State refused to deal with the problems of exchange rate fluctuations, interest rates, investment in Britain, and so on.
  Mr. Trippier: What would the hon. Gentleman do about them?
  Mr. Sheerman: Those are the macro issues to which the Financial Times referred.
  There is nothing wrong with deregulation done in a practical spirit with regard to a balance of interests, respect for the environment, concern for employment rights and a genuine interest in the fate of workers and consumers as well as private business. That is our view. There is nothing wrong with the right balance; nor is there anything wrong with enterprise. The problem is that the Government fail to see that enterprise must start at the top.
  682
  What we want, and what the Minister did not mention, is an enterprising Government who recognise that it is their job to be enterprising. We want a Government who will take responsibility for creating a framework for strong economic performance and who understand how our international competitors use planning and intervention in the market in an innovative and enterprising manner. That is what the Government cannot grasp and take on. Our competitors use innovation and inventive and enterprising policies and intervene in the market to ensure that their industries can compete easily with ours. That is the success story of other countries which are doing so much better than us.
  The Under-Secretary of State boasted about how much training the Government were providing. What are the facts of deregulation in training? Instead of freeing enterprise, what happened when the Government abolished the industrial training boards? The Minister said that when we get rid of industrial training boards, private industry with free enterprise workers will train the work force.
  Mr. Trippier: Rubbish.
  Mr. Sheerman: All the printed evidence shows that private industry spends 0·15 per cent. of turnover on training, compared to our international competitors who spend between 1 and 2 per cent. of turnover on training. That is the reality of liberating enterprise without any regulation.
  The Under-Secretary of State did not mention research and development and the extent to which freeing the spirit of enterprise had created research and development in our industries. There is an appalling level of research and development in most of our manufacturing and industrial companies. Without Government intervention, direction and incentives, research and development, like training. will not take place.
  Mr. Trippier: What will the hon. Gentleman do about it?
  Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman has proudly boasted of enterprise schemes. If the country does not invest in training and in research and development, our economy's long-term prospects will be dismal. The hon. Gentleman knows that, but he did not address his remarks to the fundamental issue. The teal thrust of our economy will come from the major manufacturing companies. If they do not succeed, the small firms — yes, they are valuable, but most of them are running and working in the wake of the large companies—will perish. The Under-Secretary of State does not see that the real objective is to get the heart of our economy and manufacturing employment researching, developing and training its work force. If the Government do not do that, all the work of small business will be to no avail.
  This morning, we heard of the wonderful parade of work that will be done for small businesses, but there was no understanding of the fact that, if prime manufacturing industry is allowed to go under, there will be nothing left and small businesses will die. Those small businesses live on the business of prime manufacturing units. There was so much rhetoric from the Under-Secretary of State that he missed the point about the reality of the manufacturing future for our people and our country.

  683
  I do not want to take up as much of the time of the House as the Under-Secretary of State. We want a Government who will force companies——
  Mr. Trippier: What will a Labour Government do?
  Mr. Sheerman: After the next election, the Labour Government—perhaps not many Conservative Members will be here then and perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will be showing his enterprise in stockbroking—will cooperate with companies in a planned way to ensure that investment, training and research and development take place and that there is investment in this country, not in other countries. Such developments will ensure that we can compete effectively with our rivals, by deregulating —[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) wish to intervene?
  Mr. Nigel Forman: My hon. Friend is not able to intervene.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) is making great play of the fact that so-called declining industries are not playing their part. GEC, which is in my constituency, has just made £1·5 million available to a college for research and development.
  I should like to take up many points in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I will not do so now. However, I may refer to them when I speak later.
  Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman has quoted the wrong company. Its chairman told the House of Lords Select Committee, as did Sir John Harvey-Jones, that we cannot base the future of our country on the service industries and that, if we do not pay attention to prime manufacturing industries, we are lost.
  Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that since Lord Weinstock took over GEC, 15 or 20 years ago, there has been carnage in jobs at the Stafford works and related factories in that area, which has led to serious levels of unemployment and the destruction of the electrical engineering manufacturing capability of this country by a process of asset-stripping by that gentleman?
  Mr. Sheerman: I take note of my hon. Friend's serious and worrying point.
  In many ways the Government have attempted to hijack the word "enterprise" and to use it as though they invented it. I shall illustrate what a real spirit of enterprise might do for our country — a spirit of enterprise interpreted in a rather different way. I would like a Government — especially the Departments of the Environment, Health and Social Security and Employment — with the vision to accept that this country suffers deep problems of housing disrepair and homelessness, to say, "There are hundreds of thousands of unemployed building workers. Construction is a great engine for economic growth; it has minimum import implications and a healthy multiplier effect when it starts growing. Let us get these unemployed building workers back to work building houses for people who want homes. Let us get them moving into that area, building up our country and getting rid of the dreadful scourge of unemployment." What a spirit of enterprise that would show.
  684
  A careful and detailed analysis of this country shows that such initiative and enterprise would lead to significant savings in public expenditure.
  Mr. Trippier: With all that proposed Government expenditure, will the hon. Gentleman tell us by how much taxation would need to be increased and what rate would be levelled on, for example, the small firms that he purports to support?
  Mr. Sheerman: Does not the Minister believe that it must be good sense and good value both for our country and people to pay people to work, to get them into the taxpaying bracket and to create real assets to hand on to our children? Surely that must be good value, even if it means an increase in taxation — [Interruption.] Conservative Members know that I am giving not a specfic answer this morning, but an overall picture of what the next Labour Government will do. They will be an enterprising Government who will invest in people, in assets and in the future of our country.
  This Government, in so many areas of their policy, have abolished and stifled enterprise. For example, some of the best local authorities were leading the way in local enterprise. The Minister referred to Sandwell and its enterprise initiative. What about the enterprise initiatives of the metropolitan counties and the GLC which the Government abolished? They were leading the way in much of the social and industrial enterprise in their local economies.
  Positive, not negative, enterprise is what the Labour party believes in and what our country so desperately needs. We must await the next general election, when a Labour Government will release a spirit of enterprise so that all our people can work together to create real jobs and real wealth—wealth that will be distributed fairly to all the people.
  10.55 am
  Mr. Nigel Forman: The House will not have failed to notice that during the 40-minute speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), with its characteristic windy rhetoric, he devoted only two or three minutes to discussing what the next Labour Government. if there were to be one, might do for enterprise and jobs.
  I noted two salient characteristics in the small, positive aspect of the hon. Gentleman's speech. The first concerned the objective to plan to ensure that this, that and the other happened. It is clear that behind that lies an interventionist philosophy that was severely discredited — not only in this country but in all free economies — during the 1970s.
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman made a rather guarded admission that a Labour Government would increase taxation to pay for their approach. The figures on the record, which have not been seriously challenged, suggest that a Labour Government would increase taxation by at least £24 billion, and that is probably an underestimate. Therefore, the House should treat the policy part of the hon. Gentleman's speech in the spirit it deserves.
  By contrast, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for his excellent and positive speech which set out a whole range of measures in which the Government are engaged to stimulate enterprise and create more jobs. Against the background of the recent White Paper

  685
  "Building Businesses …Not Barriers" the Government have clearly established that there is much that we can still do to foster a tendency that is already evident in the economy—the creation of new jobs and new businesses.
  I was heartened by what my hon. Friend said about the creation of 130,000 net new businesses during the past three years under the policies established by this Government. That, more than anything else, shows that if we create the right conditions for employment, small businesses will follow. What are today small businesses will, in many cases, tomorrow become the larger thriving businesses that will take on more people.
  Mr. Snape: In which part of the country have these 130,000 new businesses been created?
  Mr. Forman: I do not have a detailed breakdown of the figures; I took them from my hon. Friend's speech. However, I have no doubt from my experience in my constituency that a large number of new businesses have been created—some because of the excellent enterprise allowance scheme which has been such a positive measure.
  I wish to refer in a little detail to the important question of balance between regulation and deregulation — a point which, in all fairness, was touched upon by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. The Government rightly contend that in this country—and, indeed, in much of Western Europe—there is an excess of regulation, and has been for historic reasons for some considerable time when compared with the United States. Paragraph 1.12 of the White Paper makes the point that further deregulation along the lines of that carried out in the United States during the past 10 years could create a large number of new jobs.
  One thing from which I think the House would benefit, not necessarily today, but subsequently, is to have fuller information than could be given in one paragraph in the White Paper about exactly how and to what extent the United States has deregulated over that period. One brief paragraph, which makes an important point, needs to be elaborated on on a future occasion. For example, it would be interesting to know the extent to which it is a matter of things not being regulated in the first place in the United States, or of active deregulation. There is some ambiguity in that paragraph. I think that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary would do well to use an appropriate occasion to spell out further some of the benefits of the American model.
  It is true that where regulation is a restraint on trade, it is absolutely right for Government policy to be founded on strong deregulation. I shall give two or three examples. There is no doubt that national regulations in the European Community have prevented the emergence of a genuine Common Market. It is most welcome that the Government's policy, in alliance with many other member Governments, is to make further progress, particularly during our presidency of the EEC in a little while.
  Secondly, there is no doubt from historical evidence that trade union restrictive practices, based not so much on legislation, but more on historical collusion between employers and unions, have been against the national interest. That merits an approach of deregulation, which the Government have taken. I need cite only the examples of the printing industry, which is topical, or, traditionally, shipbuilding, to make my point.
  Thirdly, to show that I am in a spirit to be fair about those matters, I say that there is no doubt that this country
  686
  has suffered over many years from what I describe as professional or commercial monopoly practices. Examples are the solicitors on conveyancing, or the British Medical Association's hostility to homeopathic medicine. Until recently, there was a self-regulating ban in the City of London on multiple capacity in financial services. All those things are examples of the barnacles of regulation which have grown up by collusion between private interests over many years. The Government are absolutely right to tackle all those things. Deregulation is bound to help the progress of the economy and the creation of jobs if it directed to those purposes.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my hon. Friend put in the same category the recent contract negotiated between the pharmacists and the Government, which restricts the right of new pharmacists to open up in competition and dispense National Health Service products?
  Mr. Forman: I do indeed. My hon. Friend has chosen a good example. I am afraid that it demonstrates how widespread is the almost automatic approach in too much of the British economy.
  It is much more dubious to seek to deregulate on a large scale where the essence of the regulation involved is genuinely and widely recognised to be for the common good, public safety or the protection of the environment. In such cases, deregulation might please the business lobbies and might eventually increase profits as a result of reduced compliance costs, but will not necessarily produce many or any new jobs. Let me give a few examples of what I mean.
  I represent a constituency that is very much interested in the future of the green belt. There is no doubt that any serious infringement of the green belt in London or the south-east, or any major revision of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1972—which I understand is to be the subject of a further consultation document, perhaps next week—would be a matter of considerable concern to many of my constituents. They believe that existing regulations in those spheres help to protect the quality of life in residential areas. They are right to believe that.
  Mr. Corbyn: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks about protecting the green belt. Does he agree that, by the same judgment, it is wrong of the Government to introduce special development orders for nuclear dumping sites? Does he not agree that there should be normal planning requirements for them?
  Mr. Forman: That demonstrates the unwisdom of giving way to the hon. Gentleman. There is little relationship, either direct or indirect, between the point that he makes and the point that I was seeking to make about the genuine preservation of residential areas.
  Another example of regulation that needs to be preserved is this. If the Government proceed, as they say they might in the White Paper, with the rationalisation of air pollution control—I understand that there is also to be a forthcoming consultation paper on that—or with simplified licensing arrangements for water abstractions and effluent discharges, notably in the context of water privatisation, once again, we must look carefully at such measures. Those are examples, in what I would describe as my balanced approach, of regulation that needs to he carefully preserved and used in a modern, sensible way.
  Mr. Cash: I always have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend's opinions, fairness and sense of balance. Does he acknowledge that in the White Paper "Building Businesses … Not Barriers", paragraph 5.2 states that
  "The chapter on 'Planning and Enterprise' in 'Lifting the Burden' reaffirmed the Government's concern to protect and enhance the environment in town and country, to preserve our heritage of historic buildings and rural landscape, to conserve good agricultural land and maintain the Green Belts"?
  That chapter is well written. The White Paper shows how the balance that my hon. Friend would like to see is in fact being achieved without derogating from the rights of individuals, which we all want to protect.
  Mr. Forman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That endorses the importance of the point that I was seeking to make. It is not that I do not trust the Government—I trust them implicitly. The point is that I wish my hon. Friend the Minister, and through him all my right hon. and hon. Friends, to be acutely aware of the strength of public feeling in those areas.
  Mr. Sheerman: Is the hon. Gentleman particularly worried that the present Secretary of State for Employment's only real claim to being an entrepreneur is as a property speculator?
  Mr. Forman: I am not at all worried about the provenance of the Secretary of State. He is doing an admirable job in his sphere of responsibility. He is one of the most positive members of the Government.
  There is one other example where I express a small concern and put down a marker, in my willingness and keenness to preserve the balance. The Government speak in paragraph 7.10 of the White Paper of raising the hours of work thresholds above which employees qualify for the main employment rights. Once again, the Government need to be cautious in that area because those are far-reaching measures. I have nothing against part-time work. Indeed, the expansion of part-time work has been one of the positive characteristics of recent job creation. But we must be careful of a society that might emerge, in which there is a stratification of the labour market and in which a growing proportion of those in work find themselves without the normal protection and understandings that would be available to full-time workers. The Government need to be cautious before going too rapidly in the direction suggested in paragraph 7.10.
  The overall picture that I draw is that deregulation has a very important part to play in stimulating enterprise and jobs, but the balance must be preserved. More important even than the thrust of deregulation are the Government's other policies to facilitate and enable the creation of new employment. Let me give some examples. The enterprise allowance scheme, to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred, is an excellent example of the success of the Government's enabling policy. I should like to press, as I have done in pamphlets and elsewhere, that the qualifying conditions and other aspects of the scheme should be further relaxed to make it demand-led. Secondly, I welcome very much my hon. Friend's remarks on the loan guarantee scheme, and the Budget extensions to the scheme. Once more, it is an example of the effective use of public money. If one can get a net cost per job of some£700, as my hon. Friend said, obviously that is a cost effective scheme.
  Thirdly, I repeat my plea for the Government to continue efforts to persuade our EEC partners to raise the
  688
  VAT threshold from its present far too low level of£25,500 to nearer£50,000. The Government's idea of an optional maximum threshold, about which more could be said, is good in the sense that it would allow more flexibility in what seems to me to have become rather tight arrangements.
  My final example is the promotion of tourism, both at home and abroad, and the use of a range of policy intruments for intelligent regional policy, combined with institutional mechanisms which will bring together public and private finance. The Government would do well to consider public procurement and use as a model the Scottish Development Agency which has been successful in attracting investment. The Government would do will to encourage the embryonic Northern Development company which typifies the mixed public-private approach that I recommend.
  Such changes in the climate for enterprise make it easier to encourage jobs and to make changes of a positive character. However, the Government often make changes easier to make prospectively than retrospectively. We must always carry public opinion with us when contemplating such changes, especially in those areas around which I have put some markers.
  It is worth bearing in mind that a growing number of people put a high value upon the quality of life. In many people's minds that is associated to some extent with regulations in the environmental and similar spheres. The Government are wise to concentrate on trying to eliminate some of the estimated compliance costs, which all new legislative measures involve, especially those emanating from the European Commission in Brussels. Extra compliance costs on the private sector produce extra enforcement costs to be borne by the public authorities—central and local government.
  I support the continuing work by the enterprise and deregulating unit in the Department of Employment, but, like everything else, progress should be on a balanced basis. We must guard against going too far in either direction.
  I am glad to have contributed briefly to the debate. I wish the Government well in their efforts to encourage enterprise and new jobs without abandoning the essential regulations necessary in a civilised society.
  11.12 am
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I listened with pleasure and much agreement to the speech by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman). His wise comments on deregulattion and the balance that needs to be struck will bear reading in the Official Report on Monday, particularly by those in his party who seem to be driven more by ideology than by pragmatism or practicalities.
  I apologise for the fact that I shall have to leave the debate for about an hour about midday, but I shall return to hear the winding-up speeches. I am sorry that I shall miss the speeches by other hon. Members.
  We can all understand why the Government wish to have a debate to show off their achievements in enterprise and deregulation, but it is sad that it is being held on a Friday. All our debates on small businesses and enterprise seem to be held on a Friday. The last exception was on a rare alliance Supply day, when we chose the subject for debate mid-week. The Government are right to have this debate.

  689
  I congratulate the Government on beginning to tackle the task of altering Britain's culture to give appropriate standing, status and impetus to enterprise. Uncharacteristically, I want to pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), whose long commitment to and knowledge of the small business sector is broadly respected and well understood by the small business sector.
  I hate to temper that comment with some harsher words. I do not call into question the hon. Gentleman's personal commitment or the respect in which he is held, but I have rather less confidence in the Government's commitment. Shifting the responsibility from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Department of Employment and the rest of the evidence available shows that the Government are now regarding enterprise and the small business sector in the context of the battle against unemployment. They see it as a soft option.
  Mr. Trippier: I appreciate that there could be balancing arguments about whether the responsibility for small firms should remain in the Department of Trade and Industry or be moved to the Department of Employment, but I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that since the change last September the policy for small firms has assumed a much higher profile.
  Mr. Ashdown: I am happy to concede that, but the Government's attitude is driven by the desire to use enterprise as an instrument — perhaps the only instrument — to bring down the scandalous unemployment levels. I am worried that enterprise, which is so important and vital to the industrial restructuring of Britain, is being treated in some senses as a PR exercise. There is far too much froth and far too little substance in what the Government say.
  As I go round the country I find, like the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and others, that the first complaint that small businesses make to me is about the generally low level of economic activity. Valuable and important though enterprise is, it is not a substitute for economic regeneration. It is only part of a general plan for economic regeneration, which is so desperately needed in Britain. Encouraging enterprise can be successful only if it takes place in the context of a thriving economy, and in particular of a regeneration of the manufacturing sector, one-sixth of which has been wiped away since 1979. I accept that some of that is to do with world recession, but some of it is a result of the Government's general and rather surprising dependence upon the miraculous power of the market place. They believe that that will achieve all that needs to be achieved. I say that while dissociating myself from the comments and tone of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, who seems to think that everything can be planned into existence and that prosperity can be achieved because it is in the will of the Government.
  We need to establish a partnership between Government enterprise and small businesses — I congratulate the Government on having begun one side of it—to regenerate the economy. That partnership cannot be driven by ideological concepts on either side of the equation.
  Mr. Cash: One of our difficulties is that the alliance parties so often try to have it both ways. An SDP industrial policy document speaks of
  690
  "a situation in which there is little prospect of a significant increase in employment in large enterprises in either the private or public sector".
  The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) argues in support of enterprise, while saying that we must stimulate the larger public and private enterprises. The SDP document contains a realistic appraisal of the position, which we acknowledge.
  Mr. Ashdown: I suppose that it must be because of the hon. Gentleman's training as a lawyer that he has the habit and skill of deliberately misunderstanding what is said. I did not say that we can necessarily generate new employment in the larger industries, whether state or private. I share the Minister's view that small industries will be the employment growth sector. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) overlooks — probably deliberately, because he is too intelligent to do so accidentally—the fact that small industries depend on the wealth and prosperity created by larger firms. We cannot pass Britain over to a service sector industry.
  The experience of the United States has proved time and again that effective service industries depend on an effective manufacturing and industrial sector. That is the key point. I make it, the SDP makes it, and hon. Members in all parts of the House make it.
  Mr. Thurnham rose——
  Mr. Ashdown: I have a number of points to make. I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene, but that must be the last intervention that I take in this speech.
  Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman makes the same mistake as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) in thinking that small firms depend on larger firms. The statistics from our major competitors show that it is the other way round, and that larger firms depend on successful small firms. We have only half as many small firms as our competitors.
  Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman is deliberately misreading the figures. Japan and the United States have a much larger small industry sector than we have — I look forward to the day when ours is equally large — and small firms in those countries are an essential part of the economic infrastructure on which larger firms depend. The subcontracting part of the manufacturing sector needs small firms, but those small firms depend on the prosperity of the larger firms. The statistics referred to by the hon. Gentleman prove the exact opposite of what he suggested.
  The regeneration of our manufacturing sector is an essential ingredient — no one claims that it is the only factor — in a decent strategy for our economic regeneration. The Minister rightly pointed to the Government's record on inflation. I agree that it is a good record. They have reduced inflation and deserve congratulations, but that compliment must be tempered by setting our record against the performance of our competitors. When the Government came to power in 1979 we had the highest unemployment and the second highest inflation in Europe. We still have the highest unemployment and we still have the second highest inflation. As any small business man knows, inflation in Europe is significantly lower than in this country, and real interest rates in Europe are very much lower.
  Deregulation and enterprise are two parts of the same debate. I have no doubt that the Government's moves on

  691
  deregulation have been welcomed by small businesses, and I do not wish to diminish the start made by the Minister or the energy that he puts into his work, but the Government's efforts remain patchy. In too many cases the left hand seems not to know what the right hand is doing. For example, the Government's proposals on family credit would dump an enormous new burden on small businesses. Those proposals may be reviewed, and we shall have to wait and see how they eventually come out.
  The Government increasingly treat small business men as unpaid tax and social security collectors. That worrying trend hits small firms harder than it does larger companies. The cost of acting as a Government tax collector is proportionately greater for a small firm. There are figures to prove that fact, and I hope that the Minister will produce more figures, because I believe that they will reveal a worrying trend. The National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses has wittily said that it seems appropriate that the key Minister involved in this area should be the Paymaster General, because the small business man feels like a paymaster general for the Government.
  I am proud to have led my party in its opposition to the Data Protection Act. We were the only party to vote against the Act, and we did so at least partly because it will dump huge new burdens on small businesses. The form that small businesses using new technology have to fill in under the Act is a horrific and leviathan document, which most do not understand. When I filled in my form I had to get consultants to advise me. There has been a proliferation of agencies to assist small businesses.
  All too frequently, deregulation has taken the shape of an attack on employment rights. I agree with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington that a closer study of United States' experience would prove valuable. I understand that not one of the deregulation measures in the United States has had anything to do with employment rights. This is an important factor which needs to he taken into account. I accept that there are fewer employment rights in the United States, but we cannot ignore the fact that if new jobs have been created there, it has not been done by an attack on employment rights.
  It has been suggested that deregulation has accounted for an upsurge in employment in the United States. I urge the Minister to be cautious about using the statistics in their raw state. I understand that a young person in the United States who has never had a job does not go on the jobs register. In addition, there are hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of illegal immigrants in the United States, and whereas those who get jobs are recognised as being in the employment market, those who have no jobs dare not register.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth rose——
  Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I am sure that he will have a chance to speak, and I do not want to take up too much time.
  Of all the deregulation measures that the Government have introduced, the one that I cannot understand—it makes no sense in justice or common sense — is the attack on the wages councils. I cannot see that it will create any significant uplift in employment. I do not believe that
  692
  paying less to people who earn the very low wages that some wages councils have sought to protect will create more jobs. The Government's action is motivated more by ideology than by any other consideration.
  Enterprise is the second part of the debate, and I should like to repeat a strategic point to the Minister. I regret that 99 per cent. of the Government's excellent measures for encouraging enterprise are still directed towards new starts. I understand why that is done. The Government understandably want to take credit for the maximum number of new starts. They are the easiest development to measure and to crow about.
  However, much of the Government's enterprise policy can be described as the policy of the Cornish wrecker. Lights are hung out on the rocks, but still one third of those embarking on new starts go down. I do not want to diminish the fact that that proportion has been reduced and our record is better than that of the Americans, but each failure is an individual personal tragedy. Not only is a person made bankrupt, but he loses his job and perhaps even his house. It is nonsense to suppose that we could ever ensure that there were no failures, but we must keep working at the problem.
  The Government ought to shift the emphasis towards giving advice and ensuring that small firms survive. That would reduce the number of failures and contribute much more significantly to the growth of employment and prosperity. It is at the point of expansion that the quantum leap from one employee to three can be made and significant prosperity can be generated.
  I believe that we need a better system of measurement of the reasons why firms fail, and that more Government resources and assistance should be put into that area. If we are under tight budgetary restraints, the resources should be at the cost of employment measures to encourage startups. I would not wish to see that, but if that is the choice I hope that the resources will be diverted in that direction.
  I shall now deal with VAT, where we come on to the subject of small firms being the Government's tax collectors. I ask the Minister to comment on the often suggested measure, which we might be able to put into practice and to which I know he has given some thought, to eliminate VAT between registered traders. This is an important measure which would, at one bound, reduce the immense burden of paperwork on small businesses.
  Inevitably, one is making a number of unco-ordinated comments. I shall now deal with discriminatory discounts. We have talked about restrictive practices. I say bluntly to the Minister that the level of discriminatory discounts now being operated by the larger operators against the small retail shops is a monstrous injustice. For example, Safeways is able to buy in a tin of dog food more cheaply than a small retail outlet can sell it. We have looked carefully at the power of the monopoly seller. We now need to look at the power of the monopoly buyer, because the large retail outlets now command such power in the buying market place that they are able to command discounts that are all too frequently at a cost to the small retail outlet. It is an injustice that is beginning to hit many of our small grocery outlets and the Government will have to take action.
  I am aware that we have had the Binder Hamlyn report, but that report was little more than a whitewash. It will be necessary to take action, and it may be that our starting point should be a code of practice. If, in the end, we have to introduce legislation, defective though it might be, like

  693
  the Robinson Pasman Act in America, the Government should not shrink from it. In my view, the effect of the monopoly buyer in the market place—monopsony is the correct term—is now becoming so large that it must be tackled.
  I shall now deal with the centralisation of finance. I and others are worried about the grip and power that the City of London has over providing finance for small businesses. I remind the Minister that 60 per cent. of all the business expansion scheme funds dispersed in Britain have, I understand, been dispersed to firms in the south-east. A mere 13 per cent.—perhaps the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will make this point—has gone to the midlands. If one wants to obtain finance for one's company in Britain, large or small, unlike in America or Germany, where there are decentralised banking systems to go to, one must in most cases go to the City of London. In my view, there is a real case to be made for decentralising the financial structure of our country so that small firms can go to somebody who knows and understands their problems, and even perhaps knows their personalities, in order to obtain finance.
  I shall now talk about co-ordination. The assistance available to small businesses, especially for new starters, is bewildering in its complexity. Let me remind hon. Members of who are involved in assisting new businesses and new starts today: nearly all county council departments, many district councils, the Manpower Services Commission, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas, the Small Firms Service, the urban programme, the Development Commission, local enterprise agencies — I commend them — local enterprise boards, regional bodies, such as the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Welsh Development Agency, ad hoc groups of business men up and down the country. churchmen, enthusiasts, chambers of commerce, banks and valuable organisations such as Business in the Community. To the person starting out it is a mass of duplication, confusion and, in all too many cases, muddle.
  I firmly believe, and have written a pamphlet on the subject, that we need a strategy and framework in which we can co-ordinate the activities in this vital and important sector. In my view, Britain should look towards a national community enterprise agency, something that would coordinate with community enterprise units, perhaps positioned at county level, which would deal with the initiation of enterprise, the co-ordination of assistance and the establishment of funding and would be a channel for Government assistance and support. That could be more elegantly expressed as the "one-stop shop", which I believe would draw all the activities together in a much more coordinated and effective fashion.
  I believe that through these measures we could build a start. It may be defective in places, but and that is not surprising. However, the Government have made an important start. We could establish the partnership which is so essential for the economic regeneration of Britain and which is so lacking at present. It would be a partnership between a Government determined to plan and act to reverse Britain's economic decline in the macro-economic sense and to assist small business men in the micro-economic sense, and business men who wish to create prosperity and employment in their own communities. The establishment of that partnership is the essential task that now confronts us.
  11.36 am
  Sir John Osborn: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary spoke about enterprise and small businesses, and he listed what the Conservative Government have done in six years. That needs to be put on the record. He has spoken about the White Papers dealing, first, with lifting the burden off the shoulders of small businesses and, now, "Building Businesses … not Barriers". I believe that what he has outlined gives hope and new opportunities in many areas, including my city of Sheffield.
  I was disappointed by the contribution of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) who described the White Paper as pathetic. I would have been more understanding if he had concentrated on the positive side. He made a plea, although he changed his tune towards the end, for more regulation and controls and then spoke about more training and more research. That would lead me into areas that I deal with elsewhere.
  When I was a director of one company in Sheffield and there was an adverse cash flow I had to face decisions about what to cut out. Many other companies in Yorkshire had to face similar decisions. The first thing to cut out was research and the second was training. That was at a time when Labour Chancellors of the Exchequer wallowed in taxing industry and creaming the top off the milk. We paid the price of that in subsequent years, and the Government have had to live through that since 1979.
  The Paymaster General and the Secretary of State for Employment had reason to visit Sheffield frequently because the headquarters of the MSC is there and I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who opened the debate will be speaking to business men in Sheffield about business opportunities this July.
  There are many struggling small businesses in a difficult environment in a city such as Sheffield. They have been helped by Government policy and there has been correspondence with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and a number of my constituents about the red tape and burden on established small businesses. Some recent correspondence obviously deals with VAT thresholds on small businesses, a point already made this morning, and I welcome the fact that the Minister will be seeing what people are to do in Sheffield, and I look forward to spending the day with him.
  What has happened in Sheffield presents an immense challenge to that city. It may also present challenges to cities such as Newcastle, Liverpool and others. However, there are many people of goodwill, often top executives who have taken early redundancy, who are working to bring Sheffield back to the top again. As the only Conservative Member of Parliament for Sheffield, I am working with them willingly. I ask Ministers for more help for my city.
  The debate provides an opportunity to touch on many other issues. The hon. Member for Huddersfield touched on rights, perhaps health and safety at work. I have found that if one industry, one region or one country concentrates on rights too heavily it is not competitive and competitors take business away.
  We have touched on the international impact for small businesses and particularly on the scene in Europe. I welcome the reference to the EEC directive. The year 1983 was Europe's year for small and medium-sized enterprises. and it was a Liberal German who initiated the work of the

  695
  Economic Affairs and Development Committee of the Council of Europe of which I am still a member. Paragraph 6 of its resolution says:
  "there is still ample scope for action by governments and the competent international organisations in order to meet the specific needs of SMEs and to improve the environment in which they have to operate".
  I would have thought that the Government have reacted effectively to that Council of Europe and EEC initiative.
  Another aspect that has to be dealt with is the contract of employment. When I was in the European Parliament, I initiated a private Member's Bill, but in the mid 60s, together with the trade unions, I had initiated the first blueprint for a contract of employment. There was the subsequent protection of employment legislation but, by the end of the 1970s, the Labour party chose to destroy my private Member's Bill, at a time when too much protection meant that employers would not take on labour. It must be remembered that when the Labour party was in government unemployment doubled. I know that it has continued to increase since then.
  In a league table, 102 major European cities have been dealt with according to their urban growth or decline. This was mentioned in the Sheffield edition of the Star last week. Sheffield was rated number 95 in 1984, and if its situation does not improve it could become number 98. That would leave it above only Sunderland, Messina, Belfast and Liverpool. This is proof to EEC Commissioners that it is an area badly in need of their funds, but it has also aroused some hot reaction from the Lord Mayor of Sheffield and other leaders.
  I have been a Member of Parliament for Sheffield for 25 years and I have lived there for many more years, and I wonder why Sheffield is now in such a bad position. Nationalisation of steel was a disaster for Sheffield, and accelerated its demise. Part of the problem has been the long existence for over 50 years, with the exception of 1968, of a powerful Socialist council. it has vetted those industries who sub-contract to the city council, but it has been vetting new businesses as to their political acceptability for the city. I now hope that this political vetting will be reduced.
  Mr. Sheerman: I may be anticipating some remarks, but is the hon. Gentleman going through his speech without paying tribute to the enormous enterprise initiatives that Sheffield city council has made to help to improve the dreadful unemployment situation inflicted on the city since 1979?
  Sir John Osborn: I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. This is what I shall speak about in the next five minutes. I shall try to cover the invitation adequately. I hope that I shall not be on my feet for too long.
  One of the snags has been high rates in Sheffield. I spoke in a debate on the rate limitation orders and said that 48 per cent. of firms questioned by the chamber of commerce said that high rates were the cause of their difficulties. Traditional heavy industries have been heavily hit, with the result that businesses and residents have chosen to leave the city and avoid the rates bill, so that the declining rates base hits even harder those who are left behind. As recently as January, there was a scare in the newspapers of a 71 per cent. rate increase. That has now been reduced. One article dealt with an internal report by
  696
  the council's budget chairman and deputy leader. It lambasted the Socialist leadership for not facing up to the realities of the situation, but continuing to spend, spend, spend when there was not enough money. There has been a division in the Labour-controlled city council.
  There is still resourcefulness in Sheffield that will overcome the exceptional difficulties. Individuals, local companies and councils are involved. I sense a willingness to co-operate even across political boundaries. My hon. Friend mentioned the industry year, sponsored by the Royal Society of Arts, which has had my full support. It has been extremely successful in the city. The chamber of commence and the Industrial Society commissioned a seminar in the early weeks of this year, and one of its outcomes has been an awareness of local industry, and industry in general, by the people to a greater extent than has ever happened before. At one working lunch sponsored by one company, masters, headmasters, managers and trade union leaders were all at the same table. That has resulted in works visits taking place this summer.
  Another activity that bodes well for the city's future is the encouragement of links between industry and education in a city where the Socialist city council has in the past banged on, presenting a doctrinaire picture of management as being intent on exploiting the worker. Local businesses have been quick to realise the opportunity for showing young people, through their experience, that this is not the case. The success of the venture Young Enterprise, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister, is remarkable. Some of those people will be visiting the House of Commons soon. Local companies are ensuring that people get some idea of the business ethic and what goes on in business. Sheffield has been helpful towards young persons setting up their own businesses.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will see the activities of Volserve, the community programme agency. It has brought together people with experience of insulation, draught proofing and home decorating to try to help them set up their own businesses. My hon. Friend will be meeting the chamber of commerce. which set up its Springboard project two months ago, in association with the MSC. It is helping to assess business potential. Assuming that it is found to be feasible, Springboard will give ongoing moral support and guidance, while the individual receives funding under the enterprise allowance scheme.
  The local enterprise agency has set up the Sheffield business venture. As I am the only Sheffield Conservative Member of Parliament, many problems have been brought to my notice, and to be able to send small business people struggling in established or new businesses to an agency where they can get help is an example of the type of help that the Government have been able to give. The city council has an economic development and advisory committee, a meeting of which I should have been attending this afternoon. It has made good suggestions and bad suggestions, but one of the means of attracting the expanding industry and commerce is to establish a one-stop bureau staffed by council personnel from the relevant departments. Again this is another move by the city council.
  The other side is the fact that there are more research associations in the city. Surely more than the science park can be given a boost. I have been in touch with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about a technology park

  697
  alongside the polytechnic. I hope that he will look at that. Only two months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie), the Minister for Information Technology, came to the university to set up an institute of information technology. All these ventures have started, but it will take time for them to develop. A city can do much for itself but it needs encouragement from outside and from Government.
  Following the Green Paper "Lifting the Burden" there has been the White Paper. We must accept that every region has its own problems. If after this debate there is greater hope that the trade unions, employers, Government and Opposition will all learn to work together to put communities back on their feet, then something will have been achieved.
  When I was a boy and when I first entered industry, business was carried on by large companies. History might be repeating itself. For centuries we have had the "Little Mesters" of Sheffield, and in 1634, if I remember the date correctly, the Cutlers Company was founded to support small businesses. My great grandfather established what became a big business, and both he and my great-great grandfather were merchants and had small businesses.
  History has its cycles, and for that reason a city like Sheffield will have once again to build up small businesses. There must be no illusions: economic circumstances are making the growth of the small business more important in Europe. Chapter II of the White Paper, entitled "The Next Steps", deals with:
  "The machinery established to monitor progress on deregulation—"
  I welcome that. It goes on:
  "The need to assess regulations in this way should gradually change the context in which decisions are taken and permeate the machinery of Government".
  That is a reference to the enterprise and deregulation unit and is welcome. The chapter goes on to deal with communications with business. Both White Papers have proved complex to even the CBI and to Chambers of Commerce, but not to secretaries and legal and financial experts in the companies that make up their membership.
  I welcome the illustrated booklet. For the self employed the complexity of life is great. I started a small business with an energetic parent company some 30 years ago. I had the advice of secretaries and financial directors in the parent company and that is the sort of advice small businesses want now. The White Paper goes on to acknowledge that the task of implementing the Government's many proposals will be a major one, and hon. Members should work with my hon. Friend the Minister who is responsible for small businesses, who has shown enthusiasm and courage. I look forward to welcoming him to Sheffield so that he can see for himself what the city is doing, and outline to business men the next steps.
  11.54 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir J. Osborn) will forgive me if I do not linger too long on the problems of his great city. He would not expect someone born on the other side of the Pennines to spend too long in his part of the world anyway.
  The hon. Gentleman's outline of the problems facing Sheffield was little more than a ritualistic attack on the city council. By implication, he said that it is the high rates in
  698
  Sheffield that have wrought the sort of industrial damage that we see in that once great city. No one likes paying rates, and any business man would say that he would prefer to pay less in rates. It is generally accepted that rates form a marginal part of the outgoings of a business. If high rates are the sole reason for the industrial ravages of Sheffield, why is it that unemployment in areas like the south-west, which are traditionally low-rated areas and where traditionally and regrettably the councils are not controlled by the Labour party, unemployment is as great as it is anywhere else?
  Mr. Cash rose——
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has just returned to the debate. He has intervened on a number of occasions, and I have no doubt that he will try to intervene again. I have a recurring nightmare, having spent a night last week listening to the hon. Gentleman, of being strapped in an aeroplane with the light on which shows that I cannot leave my seat, and sitting next to me is the hon. Member for Stafford clutching a copy of "Erskine May". I would be grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he would restrain himself for the next few minutes.
  The Minister represents a Lancashire constituency, and I compliment him on that. Perhaps it would be an apt metaphor to say that he wove a fairly elaborate tapestry with some fairly coarse cotton. We should not allow his loyalty to the Government and the quality of his briefing to blind us to the fact that his material was thin stuff. Like other members of his party, the Minister takes the view that Governments cannot do very much. Speeches by Government Members would lead one to believe that there is not much point in taking part in national elections because the activities of the Government are peripheral, except of course when a Labour Government are in power. All the economic ills of the nation are held to be the responsibility of the last Labour Government and the result of the incompetence of their policies.
  Over the past couple of years a not very subtle sea change has taken place. The Government are playing the red card for all they are worth. They say that it is the terror and loathing of the next Labour Government that is causing all the damage to British industry and that they themselves are responsible for none of its ills. Within their first few weeks of office the Government virtually doubled value added tax. That had a serious impact on the profitability of small businesses in particular and industry in general. During their term of office the Government have presided over the highest interest rates in Britain's history. Does that not have more than a marginal impact on the profitability of large and small businesses? The Government have presided over — or perhaps just watched, as they do not believe in interference — the wildest fluctuations in the rate of exchange in British history. Have none of these things played more than a marginal part in the virtual collapse of industry in the United Kingdom?
  Like other Ministers charged with the unfortunate task of speaking from the Dispatch Box, the Minister said that. many jobs have been created. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mt. Forman) spoke about the thousands of new jobs that have been created. Perhaps that is thanks to the policies of the Government. Perhaps their policies do have an impact on job creation. That is what the Government tell us, but it is only in areas of

  699
  unemployment that their policies have no impact. When asked where these jobs were, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington could not tell us. I do not know either, but I am prepared to accept the figures that the Minister trotted out. I know where jobs are not being created. They are not being created in my constituency, and not in the borough of Sandwell or in the west midlands, despite what the hon. Member for Stafford says.
  The statistics for the west midlands show that the number of people in employment in June 1979 was 2,241,000. The latest month for which I have figures, and I have no reason to think there has been an increase since then — they are more likely to have decreased — is December 1985. The number of people in employment in the west midlands at that date was 1,960,000, a drop of 281,000. That ignores the sea change that has taken place in the type of job that we are talking about. There is a net and not insignificant overall reduction in the number of people in work in what used to be regarded as one of the richest parts of the United Kingdom.
  The west midlands traditionally had lower unemployment than the rest of the country, but the reverse is now true. Outside Northern Ireland, we now have almost the highest rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom. Is that something for which the Government or the Conservative party bear no responsibility? Has there been this enormous decline in employment just because of world economic conditions? The bulk of the decline between June 1979 and December 1985 in the west midlands and, no doubt, elsewhere has been in manufacturing industry, in which no fewer than 278,000 jobs have disappeared since the Government tragically, for the future of the nation, took office in 1979.
  Mr. Cash: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Unemployment in the west midlands region is of course serious, and the current level is about 15·2 per cent. Stafford is an industrial town. That is why I take exception to what the hon. Gentleman has said. The unemployment rate there is lower than the average for the region. There are some lessons to be learnt from Stafford. Although we have lost jobs in heavy engineering and major industries, we have kept unemployment down. That has much to do with the work force, enterprise and small businesses.
  Mr. Snape: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I noticed that his intervention was more general than specific. He will know the exact rate of unemployment in his constituency—at least I hope he will. I could hazard a guess, which would be fairly informed, as I spent some time in Stafford canvassing for one of the hon. Gentleman's opponents during the by-election campaign. Regrettably, he was unsuccessful—regrettable, that is, from a political point of view. The hon. Gentleman will understand what I mean. My guess is that the rate of unemployment in Stafford is far higher now than it was in June 1979.
  Mr. Cash: Not so.
  Mr. Snape: Well, it would be interesting to hear what the figures are.
  Mr. Cash: It is not significant.
  Mr. Snape: We are backpedalling pretty desperately before we get on our feet, if such a thing be possible. If he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell the House what the rate of unemployment in Stafford was in June 1979, compared with the latest date for which figures are available. Even if the increase if lower in his constituency than in the rest of the west midlands, the fact remains that the rest of us are not so lucky.
  In the Sandwell and Dudley travel-to-work area, there were 46,818 unemployed people in May. In the borough of Sandwell alone, more than 28,000 men and women have lost their jobs. I have mentioned the devastation in manufacturing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, it is no good the Minister glibly assuring us that there are alternative jobs for people who formerly worked in manufacturing industry.
  In Sandwell we would take some exception to the inference that we should confine our economic activities to the production of hot dogs for American tourists or postcards for passing Japanese visitors. We do not have too many of either. Without the manufacturing capacity that we once had in Sandwell, the nation is poorer. It is tragic for the individuals concerned, but the nation suffers. We have not stopped buying the things that we used to produce in Sandwell — we merely buy them from elsewhere.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Whose fault is that?
  Mr. Snape: If the hon. Gentleman has something to say, he ought to get on his feet and try to say it.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Whose fault is it that we buy such goods from other countries? Is it not the result of the restrictive practices and behaviour of trade unions during the past two decades, which he has supported?
  Mr. Snape: It is my own fault. I should not allow someone with such an obviously unformed mind to participate. is it the trade unions in areas such as the south-west, where unemployment is tragically just as bad as in my constituency, who are responsible for job losses there? Is it the trade unions in the tin industry in Cornwall——
  Mr. Forsyth: Yes.
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman says yes. I withdraw the word unformed as a description of his mind. Malformed is probably a better description. I shall waste no more time on that.
  Mr. Corbyn: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend, as I have here unemployment figures by constituency and by local government area. On 10 May 1979, 1,689 people were registered as unemployed in the local government district of Stafford That figure rose to 4,719 by 14 March 1985.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said 1983.
  Mr. Snape: No, I did not. I said 1979. The Conservative party took responsibility for the nation's affairs, or not, depending on which member of it one listens to, in June 1979. It is not unfair for us to compare circumstances then with now. It was not my party that had an expensive advertising agency to coin the slogan, "Labour isn't working". I do not know whether those actors appeared

  701
  on the main street of Stafford as they did in West Bromwich during the 1979 general election campaign, but we do not need actors in Stafford, West Bromwich or Sandwell now if the Conservatives want to repeat such a campaign.
  We are in a way fortunate to be able to discuss enterprise and deregulation today. I understand from my colleagues in the shadow Cabinet that the motion was originally entitled "Action for Jobs" but somebody pointed out to the noble Lord who is responsible for these matters that, by giving the debate such a title, he might, as he habitually does, be shooting himself in the foot, so the title was changed. We can now talk about deregulation as well.
  Some of the more simple minds on the Conservative Benches—we have not heard too much from too many of them other than by way of intervention—talk about privatisation and deregulation with almost as much reverence as some members of far Left splinter groups talk about nationalisation.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman should look behind him.
  Mr. Snape: I do not have to if I can look at the hon. Gentleman, because nothing behind me would equal what I am looking at opposite me for simple-minded simplification.
  The benefits of widespread deregulation ought to be examined. That is one of the things about which we are supposed to be talking. I have the honour to have some responsibility on behalf of my party for transport matters. Conservative Members worshipped at the altar of transport deregulation for some years. They started in 1980 with the long-distance coach business. They said that the restrictions on that business were unnecessary, so they virtually wiped them out overnight and almost completely deregulated the industry.
  Since the passage of the Transport Act 1980, there has been a considerable increase in long-distance coach mileage, but almost exclusively to and from this city. That has brought problems such as unrestricted coach access to any large city. Many continental cities that are not controlled by Socialist administrations have had to act to prevent the tidal wave of long-distance coaches engulfing them.
  One of the side effects of the 1980 deregulation has been the appearance of far more coaches in London. Moreover, the facilities available to them are not very good. The National Bus Company, to name but one, was one of the first to say that. Moreover, that well-known Left-winger—at least in the 1930s—Sir Alfred Sherman, has always complained about the number of coaches passing the end of his, I believe, very fashionable street near Victoria coach station.
  The Government introduced deregulation overnight in 1980 without giving it much thought, but it has not been without its peripheral effects on the coach business, and particularly on the cross-country coach business. Most of the operators that are left have had to withdraw their coaches from long-distance cross-country routes in order to run coaches to and from London. The NBC has also had to withdraw them from its stage carriage services.
  readily concede that there were some benefits to the industry from that Act, but the NBC now covers about 20 million fewer rural miles than prior to that Act's
  702
  introduction, and employs about 15,000 fewer people than before. That may give some Conservative Members enormous satisfaction, but deregulation has also had an effect on the coach-building industry.
  In their rush to deregulate, the Government never thought to consult British coach builders about their capacity to provide more long-distance coaches. Consequently, our roads and motorways, which are already pretty crowded, have seen the addition of hundreds of foreign-built long-distance coaches. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) holds his head in his hands. Presumably he is in favour of that.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth rose——
  Mr. Snape: I have learnt my lesson about giving way to the hon. Gentleman. No doubt he will catch your eye. Mr. Deputy Speaker, in due course. The directors of Metro-Cammel or of Dennis—to name but two coach firms — could put the hon. Member for Stirling right about the impact of that legislation on our bus and coach building industry. Once people had rushed in to buy foreign-built coaches, the market more or less collapsed. Virtually no British operator has bought a new coach or stage carriage since that deregulation measure was first published. Was that the Government's intention when they decided on deregulation?
  The Government's deregulation policy has had a serious effect on other parts of our industry. The Government admire what goes on in the United States. Some might say that there is more than admiration in the relationship between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. It is almost hero worship — [Interruption.] It is certainly not heroine worship. It is a one-way sort of worship. American-style deregulation has been adopted in respect of British aviation, and early on we saw the effects of such deregulation. In the United States there is an enormous market, with many customers and many successful, and some not so successful, airline companies. In Europe and in most of the world, airlines cannot compete in the same way. The market is quite different. Poignantly, the first casualty of airline deregulation was one of the Prime Minister's new knights, Sir Freddie Laker. He discovered that the world of deregulation was not quite as profitable as he had thought.
  Deregulation and the encouragement of small wharves has meant about 30,000 lost jobs in the docks. No doubt that pleases the Conservative party. It obviously thinks that a good dose of unemployment is needed there, but as recently as 1982 one of our strategic industries, the shipping industry, was praised by the Government Front Bench for its efforts during the Falklands war. About 30,000 seamen have lost their jobs since the Conservative party took office, and about 1,000 ships have been withdrawn from service. The British maritime fleet is as small now as it has ever been in modern times. Deregulation has not brought too many benefits to the shipping industry, and I only hope that some of the lessons have now been learnt.
  The Minister made something of training for our young unemployed. I should have thought that both sides of the House were united on the necessity to provide adequate training for our young unemployed people, but the Government show no sign of doing anything apart from paying lip-service to that principle. Their latest palliative for the young unemployed is known as restart. That might

  703
  apply to the Government's policies, because a good restart is what is needed there. The scheme is intended to be nationwide.
  I shall quote from a Manpower Services Commission course booklet on restart. It says:
  "Many people develop a negative attitude to unemployment".
  The Government had that sort of attitude to unemployment right from the start. The Manpower Services Commission appears to believe that it now permeates the ranks of the unemployed, but that is a somewhat heartless and out of touch view, because the vast majority of the unemployed are desperate for a job of any description.
  The booklet does not quite go along with what the Minister had to say about training. It says that the restart scheme initially involves a five-day course at a training centre, during which the unemployed must discuss their attitudes and feelings about being without work. In the blunt speaking part of the country that I have the honour to represent, that could no doubt be disposed of fairly quickly. Next, the unemployed should do "confidence-building" exercises. That is a bit steep coming from this Government. No one has done more than they have to undermine the confidence of the unemployed. Perhaps the unemployed are supposed to do mental press-ups to make them feel better. Next, it says that the unemployed should set themselves "goals". That is a bit like Bobby Robson's pep talk the other night, but he was more successful than the Government look like being.
  Finally, the Manpower Services Commission says that they should draw up a checklist of personal strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps the title of the scheme should be "Teach Yourself Psychology".
  The young unemployed are supposed to attend the training centre for one day a week for certain periods. The MSC states that newspapers should be made available. It does not specify whether they should be Murdoch newspapers or others. In any event, it says that newspapers should he made available and that help be provided in letter writing with facilities such as photocopiers being on hand. The idea and purpose of the visits is that the trainees should practise writing letters in their quest for a job.
  Perhaps I am being unfair, and perhaps this might be a job-creation exercise. I have no doubt that Basildon Bond and other notepaper manufacturers will benefit. The supply of photocopiers might benefit 3M. This is an example of the training that the Government will give. It is an example of the acquisition of skills that the Government will make available to the unemployed. Colleges throughout the country where the courses are to be held are already being asked to prepare their budgets. They are told to make estimates of the number of young people who will be staying for tea.
  Mr. Prescott: Tea and sympathy.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth rose——
  Mr. Snape: No. My hon. Friend is being too kind. Tea and cynicism is a more apt description of the exercise. With some degree of trepidation and reluctance, I give way to the hon. Member for Stirling.
  Mr. Forsyth: Has the hon. Gentleman studied the results of the pilot schemes which have been carried out by the Government to help the long-term unemployed?
  704
  Has he seen the figures, which show that about 90 per cent. of these people are helped either in obtaining employment or in finding a place in training? Does he not welcome that? Is he not being a little cynical about the Government's efforts in this direction?
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman is the one who is being cynical. He knows full well that the "jobs" that young people find are mainly community scheme jobs. They are not jobs in the accepted sense of the word. They are temporary jobs. I can imagine a similar scheme being instituted in an eastern European country, and if it were the hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain about people being directed towards the sort of work that is felt to be good for them.
  Mr. Prescott: Freedom!
  Mr. Snape: It seems that the Conservative party thinks that freedom should benefit only those who have proved by their own success or income that they can handle it properly.
  The cynicism that lies behind the Government's so-called schemes for young people has led, and is leading, to the economic and unemployment tragedies that we are seeing in the west midlands and elsewhere. The one small ray of sunshine is that some Conservative Members will have the benefit shortly, we hope, of learning just what it is like to be unemployed. It will be a long time before the people of the west midlands forget the experience of two successive Conservative Governments.
  12.24 pm
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am grateful for the opportunity to take up some of the remarks of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). When he was talking about the success of the Government's policy of deregulation of long-distance coaches, it was significant that he did not once mention the consumer. He did not say that people are able to journey across the country now at substantially reduced fares and that the range of services has been greatly extended.
  Mr. Snape: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech, but he must get this right. People are not able to journey across the country in the way that he describes. Cross-country long-distance coaches have virtually disappeared since deregulation. I accept, however, that the public are able to journey much more easily to and from London, but that is a different matter.
  Mr. Forsyth: I accept that the effect of deregulation has been a substantial increase in the number of services to London. That increase is a result of the demand from consumers. People want to travel to London at prices that are much lower than those which prevailed before the Government's efforts to deregulate long-distance coach travel. Before that it was impossible for them to travel by coach so cheaply. The only other option was to use the overpriced rail system, which was not subject to competition and was weighed down with restrictive practices and overmanning, on which the hon. Gentleman did not lay enough emphasis. It is true that some cross-country coach services have been reduced. That is because coaches have been taken off those routes to meet demand on the London routes.
  I found it interesting when the hon. Gentleman said that there are many foreign coaches on our roads and that the British coach-building industry was not able to supply

  705
  British-built coaches because the Government had not warned it that demand for coaches would increase. At the same time he was arguing that there were fewer drivers in employment. I have yet to see coaches being driven along motorways without drivers at the wheel. I wonder how the contradiction is resolved.
  The significant feature of the hon. Gentleman's speech—this was clear also in the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)—was the enduring myth in British politics that it is possible to create additional employment through additional Government spending. The extraordinary thing about this myth is that it has managed to survive for so long and that Labour Members should find themselves going along with it in the absence of any evidence to support it.
  In this respect, the speeches of Opposition Members have two main themes. First, they contend that it is possible to create jobs by direct subsidy to enterprises. I suppose that we must think of the De Lorean model, and Linwood and Invergordon in Scotland.
  Mr. Sheerman: What about Rolls-Royce and Leyland?
  Mr. Forsyth: Jobs in Rolls-Royce are not being created by direct subsidy. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in respect of British Leyland because the Government have put£1·4 billion into it. One must ask how many jobs have been destroyed in the private sector and elsewhere in meeting that bill.
  Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is urging the Government to pull the rug on all state aid and subsidy to all industries. Is that what he is saying? Does he realise the impact that that would have in the west midlands, which has already been affected disastrously by unemployment, especially in the car industry, and specifically at British Leyland and Rolls-Royce at Derby? Throughout the country firms have been helped positively in the past by previous Governments, and this has created and maintained jobs.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman must not try to put words into my mouth. I am not urging the Government to withdraw all state support as he suggests. I am merely saying that it is a delusion to believe that it is possible to create jobs by direct subsidy. The hon. Gentleman makes the point for me extremely clearly, for he takes no account of the fact that the money that Governments provide has to be found from somewhere. It is found by taxing free enterprise in the private sector, and if that is taxed we preempt resources which would otherwise be employed in providing jobs within the private sector.
  Mr. Sheerman rose——
  Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument, I shall give way to him willingly.
  No account is taken by Labour Members of the fact that the levying of taxes on small firms and private enterprise generally will mean that their prices will be forced up and they will become less competitive. They will have less money to invest in developing and expanding their businesses. There will be less demand within the market place and we shall become less competitive as a nation. The hon. Gentleman must answer that point.
  Mr. Sheerman: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the largest charge on public expenditure and on the taxpayer since the Conservatives came to office in 1979 has been the massive and wasteful cost of unemployment—
  706
  the massive dole queue? All our revenue from the North sea has been spent on that. Would it not be much better, in terms of value for money, to put money into productive firms to keep them going and get them over a difficult patch?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in pointing out that the largest increase in Government spending has been on the social security budget. Indeed, it has increased by more than 25 per cent. in real terms. It was gratifying to see the hon. Gentleman make that clear to the House. The largest proportion of the expenditure has gone on increasing pensions, for which the hon. Gentleman gives the Government very little credit.
  Mr. Sheerman: Do not be silly.
  Mr. Forsyth: The largest increase in the social security budget has been for the provision of pensions. The hon. Gentleman made a further mistake, which takes me on to the more convincing and sophisticated part of the argument. He said that it is possible to create employment by increasing public expenditure on the infrastructure— roads and construction. The hon. Gentleman made that point by way of intervention. He argued that if we spent the money on extra building, roads, sewers — the infrastructure— it would create employment and provide savings in that section of the social security budget devoted to unemployment benefit. I think I am right in saying that that was the substance of the hon. Gentleman's argument. It is a complete delusion. His argument presupposes that the extra jobs created in the construction industry, the building of sewers and so on, will be available to those on unemployment benefit.
  The experience of both Labour and Conservative Governments who have tried to do that is that large sums spent on capital projects do create a massive demand for workers in the construction industry, but that, on the whole, the demand is for skilled labour. We are talking about creating jobs in particular pockets of the country for those who are unskilled. lithe economy and the system are so rigid that workers are unable to move around the country—for example, because of rent control, which the hon. Gentleman supports—high demand for labour is created in some sections of the country at the expense of others, as well as massive distortions in the rest of the economy as false signals are set up by artificial demand.
  The most damning aspect is that when roads are finished and sewers are ultimately repaired, the jobs will no longer be available for those brought off unemployment benefit. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Huddersfield laughs, but that is the difficulty. Jobs created by public spending on the infrastructure last as long as the money goes into providing for the project. Jobs created in the free enterprise sector, based on goods and services, which are in demand and for which there is a ready market, are not only secure in the long term but allow the creation of further jobs as those enterprises expand.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why jobs in housebuilding and construction in the public sector are not ongoing jobs, whereas jobs in the private sector housing and construction business, according to his analysis, are? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, during the lifetime of the Government, housebuilding has fallen to the lowest level recorded since the end of the war, purely as a result of cuts

  707
  made by the Government in the public sector house building programme? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the enormous unemployment in the construction industry could be tackled substantially by way of quick action to build new houses and to renovate the enormous number of houses in poor condition?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman and Labour Members are obsessed with the public sector and public sector spending.
  Mr. Sheerman: No. Stimulate both.
  Mr. Forsyth: I give the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) credit for not going down the road taken by his colleagues and talking about infrastructure projects. He seized on housing repairs. Certainly, in that area the cost per job is lower. Therefore, in terms of the public money put in, more jobs will be created. The hon. Gentleman said that we have the lowest house building programme ever, but he does not take into account the dramatic expansion in the private sector. The hon. Gentleman asked me about the difference between public and private sector housing. It is simple. Private sector housing is funded out of private money. Public sector housing is funded out of public money. Public money must be raised by way of taxation. That taxation pre-empts resources from the private sector which are invested by the private sector far more efficiently than public money which is directed by politicians, committees and bureaucracies. Private money invested in the economy is far more productive, in terms of creating jobs and wealth — the multiplier to which the hon. Member for Huddersfield referred—than public sector money. That is the difference.
  Mr. Raynsford rose——
  Mr. Snape rose——
  Mr. Forsyth: Perhaps the hon. Gentlemen will allow me time to continue. I have been very generous in giving way and I should like to deal with the point that I am trying to make.
  Job creation with public money is a high-cost approach and is at best marginal. It is short-lived. It does no one any favours. If Labour Members are concerned about that, they should look at what is happening in their constituencies. If they cannot see what is happening in their constituencies, they should come to Scotland—to Bathgate, Linwood and Invergordon—to see the social misery that has been created by Conservative and Labour Governments in trying to create jobs by pumping in money and giving subsidies. Large enterprises, such as British Leyland, move in and attract people to the area. Then sooner or later they find that because they are located in a disadvantaged place in relation to the real market, they have to close. The subsidies cannot sustain them. People are left, beached like whales, without any prospect of employment.
  Mr. Snape: Forgetting British Leyland, which I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman would like to do, will he tell the House whether he supported his Government's desire to renovate private sector housing? They drastically increased public funds for the renovation of privately owned housing. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that
  708
  legislation actively assisted private companies? Did he support its restriction and virtual abolition within two years by his Government?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman must not muddle two things.
  Mr. Snape: Why not? The hon. Gentleman has managed to do so.
  Mr. Forsyth: No. It may well be that, in terms of the Government's housing policy, it is desirable to encourage private money to be invested in the rehabilitation of properties. The hon. Gentleman must not confuse that policy with a policy of job creation. I am talking about employment. Spending large amounts of public money is not the most efficient way to create jobs. It may well be that a grant system is a good way to improve housing, but the two policies should not be confused.
  Mr. Snape: Did the hon. Gentleman support it?
  Mr. Forsyth: I certainly supported the temporary introduction of the 90 per cent. grant levels. That was a successful policy. The Government, having sown the seed, were right to reduce the level, because the activity had begun.
  It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is not present.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that under the Socialist Government the amount of funding available——
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. There are too many sedentary interruptions.
  Mr. Howarth: Labour Members obviously had a tiring and emotional night last night.
  Does my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) agree that the last Labour Government were so concerned to help in the provision of renovation grants, and so on, that they managed to provide about£92 million? That figure increased to more than£500 million under a Conservative Government.
  Mr. Snape: What is it now?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In almost every aspect of policy where the Labour party attacks the Government — whether it is spending on the Health Service or help for pensioners, the unemployed, education or, as my hon. Friend pointed out, housing — the Government's record is far better than the Labour party's. We have invariably increased expenditure and improved performance. The Labour Government so financially mismanaged the country that, in the hands of the International Monetary Fund, they had to introduce real cuts in many of those areas.
  United States experience is a key example that we should follow. Employment during the 1970s grew by about 26 per cent. compared with a United Kingdom figure of 2 per cent. It is significant and symbolic of the Opposition's negative attitude, endorsed by the hon. Member for Yeovil, that they constantly harp on about unemployment when they should be talking about employment and the way to create new jobs. Because the Opposition are so tied to the trade unions for support and succour — and must worship at that altar — they are

  709
  obsessed with large, unionised enterprises which have nothing to offer this country in terms of employment and growth. That has certainly been experienced in the United States. During 1981 to 1983 the 500 largest companies shed 3 million jobs — over the decade the figure is between 4 million and 5 million — whereas 20 million new jobs were created exclusively in the small business sector.
  Opposition Members who argue that large enterprises must flourish and be successful in order to keep the small businesses going should study the United States economy, and other economies, where they would find that that is not the case. In the United States, small businesses are now responsible for 38 per cent. of the gross national product. In the service sector, which is the largest growing sector, 90 per cent. of new jobs are in small firms. Surely the real challenge in creating new employment lies in the expansion of existing small firms and the creation of further small firms.
  I welcome the Government's attempt to establish an enterprise culture, which is central to meeting our obligations to employment and creating the social welfare conditions that Conservative Members want. However, having listened to the catcalls and the negative attitude of Opposition Members, I am concerned that the Government's task may prove greater even than the energy shown by my hon. Friend the Minister. It is a matter not of deregulation and creating the right climate for competition and enterprise to survive, but of getting into our society an understanding of the ways in which wealth is created. Rather than treating entrepreneurs as second-class citizens — and there is still a feeling that they should be using the tradesman's entrance — they should be revered, because we depend on them for the quality of life to which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) referred.
  Few Opposition Members have tried to get people to set up in business. If, as an exercise, they did, they would quickly learn that it is rather like surmounting an obstacle course, despite the many measures introduced by the Government to make life easier. As Conservative Members recognise, it is not sensible for the time and energy of business men, which could be devoted to selling their goods and services, to be diverted into the minutae of regulation and form filling.
  There is also a role for the schools, which are not doing enough to create an enterprise culture. Indeed, many aspects of the curricula are positively anti-capitalist. There is still an anti-capitalist version of history, where the industrial revolution is portrayed as a period of great poverty and deprivation. The reality is that while conditions were considerably worse than they are today, by our standards, they were considerably better than those achieved by previous generations within the agrarian and feudal economy. The reality is that the industrial revolution liberated people. It improved their standard of living and resulted in an upward mobility in society, which was impossible for all generations before that.
  Mr. Raynsford: There has been some discussion in another place recently about the importance of religious education. How would the hon. Gentleman reconcile the advancement of the precept,
  "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth",
  with the views that he has been putting forward about the need to encourage enterprise in schools?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman's smugness is appalling. Has he not heard of people such as Andrew Carnegie? Is he not aware that some of the great charitable works that have been carried out in this country and in the United States are the results of entrepreneurs? [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has never heard of Andrew Carnegie. Has he not heard of Lord Nuffield? Perhaps William Morris is the name that he will find easier to grasp. The hon. Gentleman does a great disservice to the many wealth creators throughout history and today who have played a significant part as charitable benefactors.
  Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that it was the Quakers in the mid 19th century, many of whom Opposition Members would admire, and who deserve the admiration of our generation, who built up both enterprise and the sense of genuine concern for fellow people? Frequently, it was the Quakers who set up businesses of the type that my hon. Friend mentioned. They were and they remain highly successful.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right. Indeed, as a Scottish Presbyterian, I agree with what he said about the Quakers.
  The values of thrift, enterprise and hard work are central to the small business culture. The Church has prospered on the back of the free enterprise system. The systems of government and the ideology to which Opposition Members are wedded have resulted in the destruction of the Church and religion in many countries, including the Soviet Union. But, of course, Opposition Members distance themselves from Socialism in practice. The difference is that we in the Conservative party can embrace capitalism in practice and point to the success of capitalist countries in meeting the objectives to which Opposition Members pay lip service.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary that we need to go further. We must make it easier for small business men to transfer capital and retain profits. I welcome the measures that have been taken—action on capital transfer tax in the Budget and the gradual reduction of corporation tax. I think it was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, before she became Prime Minister, who said that capital transfer tax could destroy a medium-sized family business in two generations.
  There are still some difficulties in getting self-employed status. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will do everything possible to persuade his colleagues in the Treasury about the importance of taking action on that matter. We need a clear objective test for self-employed status. If we can increase the numbers of people who can be self-employed, that will enable employers to take on labour without having to worry about whether it will take them over the VAT threshold and about being locked into expensive and burdensome employment protection laws. It could enable hundreds of thousands of people to be employed at lower cost without lowering wage levels. That should be a priority.
  I have no doubt that Opposition Members will refer to massaging the figures, but why, for goodness sake, when calculating the unemployment figures, is no account taken of the large numbers of self-employed people in Britain? They do not exist in the figures and that is a major disadvantage.

  711
  Self-employment in the United States is rising 50 per cent. faster than paid employment. We could mirror that success. In the United States self-employment accounts for one-tenth of new jobs.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield seemed amused when I mentioned Italy. He offered to conduct the remainder of his speech in Italian, but said that he did not want to be associated with the Italian experience.
  Mr. Sheerman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to misinterpret my remarks. I said that I did not look to Italy for an example of a country where women's rights have been championed and furthered. That is what I said, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands it.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I would not want to misquote him. I asked him if he would endorse the Italian experience of deregulation under which all firms with fewer than 15 employees are exempt from a raft of regulations and requirements concerning benefits connected with health and safety, and so on. The hon. Gentleman replied by telling me about women's rights. I wish that he had addressed the issue because Italy cannot be said to be under a Right-wing, free market Government. Italy has introduced deregulation to a greater extent than my hon. Friend the Minister. I urge the hon. Gentleman to embrace the Italian example to create the renaissance that we need for employment. The system has worked well for Italy.
  At the risk of upsetting Opposition Members, I shall discuss the material signs of prosperity created by deregulation in Italy. Car ownership has increased from 6 to 242 per thousand population. Italy imports more champagne and whisky than any other European country. It has the highest ownership of second homes and is well ahead of any other European country in terms of the numbers of holidays taken. Its people save 24 per cent. of their income, compared with 13·5 per cent. in West Germany and 5·7 per cent. in France. A total of 28 per cent. of the Italian working population is self-employed, compared with 7 per cent. in the United Kingdom.
  Why has that come about in Italy? It is the result of the stalemate in labour relations in large enterprises. The trade unions became so powerful that they fossilised the system, and enterprises are now contracting out to small firms so that they have none of the hassle, and costs are lower. Employers, by encouraging their employees to set up mini shops and small businesses within their own factories, have introduced flexibility into business.
  As a result, in the depressed regions and areas far from the centres of economic activity there is a boom in small businesses — mini silicon valleys, producing high technology as well as traditional manufacturing products.
  The hon. Member for Fulham talked about the Church. The Church has played a key role, not in making great speeches calling for greater public expenditure to repeat the mistakes of the past, but by priests helping to coordinate local cottage industries. That is what is happening in Italy.
  Mr. Corbyn: I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman's conversion to the radical priests' movement, and I am sure it will be welcomed throughout the world. However, will he temper his argument and reflect on what the churches'
  712
  report "Faith in the City" said about the Government's policies on enterprise and deregulation and about unemployment in inner urban areas?
  Mr. Forsyth: I thought that I had hinted at my view, but, so that it is clear to the hon. Gentleman, let me say that I regard our churches' approach to unemployment as wholly irresponsible. Like the Opposition, they have nothing to offer. They merely mouth the policies that have failed Britain in the past. I contrast their efforts with those of priests in Italian communities who have grasped the fact that free enterprise will be the salvation of their people and have helped in practical terms by assisting the establishment of businesses in those communities. If vicars in this country are prepared to do the same, we shall welcome that. I hope that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will give them the support that the Socialist Administration in Italy are giving to their people.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East went to great pains to tell us about the need to do something for textiles and manufacturing industry.
  Mr. Snape: I did not mention textiles.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have done so if he had had time. In Italy the production of textiles, clothing, shoes, furniture, tiles and electrical equipment — all the goods that the hon. Gentleman protested British people were buying in our shops — invariably takes place not in large companies such as GEC, but in firms employing 15 or fewer people. Is it not an extraordinary coincidence that that links up with the 15 employees that marks the limit on regulation, restriction and control in Italy?
  Britain has the same reserves of people with the necessary skill in textiles and manufacturing industry, but they are either in the black ecomomy or languishing on the dole. They are not getting opportunities, because Opposition Members and others like them continue to support stifling regulation and control which is preventing employment from being generated and the removal of which has been so dramatically successful in Italy.
  Perhaps we should leave Italy, because there is so much that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is beginning to achieve, though there is so much more that needs to be done.
  Mr. Snape: What about the Mafia? That is a non-union firm.
  Mr. Forsyth: The task of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is simple to define, but hard to deliver. If we make it easier and cheaper for small firms to employ people, they will do so. If we make it less burdensome and more rewarding for people to start firms, new firms will be created. If we make it easier and more advantageous to expand, firms will expand and grow.
  The delight of the strategy on which my hon. Friend is embarking, which has already produced dividends, is not just that it leaves the Opposition with nothing to say—the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield proved that—but that it is not inflationary. The more new firms that are created, the broader will be the tax base and the lower will be the pressures on public spending. The supply side strategy of freeing firms to grow has the great advantage that it ends the idea of high inflation being the price paid for ineffective action on employment, which is all that the Opposition have to offer.

  713
  Of course, my hon. Friend's strategy will be long lasting and will create the wealth that we need to meet our obligations to the poor and the most vulnerable in society. In short, it enables us as a country not only to create jobs, but to create wealth—an aim on which the Opposition have no ideas of substance to offer the British people.
  12.59 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: During the 40 minutes or so in which we have listened to the Adam Smith Institute contribution to this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) and I have been able to do a little research. We found that the majority enjoyed by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is the same as the Conservative majority in Fulham in June 1983. Therefore, as a portent of things to come, the hon. Member for Stirling may have made a historical speech in the debate.
  This debate is also a debate within the Tory party. It is a debate between the pre-industrial revolution Tories, such as the hon. Member for Stirling, and the land-owning classes. The hon. Member for Stirling's analysis of the industrial revolution is incredible. To claim that the movement of people from the land to urban centres resulted in an improvement in their living standards is to turn history on its head. One does not have to read a Marxist interpretation of history to discover the social conditions of the mid to late 19th century in all the urban centres. People were forced off the land by mechanisation and an increased grab for profits by landowners and into urban centres in even worse conditions than they had left in rural areas.
  The hon. Gentleman should study a little history before coming here and giving us the garbled view that somehow deregulation and lack of any controls on the ability of companies to exploit individuals lead to a higher living standard. If he believes that he should go and look at the teeming tenements in Hong Kong and places such as the Philippines where capitalism is unbridled. There he would find dirt, disease, squalor, misery, short lives and high levels of infant mortality. That is where the policy that the hon. Member for Stirling has been expounding to the House would lead us.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I did study a little history, admittedly at St. Andrews, which the hon. Gentleman would probably write off. I do not dispute the fact that in Hong Kong and in 19th century urban Britain conditions were squalid. I was simply saying that conditions in Britain at that time were much better than they had been previously in rural areas. I ask the hon. Gentleman to address his attention to the conditions which exist in the squalid flats of Hong Kong, which I have seen, compared to conditions which exist in Communist China. The conditions in Hong Kong are much better by far than they are in the sort of society that the hon. Gentleman supports.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not do enough history at St. Andrews while he was enjoying the benefits of a publicly funded education. His analysis of Chinese history is as cock-eyed as his analysis of British history. He should realise that the appalling social conditions in Hong Kong are the result of deregulated unbridled capitalism. The conditions enjoyed by people in China now, compared to 1948, are immeasurably better.
  714
  The country has pulled itself up without the assistance of anybody else, but by collectivising its economy, its efforts and its energy.
  Starvation and poverty are not common in China as they were in 1948. Before the hon. Gentleman lectures the world on the way in which capitalism can improve living standards he should look at some of the countries which had to develop their own economies without the assistance of anybody else. I know that Conservative Members are now going on a "love China" spree. They should remember that the present prosperity in China is based upon a collective economy and not on an individual and market oriented economy.
  Mr. Trippier: If that is the case, why do we not have people queuing up in Hong Kong trying to get back to Communist China?
  Mr. Corbyn: The Government of both China and Hong Kong are looking after each other quite well. Hong Kong is the major port for China and it is also the route by which much foreign capital is invested in China. The Minister and the Government knew that very well when they negotiated the Hong Kong treaty.
  I shall bring the debate slightly nearer to home because I believe that we are talking about enterprise and deregulation in this country. However, international comparisons are obviously important. The Government make much play of what they have done about employment and unemployment in this country. In June 1979 the number of employees was 23,157,000. By September 1985 it was 21,346,000. During that period the working population had increased from 26,609,000 to 27,669,000, a very large increase in levels of unemployment, as anyone can see.
  Unemployment has more than trebled since the Government came into office. yet they still lecture us that somehow or the other the economy is on course and is more efficient. I can think of nothing more inefficient than having over 3 million people doing nothing with close on 1 million people on various schemes that are largely designed to massage unemployment figures rather than providing real jobs. They are trying to con people into believing that deregulation and lowering wage levels and living standards provides prosperity for the many. The Government's economic strategies have led to the highest ever levels of poverty in modern times, the highest ever levels of unemployment, and a feeling of desperation, desolation and hopelessness in the inner cities that has not been experienced since before the war. That is the effect of Government policies, but they tell us that we are turning the corner, and all that they have to do is a little more deregulation and then everything will be all right.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Member started his speech by referring to the connection between unemployment figures and election results, and has now turned to the question of the difference in the rate of unemployment between 1979 and the present day. He has tried to draw conclusions relating to the electoral consequences of that. I am not denying, as in my constituency, that the level of unemployment is higher than it was in 1979, although I was not a Member of Parliament at that time. By 1983, the unemployment rate had increased, but much of that was the consequence of the policies pursued by the Labour party when in government——
  Mr. Raynsford: That was in 1979.
  Mr. Cash: The consequence was fed through, to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford). It is a tribute to the realism of the British people that by 1983, when asked, they returned the Government with the most massive majority.
  Mr. Corbyn: What a curious view of history the hon. Gentleman has. I seem to recall the 1983 general election campaign being dominated, as usual, by a number of sycophantic newspapers with gung-ho chauvinism about the Falklands unprecedented in modern times, which resulted in a swing against the Tories. The election in 1983 was not a great victory for the Tory party. It had fewer votes then than in 1979. If we take the pattern of history forward, the hon. Gentleman may lose his seat, and we can look forward to having once again a Labour Member for Stafford.
  I move now to the situation in Greater London and the effects that unemployment is having on inner urban areas such as that which I represent. The level of unemployment in the Greater London area as of April 1986 is 402,700 people. That is a regional number as high as, or even higher than, many other parts of the country, but this is supposed to be in the prosperous overblown south-east, the prosperous part of Britain. In fact, the number of people unemployed is higher than in Scotland and many other regions. It is a terrifying figure.
  The structure of unemployment within London shows that in the inner urban areas the levels of unemployment have consistently been higher than the national average and there has consistently been a structural level of unemployment that has meant that older people have been unable to find more work when companies have closed and the number of school leavers out of work is higher. The level of wages in those areas is often considerably lower than for other places, yet Conservative Members lecture us about the connection between wage levels and unemployment.
  Recall the figure of 402,700 people unemployed and compare it with the number of vacancies notified at the job centres, which in April 1986 was 26,600. For the community programme agencies the figure was 2,032. The opportunities for employment in Greater London, especially for young people and for middle aged people who have lost their jobs because of redundancy. are limited. On 10 April in my borough of Islington, 12,131 males and 4,908 females were unemployed. That gives a total in the borough of 17,039 people. Those people want work. They are prepared to work and see around them the possibilities for work which would be realised if money were pumped into the economy by way of public investment and enterprise.
  I have here the figures for full-time education school leavers registered in benefit offices on 10 April. In Islington those under the age of 18 numbered 283; for 18-year-olds the figure is 181, and for 19-year-olds and over it is 1,118. That is a total of 1,582 people of school leaving age or near it who are unemployed in the borough that I represent. Those figures are a devastating indictment of the Government's policies.
  The Manpower Services Commission report for April shows that unfilled vacancies at the employment offices at Holloway numbered 187. At the Islington office it was 420, and at the careers offices there were just 25 vacancies notified at the Barbican and 114 at the Holloway office. Any hon. Member who cares to compare those figures
  716
  with the figures for unemployment that I have given will appreciate the misery and hopelessness felt by many young people. My borough council has done a great deal to try to promote employment in the borough. It set up and helped to fund a co-operative development agency and did a great deal through the GLC to open small factories. The Minister may laugh, but if he cares to visit Islington he will see how miserable life is for many school leavers, and he will see how his Government are detested because they are not prepared to do anything for young people.
  Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. As a Minister, I have officially visited Islington on several occasions, even within the last 12 months, and I saw much enterprising work going on there. If I were the hon. Gentleman I would not pay credit to the GLC for what it did in that area because the greatest constraint on business and enterprise in Islington was the substantial increase in rates.
  Mr. Corbyn: There are two errors in the Minister's argument. Firstly, no Minister has been able to produce any serious evidence to show that the level of rates has anything to do with the amount of business enterprise going on in any part of London. He knows that perfectly well. Secondly, he also knows that the GLC did a great deal to build factories and small workshop facilities, and that it funded various enterprises in the inner London areas. The GLC created a large number of jobs and saved a lot of jobs in London. Presumably that is one of the reasons why the Government were so keen to abolish the GLC, why the London Residuary Body is not prepared to take on the functions of the GLC, and why the Government are so hostile to the Greater London Enterprise Board.
  My borough council has tried to create jobs through cooperative ventures and through the provision of factories and workshop space. The cost of creating those jobs is considerably less than the cost of jobs created in enterprise zones, which receive an enormous public subsidy by way of low rates.
  The Government talk endlessly about solving our unemployment problem through the creation of small businesses and deregulation. The fault of that strategy is that the facts are against them. There are no more than 600,000 extra people employed in small businesses or self-employed than there were in 1979. The Government know perfectly well that their other policy of not supporting major manufacturing enterprises leads to a cycle of decline.
  A few weeks ago we debated the shipbuilding industry and its need for Government support. The Government are not prepared to support that industry, and that leads to a knock-on effect on the loss of jobs. The same thing applies to all the other large, basic manufacturing industries. If the Government wish to solve the problem of unemployment they will have to start by being prepared to create and, support conditions for success in our large, basic manufacturing industries.
  Mr. Trippier: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House in any way. He said that there was not an increase in the number of people employed in small firms. Indeed, I think that he suggested that there was a decrease.
  Mr. Corbyn: I said increase.
  Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that there has been a substantial increase.
  Mr. Corbyn: There has been an increase of 600,000.
  Mr. Trippier: It is much bigger than that. Where is the hon. Gentleman getting his statistics? I take it that he is not including the self-employed.
  Mr. Corbyn: The figures that I referred to were for the self-employed, and I recognise that there has been an increase. I was saying that there has been no increase to compensate for the loss of jobs in manufacturing industry. It has not solved the problem and it will not do so. The figures come from the Minister's Department. If he wants to check them, he presumably has better access to statistics than me.
  Mr. Trippier: It is the use of statistics.
  Mr. Corbyn: If the Minister wants to say something, he need not mumble.
  Mr. Trippier: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. He was talking about the number of people in small firms. If he checks the record on Monday, I am sure that he will find that that is what he said. My hon. Friends have spoken continually of the substantial increase in the number of self-employed people and people employed in small firms. Nobody disputes the fact that there has been a shedding of labour in larger companies, but the hon. Gentleman may want to check the figures in regard to manufacturing industry. They may be for industry as a whole.
  Mr. Corbyn: The figures that the Minister referred to come from his Department and they show that there were 1,903,000 self-employed people in June 1979 and that the projected figure for September 1985 is 2,651,000. He will find that there was a loss of 35,000 jobs in energy, 43,000 jobs in manufacturing and 35,000 jobs in construction between September 1984 and September 1985. There has been an increase only in service industries. My point is that the Government's policies do not solve the problem and nor can they because the problem is that the Government are not prepared to maintain the country's industrial base.
  We must consider the misery of inner-urban areas where small companies go bust because there are no orders from larger companies. That means that there are extremely high levels of structural unemployment. Such levels have many effects. They lead to a deterioration of the local economy, a feeling of hopelessness and misery to which many Labour Members are accustomed, and to dangerous health problems for unemployed people. The death rate among unemployed people is higher than that among people in work, as is the incidence of mental illness. Unemployed people suffer feelings of insecurity and anxiety about being unable to make ends meet. That is a consequence of Government policy.
  All that the Government can offer us is the prospect of deregulation. They claim that workers should price themselves into a job. To that end, they remove the guarantees afforded by wages councils. Why? The same Government have given massive increases to people at the other end of the scale such as to the chairmen of nationalised industries, judges and Army, Navy and Air Force officers. They apparently need an incentive to work, but, at the other end of the scale, people apparently need lower wages to force them to work. The two do not add up. The Government are trying to create poverty at one
  718
  end of the scale and wealth at the other. That goes hand in hand with their taxation policies through which they have handed out£15 billion to people who earn more than£20,000 a year during the past seven years.
  The Government are proposing a further round of deregulation. Deregulation does not necessarily create jobs, but it creates worse and often dangerous working conditions. The Government should ask themselves why some of the regulations exist and why workers have banded together in trade unions to demand safe working conditions, time off with pay to attend to other duties, and maternity leave. In the long run, the Government want to remove all those provisions. The Minister said that there were at present no plans to change the health and safety at work legislation. However, there is a tremendous shortage of health and safety inspectors, which can lead only to dangerous working conditions.
  Unemployment can be defeated if the Government show a preparedness to direct and control investment, to support manufacturing industry, to ensure a shorter working week and earlier retirement, and to have, if necessary, a higher school-leaving age with more time in education. That could help to solve the problems of unemployment. We do not need the Government's nonsensical rush into unbridled capitalism with all that that brings with it.
  In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), the Minister said last week that in the past live years those on lowest earnings had been underpaid by£12 million, and that the money had been retrieved by wages council inspectors. He thus accepted that there had been much underpayment in wages council industries. He then informed the House that only eight firms had been prosecuted for failing to comply with minimum wage laws. The Government's drive to get rid of regulations is entirely misplaced and is directed at the wrong end of the scale. Instead, they should support local government in its efforts to create jobs and support those who are trying to develop manufacturing industry. Above all, they should not rush headlong into removing all regulation. They should instead ensure that workers in small industries receive the protection that they need and so richly deserve.
  1.21 pm
  Mr. William Cash: Several points have been made about the situation in my constituency. A few months ago Newcastle university produced a report on a political and entirely objective basis, showing that there were 70 boom towns in the country. They were categorised according to certain criteria, such as the level of unemployment, the number of cars, the extent to which people were involved in different activities, and so on. Stafford came 53rd out of over 250 in all.
  The figures also show that since 1979 Stafford has had considerable unemployment, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has illustrated. I do not deny that unemployment has increased since 1979. However, the results of the 1983 elections and of the by-election that I fought in 1984 were considerably better than people might have expected. The work force and management in Stafford produce products of a very high quality. As a result GEC has won the Duandong contract in China and a contract has also been won for the Queen Mary. Contracts like that provide tremendous opportunities for employment in Stafford and other areas.

  719
  Furthermore, the development of small businesses on the Raleigh Hall industrial estate, and so on, has shown that the spirit of free enterprise is very much alive in Stafford, with all its consequences for job prospects. Thus, the suggestion that the level of unemployment in Stafford is not complemented by that spirit of enterprise is entirely misleading.
  The reality—this applies to all the matters that have been raised in the debate — is that, regrettable as unemployment levels may be, the crucial issue is how positive we can be in trying to get people back into work, when in truth most of the reasons why there is a high level of employment are those that are shared in all parts of the world. My hon. Friend the Minister and others of my hon. Friends have referred to the United States, Japan and European countries, including Italy. They have demonstrated the increase in the level of enterprise that has occurred in those countries. We must take account of overseas experience and be positive and constructive to try to improve prospects for our own people.
  The Government take no satisfaction from the high level of unemployment that now prevails. We must look to the future and through measures such as those that are contained in the excellent White Paper entitled "Building Businesses … Not Barriers" to reduce the level of regulation to help those who are engaged in small businesses. We must help people set up small businesses and extend that help when they are in being. That is why I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the help that the Government have given with local enterprise agencies. I understand that there are now well over 300 and that they are performing an extremely useful task. The agencies, in combination with local chambers of trade and other bodies, are showing that enterprise is something that we are learning about and developing at a rate that is enabling us to provide more real small businesses and more effective self-employment. The figures and the arguments are well known to all Members, and we know that we shall not be able to provide free enterprise and small businesses without a great deal of hard work.
  An article appeared in The Times on Friday 6 June which referred to the work of Mr. Francis Blanchard, the veteran director general of the United Nations International Labour Office. I am sorry that not more Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are in their places to hear what Mr. Blanchard had to say. I hope, however, that they will take note of his remarks.
  The view is taken by Mr. Blanchard that self-help is of the greatest possible importance for those who are living in areas where economic conditions are not as good as we would like them to be. The same general point could be made about Britain. Mr. Blanchard says, especially about the third world, that the
  "'informal' world of street vendors, repair shops, hoe makers and fish fryers should 'organise better the jobs they create themselves'. The road to a better life is not going to be via the factory floor."
  His report asserts that
  "to rely on policy measures, legislation and the promotion of proper standards would simply stifle the dynamism and creative abilities of the poor."
  The comment is made that this approach
  "breaks all the ILO moulds."
  Mr. Blanchard argues that
  720
  "it is time to recognise that the fight against unemployment and poverty is being lost"
  and that by inference there is a need to make changes in the direction of helping people to help themselves and to provide the environment in which they can become self-employed because the prospects for them to be able to gain employment with a large manufacturer are no longer there and are not likely to be available in future.
  We owe it to ourselves to examine the American and Japanese experience. The cutting of taxes, which has been discussed over the past few months, is an approach that we should consider carefully. I include in that a plea to increase the VAT threshold to£50,000. Cutting taxation remains a central issue in the debate. No doubt the debate will continue within our party. The importance of it may be highlighted by the fact that in the 1920s, when America — I think that President Coolidge was in office — reduced the tax rates significantly, an enormous increase in employment immediately followed. In the 1950s, in Japan, Tashan Ishibashi reformed the tax structure. There seems to be direct correlation between tax rates and the propects for self-employment and the regeneration of enterprise and employment.
  There are other matters, such as education, to which we should pay attention in such a debate. Children must learn practical business skills to be able to take advantage of the enterprise structure that we are trying to create. We must accept that some children are not academically minded, and have a tremendous difficulty with academic subjects. The reality is that, eventually, they must find jobs. We must give them the opportunity, through the education system, to acquire the necessary skills to do so. They must acquire the adaptable and transferable skills that are necessary for them to get jobs when they leave school. I believe that initiatives are taking place. I have already mentioned that in my constituency GEC is providing practical study courses for schoolchildren. I recommend companies in other constituencies to follow that move.
  The 18 million additional jobs created in America started very much in the home. Self-employment lay at the root. Deregulation and the reduction in the amount of legislation in America ensured that 85 per cent. of the jobs created in the past few years started in the home. That important point is reflected in the White Paper. The change in the use classes order could have a beneficial effect in providing an environment in which people involved in high technology or the rural economy will be able to provide themselves with an opportunity to set up in business on their own without unnecessary restrictions.
  When redundant agricultural buildings are converted, they must be put to the best possible use. I congratulate the Royal Society of Agriculture of England, the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union and Rural Voice. I thank the Bishop of Stafford and Rural Voice in my constituency for the work that they have done in helping to provide better opportunities for those who work in the rural economy. With new machinery and increased overproduction in agriculture, which is discussed in the White Paper, there are opportunities and there is a need for us to help those who live in the rural areas. We must put the redundant agricultural buildings to the best possible use.
  Regulations take time. Time equals money. Regulations take time to absorb and time to put into practice. The need to reduce the level of over-regulation has been accepted by the Government. The White Paper

  721
  provides an intelligent framework within which the nuts and bolts needed to achieve our objectives can be found. It is one of the unstuffiest examples of "Dehumphrification" that I have seen in recent years. This first-class document deserves careful reading. It shows that we are committed not only to enterprise but to creating jobs.
  A few years ago we introduced the Small Business Bill, which provided an opportunity for many people to examine the way in which to implement small business proposals. We in the Conservative small business bureau proposed a system of co-ordination between Government Departments to reduce the burden on small businesses. The Bill's opening words referred to the promotion of enterprise and employment—two crucial aspects facing this country.
  Public services can be provided from private enterprise. Public services and public expenditure cannot be whistled out of thin air. We want to produce private enterprise on a scale that will dramatically increase over the next 25 years. We have a serious unemployment problem, but we are beginning to win through. The principles on which the Small Business Bill, the White Paper "Lifting the Burden"—which has now been implemented by the Government—and the new White Paper "Building Businesses … Not Barriers" are based provide the framework within which it is possible to start moving towards the fulfilment of the enterprise culture that we have discussed in this debate.
  Reference has been made to trade unions and to the industrial revolution in the 19th century. I dare say that if I had lived in the mid-19th century I, too, would have wanted to stand up for the rights of workers who lived in appalling circumstances. My great grandfather, William Cash, was one of the first commissioners to deal with the treatment of coal workers on the London docks. He faced a big battle, which has been well documented, in getting the necessary legislation on to the statute book.
  It does not follow that those of us who believe in free enterprise are necessarily antipathetic to the notion of trade unionism. We are concerned with the restrictive practices that have been built up around trade unionism, not its objectives. People from all walks of life need protection. It is equally important to ensure that we do not build up enormous monopoly interests, power centres and bases—whether in manufacturing, big industry or trade unions — which militate against the interests of the enterprise and the prospects for self-enterprise of the people as a whole.
  Competition is part of deregulation. I was delighted to see the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry of a review of competition policy. I have called for such a review in previous debates. Some months ago, I tabled a question asking for a review of competition.
  I should have preferred this debate to take place in prime time rather than on a Friday, and Friday the 13th at that. This is a central issue and the debate provides an opportunity for us to consider questions in a balanced way. Despite one or two altercations, this has been a helpful and constructive debate, conducted in a reasonable spirit.
  We have a national job to do, and through the White Paper the Government have done an enormous amount to reduce regulation and increase the prospects for enterprise. I congratulate the Government on the progress that has
  722
  been made. We are, of course. always impatient for more. I would rather see deregulation than White Paper, but I pay tribute to the work of Lord Young, the Paymaster General and my hon. Friend the Minister for their work in putting together the nuts and bolts that will lead to greater prosperity in this country.
  It might be appropriate now to refer to Mr. Paul Twyman, head of the enterprise and deregulation unit, for his work during the past two years. I also thank the officials in the Department, many of whom are here today, for their hard work — which must not be underestimated—in putting together a package that will help this country to get off the ground and become more and more enterprising during the next 15 to 20 years.
  1.41 pm
  Mr. Sheerman: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not detain the House long.
  There has been a sense of unreality about some aspects of the debate and I had to pinch myself when listening to some of the remarks from Conservative Members. The Government have been in power for seven long years. Indeed, the Conservatve party has been in power more often than any other party since the turn of the century, especially since 1945. If something is fundamentally wrong with the spirit of enterprise and the encouragement of new and small businesses, is there not something wrong with the catalogue of scapegoats put forward by the Government? The Government have an overwhelming majority and can obtain any legislation that they want, whether financial, industrial or trade. Yet, after seven long years, we are in the most pitiful position. We import more than we export and we have an appalling index of manufacturing production. For the period April to June 1975, it was 112·3, whereas, for April to June 1986, it was down at 102·3. Yet this country is devastated by mass unemployment unimagined by any Government since 1945. The Government are no longer committed to full employment ——
  Mr. Colin Moynihan: Rubbish.
  Mr. Sheerman: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to some of his colleagues' speeches, he would know that that is a common feeling in the Conservative party, which is no longer committed to full employment. The Government. want to talk not about unemployment, only job creation Of course we must talk about job creation, but we must also talk about unemployment.
  We want to get the answers right and we desperately want job creation to be more successful than ever before. No Government deserve to be elected if they do not believe in the successful creation of wealth, competition from markets and the ever-changing needs of society where technology is moving so fast. We in the Labour party are committed to meeting those challenges successfully. We are conscious that we want to spread the benefits of that wealth creation differently from the Conservative party. We want to spread them across our society, to all sections of the community. That is the real difference between Labour and Conservative Governments when in power.
  I have to nail some other myths before the debate closes. There is a myth that the Conservative party would love to promulgate, and does promulgate. No one is better at it than the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).

  723
  That myth is a belief that the Labour party is anti-enterprise, anti-business and anti-wealth creation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  I tell the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members that, as I go round the country, business men and managers say, "Please let us have a Labour Government again." [Laughter.] Up and down the country, manager after manager says that. Conservative Members may laugh at that because it is an uncomfortable fact. [Interruption.]They do not like it. It is something to do with the fact that most of the idle people representing the Conservative party in the House have less attachment to expertise or background in manufacturing industry than any House of Commons in the past 100 years. They are parasites—people who have never earned a decent living in manufacturing industry in their lives. There are so many solicitors, parasites, stockbrokers—people who have never ever got their hands dirty in British industry. That is why there is an enormous gap. That is why they are so out of touch with what manufacturing production is about——
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sheerman: I shall not give way.
  The fact is that the Conservative Benches are the Benches of parasites—people who have done well out of the City and out of the cushy jobs in our society. That is not true of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. We have more experience of British manufacturing industry.
  I tell the Government that, unlike them, we in the Labour party are not totally blinkered by ideology. One of the things of which I am extremely proud is that the Labour party is a learning party. We say that we sometimes make mistakes and get things wrong. We listen to people, industry and the trade unions, and we go back and reform our policies and get them right.
  The Minister asked us what we shall put before the electorate. Let me tell him. The Labour party believes in a new and invigorating partnership between Government and industry—a creative relationship. We shall have a very good relationship with manufacturing industry. We shall have a more aggressive or a tougher relationship perhaps with some other areas of British industry. I speak particularly of the City and the banking system. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made this point, too. We need banks and institutions that invest in all our country—all our people.
  In his speech, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) wiped away the futures of many people—whole cities, towns and regions. They do not have to stay there any longer. They are in the wrong place. They set up home, brought up kids and invested their life and future in their houses in areas that are no longer relevant, so let those communities wither and die. Let all those people move down to the rich pastures of the south.
  The hon. Gentleman talked much about his constituency. I have looked at the unemployment figures for Stafford, for Rossendale—and for Reading, because of the Whip who was occupying the Front Bench at the time. I recently visited Reading. My constituents believe that everything is all right in the south of England, that it is rich and has full employment. In Reading unemployment is over 11 per cent. That is a place with green field sites in
  724
  a plush part of the south of England, but even there, despite its proximity to Heathrow and arteries linking it to the rest of the country, unemployment is high.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has made a number of unsubstantiated remarks. He made a series of general allegations about my speech which in no way reflected what I said. I said that I was deeply concerned about unemployment in my constituency, but that it was lower than the west midlands average, and that the Newcastle university report showed that, of the 70 boom towns in the country, Stafford came 53rd. I said that that proved the enterprise of the Stafford people and, furthermore, that unemployment was reflected in Stafford not by the negative, pessimistic view portrayed by the hon. Gentleman, but by a positive and enterprising attitude. I pay tribute to the people of Stafford for that reason.
  Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Member for Stafford claims that I made unsubstantiated allegations. I mentioned the figures for the decline in manufacturing industry and GDP since 1979. They are incontrovertible. We sell less abroad than we import. The figures are on the record.
  The Labour party understands British industry's needs. We understand the need to build a creative partnership between the public and private sectors better than the blinkered ideologues represented by the leaders of the Conservative party. That has not always been so because ideologues such as the Prime Minister, supported by the Secretary of State for Employment, have not always been there. A creative partnership between the public and private sectors can do a great deal for industry and enterprise. We believe that we can create, at national, regional and local levels, an enterprise infrastructure that can and will build on the emerging developments.
  The Minister does not have to tell us that small business and small industry are important employers. We do not deny it. Indeed, wearing our constituency and shadow ministerial hats, we understand it only too well. We are in the business of creating a partnership for enterprise which will truly bring about positive enterprise throughout our country. That means investment in those parts of the country that some Conservative Members, such as the hon. Member for Stirling, have written off. We do not write off the west midlands, areas of Scotland or any part of our country. It is the Government's responsibility to create work and wealth for all our people, not just for those who live in the safe, soft Conservative heartlands. That is what we shall put our hands to after the next general election. We shall throw out many of the parasites in the Conservative party.
  Mr. Roger Moate: Waffle.
  Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) should have been here earlier if he wanted to hear some vintage waffle from his hon. Friends.
  This Government do not understand industry. They are unsympathetic to industry. Industry has been in decline since the Government took over. Manufacturing industry has declined by one sixth. The Government have done precious little to reverse that trend. They parade their excuses. We are told that local government has pushed up the rates and made local industry uneconomic. There is no basis of fact for that claim. No serious research has been produced to prove that that is the case.

  725
  The 6 June edition of New Society reports that there is no evidence that decent employment standards deter employers from taking on more staff. Another myth is exploded.
  The hon. Member for Stirling gave a wonderful performance. He said that the reason for our economic decline was the terrible stranglehold of the trade union movement, yet he went on to say that the reason for the success of the Italian economy was the terrible stranglehold of Italy's trade union movement. It was a tortuous process by which the hon. Gentleman drew those conclusions.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth rose——
  Mr. Sheerman: I shall not give way. I want to give others a chance to speak.
  The latest Tory flavour of the month is that we should make our economy like that of another country. The United States and Italy are often mentioned. I am always suspicious of simple, populist solutions to complex problems. The Government specialise in such solutions.
  Rebuilding the confidence of British industry will be a difficult task and we shall get nowhere fast by saying, "Deregulation will do it," or, "See how the Americans and the Italians have done it." Societies have different histories and cultural backgrounds and they must work within those constraints.
  Mr. Ashdown: I have listened with care to the hon. Gentleman's considerable diatribe against the Government on employment matters, but I remind him that the debate is, at least in part, about enterprise and small businesses. Will the hon. Gentleman, therefore, give us some idea of the Labour party's policy for encouraging enterprise and small businesses?
  Mr. Sheerman: Unless the hon. Gentleman has selective hearing, he must have heard me say that we would take a firm line with the financial institutions and ensure that a creative partnership of private and public enterprise would bring investment in all our regions. I said that finance would be more easily available in the regions and that we shall produce a package for small business which is attractive and more relevant in terms of enterprise allowances and the other initiatives that a Labour Government will produce and build on.
  I said that the Labour party is a learning party. I admit that, although there have been problems with the enterprise allowance scheme, it has been a success. The problems include the facts that the scheme does not go far enough and the limits are too low. The£1,000 requirement is too restrictive and the counselling advice and back-up are not good enoughh. We are producing and will produce policies to encourage enterprise and small businesses which will be more successful than the Government's policies.
  We shall not restore enterprise by the ideological diatribes that we hear from the Government. A Labour Government will consider the problems and solve them in a way that will set the country free and liberate enterprise.
  1.59 pm
  Mr. Trippier: Before hearing the extraordinary speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and the way in which it was delivered, I would have said that the advantage of having debates on a Friday is that we usually throw more light than heat on our deliberations.
  726
  If there has been any difficulty in the debate and perhaps on occasion tempers have been frayed, it is principally because Conservative Members are becoming increasingly frustrated by the fact that the Labour party especially does not go into any detail on what its future programme would hold for the small firms sector.
  Mr. Snape: Who is in charge?
  Mr. Trippier: I do not know who is in charge of the hon. Gentleman's party, but it is the responsibility of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends to get that programme sorted out.
  Mr. Snape rose——
  Mr. Trippier: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Snape: Stick to the brief.
  Mr. Trippier: I shall show the hon. Gentleman the brief, as he mentioned it.
  Let us look at the Labour party manifesto for 1983 "The New Hope for Britain". There is not one mention in it of small businesses, despite what the hon. Member for Huddersfield said. All I want is the simple connection of two words "small businesses" somewhere in that document. It has been double checked, and there is no such reference.
  Mr. Snape rose——
  Mr. Trippier: I shall refer to the hon. Gentleman shortly. Perhaps he would like to intervene then. I must make my point, and I am sure that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) would not like to spoil it.
  The Labour party manifesto for 1979 was exactly the same, in that there was not a single mention of small businesses. However, we have just heard from the hon. Member for Huddersfield that the Labour party is a learning party. It did not seem to learn between 1979 and 1983. It did not seem to alter its case. It now says that it will come clean and mention small businesses in the next Labour party manifesto. We cannot wait to hear about that.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield and I basically disagree politically, but we get on extremely well outside the House. However, we are both supportive of cooperatives. The hon. Gentleman has made a significant contribution to that movement and I pay tribute to him for doing so. He is in some difficulty with me, because he has found a Conservative Minister who supports cooperatives and believes in the developing and strengthening of the movement. We think that cooperatives are an important part of the small firms sector.
  Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is trying to be too kind. He must remember that I have to face re-selection next time. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the Government have cut the budget of the National Cooperative Development Agency and closed down nearly all the local authorities which were doing most for cooperatives. That is the fact of the funding for co-operatives under this Government.
  Mr. Trippier: It was my decision whether we should continue the funding of the co-operative development movement to the tune of£200,000 a year for six years. As I have said before in the House—I am anxious not to

  727
  be deflected on this point—that contribution, contrasted with the£75,000 a year that we give to Business in the Community, is extremely generous. I believe in the cooperative movement and in the growth of co-operatives. However, for goodness sake, let us get things into context. We are talking about just over 1,000 co-operatives, compared with 1·6 million small businesses and 2·5million self-employed. However important co-operatives are, they are only a small proportion of the small firms sector.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East and I have one thing in common, in that we both come from the finest county God ever gave to man and I suppose we share a sense of humour because we come from that county. However, I do not want to damage the hon. Gentleman's re-selection chances. He does have a sense of humour, and it is appreciated by me. By jove, he needed a sense of humour to deliver his speech today, and we needed a sense of humour to appreciate it. I have never heard so much tripe. The hon. Gentleman is familiar with that term. We are familiar with tripe in Lancashire as they are in Yorkshire, I understand. The hon. Gentleman's speech was absolutely unbelievable. However he did not explain to the House why, if the Labour party had the recipe for success, unemployment more than doubled when the Labour party was in office. The hon. Gentleman could not explain that and nor could his right hon. and hon. Friends.
  It is wrong for Labour Members to suggest that they have a monopoly of concern at the level of unemployment. I heard the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir J. Osborn) and the concern that he clearly expressed, which is shared by me and by all Conservative Members. That the Opposition have the temerity to suggest that is diabolical. The funniest thing——
  Mr. Snape rose——
  Mr. Trippier: No, wait for this. I cannot resist saying this. When the hon. Gentleman said that he thought rates were a marginal cost, I wondered to whom he had been listening. That was very funny. Is he prepared to stand up in West Bromwich and talk to his chamber of commerce and say the same thing? It would need a good sense of humour to listen to that.
  Mr. Snape: Neither of us is laughing about unemployment. The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Labour Government's record, although this is wearing a bit thin. In the borough of Sandwell. during the last eight months of the last Labour Government's term of office unemployment fell every month. In the period since June 1983, unemployment has risen in 78 out of 83 months. As to rates, the hon. Gentleman asked me from where I had got my idea about the marginal difference. The references to it are on the record. It has been said by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), who I am sure represents the Right-wing of the Conservative party, in debates here in the past few weeks.
  Mr. Trippier: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that rates are of marginal interest to industry, I am suggesting that he is out of touch with industry, because rates have a direct bearing and have a significant impact on small firms. If we are to hear from the Labour party that the increase in rates is only marginal, presumably we shall hear
  728
  the same thing about the rise in taxes that it would impose as a result of its programme of increased public expenditure. The argument is the same if it feels that it does not matter by what amount rates are increased. The hon. Member for Huddersfield has come clean and said that there will be increases in taxation. Presumably he will next say that the increase will be only a marginal cost, in the same way as the increase in rates. The truth is that rates are an overwhelming burden on the people whom we are seeking to encourage.
  Sir John Osborn: When my hon. Friend meets the Sheffield chamber of commerce, he will find business men who have been trying to keep business in Sheffield who will admit that because the rate burden for comparable premises within 50 miles of Sheffield is so much lower—for example, in Huddersfield or Halifax—they have left Sheffield. They have to make a decision, and they do not stay in cities such as Sheffield but leave because too heavy a rate burden causes an adverse cash flow that can be detrimental in the long term, let alone the short term.
  Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend is right. I am convinced that business is driven out of cities, particularly cities where rates are high, and there is no incentive for people who are trying to attract industry nearer or into the city if there is too high a rate burden.
  Mr. Ashdown: The Minister said that rates are an overwhelming burden on business. While I do not necessarily agree with those precise words, I am closer to his view of this matter than I am to that of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). If that is the case and they are a considerable burden on businesses, why did the Government take the decision to remove the rate support grant, which meant that in the shire counties, such as mine, rates went up by no less than 20 per cent. without a single penny of expenditure? That was the decision of the Government, not of anybody else.
  Mr. Trippier: Yes, it was us, but the Government believe in good housekeeping. Several of us in the Chamber have had experience of local authorities, and have even been leaders. We know that it is not only the Government who must have responsibility for good housekeeping, but the local authorities as well.
  I shall now try to cover in a less controversial way some of the other points made today.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) referred particularly to the American experience. He spoke about the Northern Development Company, and several hon. Members spoke about the partnership between the public and private sectors. I welcome that, because it can unite us.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield may know that I was in Leeds just a week or two ago to launch a new initiative started by the West Yorkshire enterprise board. We did not deregulate that. It was started in partnership with local enterprise agencies from the whole of West Yorkshire. It has come up with a scheme that may appeal to my hon. Friends, in that it provides finance in the form of loans for up to£15,000. That may seem small beer, but we have identified a funding gap at that low level and West Yorkshire has chosen to close that gap. That enterprise board has a political content, and power is undoubtedly in the hands of Labour councillors.
  The private enterprise agencies are probably split down the middle, with 50 per cent. being set up in areas where

  729
  Labour controls the councils and 50 per cent. in Conservative-controlled areas. In some cases the Liberals may be in control, and that means that all the political parties are in this business. That combination will work, and I should like to see it replicated throughout Britain. What pleases me more than anything else is that that initiative started north of Watford. Speaking as a northerner, I am glad that happened because, like many other hon. Members, I get a little fed up from time to time hearing that everything happens in the south. It does not.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) for his kind remarks. I am pleased that he has played such a significant part in the development of his local enterprise agency. He was kind enough to invite me to open it a short time ago. It is important for me to say that, because the hon. Gentleman well knows that I am anxious to approach local enterprise agencies in a bipartisan way, because without that they will not succeed. It is the same with Sandwell. We need councillors on the board who represent the different political persuasions, because they are the main influences in the community and nothing can happen unless we can get such representation.
  I suggest to the hon. Member for Yeovil that all that we are doing for small firms is not a PR exercise. He suggested that that may be the case, and it may well be so in terms of trying to increase awareness about what is on offer to small business men, because there is still confusion about the help available. I have some sympathy for what he said about trying to pull the act together. I suppose that I shall fail today, but I shall keep trying to convince him that we must recognise that the one-stop shop that he spoke about must still he at community level. That is where we part company, because his party keeps pushing the idea of a county structure to pull all the threads together. That might be a slightly different interpretation of the sort of regional government in which the party believes.
  Nothing could be worse. I have spent the last three years in government desperately trying to get everything down to community level. A definition of community is virtually constituency size. I have my doubts about the wisdom of taking something to county level, but perhaps I should have a closer look at the hon. Gentleman's pamphlet. I am prepared to do that, as long as I do not have to contribute to the Liberal party. I shall come back to him at the appropriate time.
  Mr. Ashdown: I shall not read the pamphlet to the Minister, but for his information it is called "Growth From the Grass Roots". I share his view that this needs to be community-based. I am not hung up on the county idea, because this needs to be as close as possible to conforming to the nature of the community. My point is that there is a need for some kind of structure loose enough to allow a thousand flowers to bloom, but tight enough to be able to co-ordinate what is at present for the new business man starting up unhappily something that is full of muddle, confusion and duplication.
  Mr. Trippier: The hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned Business in the Community and all hon. Members have respect for the work that it has done. The stamp of approval has been placed on the enterprise agencies movement because His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has agreed to become patron and president of Business in the Community. His Royal Highness would
  730
  not touch it if it was politically biased one way or the other. Some of us in the Government find that we have to stand to one side because the Prince of Wales is opening new enterprise agencies. This is a welcome development, and I can assure hon. Members that he can speak without notes for a considerable time about development agencies because he knows what he is talking about. That is a recognition of the growth and importance of small firms.
  Because Business in the Community has a regional presence and regional directors, which it did not have some 18 months ago, it now has at least a regional presence. We would prefer them to he co-ordinators at regional level. I hope that we do not introduce another tier between the regions and the community. I still believe that that is the direction that we should take
  In a robust speech, my hon. Friend the Member of Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) mentioned what I said about additional Government spending and how successive Governments have manifestly failed to create lasting jobs. The Labour party is obsessed with large companies. It is over-paranoic about them. That is its greatest weakness.
  My hon. Friend also talked about developing the enterprise culture. Athough I can agree with everything that he said about that, I do not want to get overenthusiastic about Italy. This might be a surprise to hon. Members, but I spent some time in Italy studying small business programmes and schemes available there.
  Mr. Snape: Did the hon. Gentleman go in a gondola?
  Mr. Trippier: I have no doubt that that is an enterprise in itself, and probably an expanding one.
  While I was in Italy, I found it extremely difficult to distinguish between firms which were in the white economy and those which were in the black economy. There seemed to be an enormous number of firms in the black economy which would go out of business one day and open up again the next, probably leaving a trail of debts in their wake.
  I am aware of the argument which my hon. Friend advanced about deregulation and the suggestion that firms with fewer than a certain number of employees should not have to complete all of the forms. When I went round various Government Departments and visited small firms lobby groups in Italy, they all said quite strongly that the bureaucracy was still extremely heavy. Their bureaucracy remains far heavier than ours. I believe that we have more to learn from the United States.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am sure that what he said about bureaucracy and the black economy in Italy is quite true. Was he impressed, however, that there were so many new enterprises with fewer than 15 employees which seemed to demonstrate considerable incentive in avoiding the burden of regulation? It was in that context that I was emphasising the Italian experience.
  Mr. Trippier: To be honest, I was not as impressed as my hon. Friend clearly was. I was more deeply impressed, as my hon. Friend suggested earlier, by the growing number of self-employed people. I was also impressed by the changing attitude towards enterprise generally.
  I do not want to deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) because I do not believe that that man understands anything about enterprise.

  731
  I consider my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) to be something of an expert on deregulation. I am grateful to him for the support that he has given me and my right hon. and hon. Friends on this issue during the past two years. I am glad that he took this opportunity to pay a warm tribute to Paul Twyman, the head of the enterprise and deregulation unit, and the civil servants who work in that department. Contrary to some suggestions across the Floor of the House, they do not operate as a police force. The thought of Paul Twyman marching around in Gestapo-type uniform stretches credulity to breaking point. They are responsible and work extremely hard on a very technical subject.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Yeovil will have discovered that there are hardly any small firms lobby groups which can devote time to studying what should and should not be deregulated. We owe the Department a warm tribute. I am glad to take this opportunity to praise civil servants. It is something that my colleagues in the Government should do more frequently.
  It is clear from the debate that the Opposition prefer to tell businesses what to do and what not to do, and to tell employees what is good for them, regardless of the employees' views, or even of whether controls would deprive them of their jobs. For example, Labour Members oppose changes in the rules of wages councils, which means that they would prefer young people to be unemployed than to let them price themselves into jobs at wages that business can afford to pay.
  The Opposition talk of a national minimum wage, but they do not tell us what it should be. We want to pin them down so that they have to tell us in detail what the new national minimum wage is to be. I tell the Opposition that they will frighten the pants off small business men, because they would have to lay off many people. They would certainly not be able to expand their work forces, and many businesses would go to the wall.
  It has been an interesting and, as far as possible, enjoyable debate. The Government will do all that they can to emancipate the entrepreneurs to whom so many Conservative Members have referred. We believe that it is only with the spirit of enterprise that we can continue to increase the number of people in employment, as we have been doing for the past seven years. We are anxious to free the air to allow them the chance to breathe and to play a significant and growing part in this country's future success.
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  Prison Officers' Accommodation (Right to Buy)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
  2.20 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise a matter of some importance to a small but important number of my constituents. I refer to the right of prison officers to buy service quarters at discount prices.
  Some time ago I was approached by several constituents who are prison officers at Standford Hill prison, which is located at Eastchurch on the Isle of Sheppey. I very much welcome the modernisation of Standford Hill prison and the construction of the new Swaleside prison. That will make the prison complex at Eastchurch even more important, both locally and nationally. It also involves a substantial increase in the number of prison officers and other staff on the Isle of Sheppey. I warmly welcome that just as nearly everyone on the Isle of Sheppey does. Indeed, the good relations that have existed between the community and the prison service are a tremendous asset to us all.
  I very much welcome those developments, because they are an indication of the superb expansion of the prison building programme that the Government have carried through. The projects on the island are substantial and represent part of a quite dramatic programme that has been introduced by the Home Office. Thus I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the part that he has played in that.
  The very fact that such developments increase the number of local prison officers emphasises the importance of the subject under debate. It is vital that prison officers should have the right housing arrangements. I am concerned, in particular, about the right of prison officers to buy their own homes and their eligibility for discounts. Until 1979 prison officers were required to occupy quarters provided by the prison service, but in 1979 they were released from that obligation. The Home Office and Ministers should take pride in the fact that two thirds of prison officers now live in private accommodation with the assistance of a housing allowance. Thus, there has been a tremendous change.
  I believe that virtually everyone accepts that as a matter of fundamental principle those in public services such as the police, fire and prison services, the Armed Forces and others should be encouraged to buy their own homes. In the past many have suffered greatly by living in tied accommodation or public quarters for much of their careers. They have found themselves out of the housing market for most of their lives and have depended, in retirement, on the public sector. However, we have taken great strides forward, as illustrated by the changes that I have already mentioned, with regard to prison officers.
  Thus any minor criticisms that I make must be seen in the context of a major improvement which, I hope, is recognised by prison officers as well as by politicians and the whole community.
  As a part of that policy, the Government have already sold many houses in the prison service to prison officers at, I understand, full market price. The issue that I am raising is that of eligibility for discounts on the price of

  733
  those homes for prison officers who are currently occupying homes which, by definition, could be or would be available for sale.
  The principle of giving a discount is part of public policy and is an important plank of Conservative party policy. Discounts are offered by many public authorities in addition to local authorities. That means that in the public sector discounts of up to 60 per cent. can result. I understand that police authorities may at their own discretion—many exercise it—sell off any police houses that are surplus to operational requirements. I understand also that the authorities who do that operate the same terms and conditions as those that apply to local authority house sales. In other words, some police officers have been given discounts of up 60 per cent. I do not think that there is any dispute about the principle of selling houses, especially those surplus to requirements, and giving discounts to the occupants.
  Unfortunately, the discount facility has not been available and is not available to prison officers. Whatever practical difficulties might face my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of' State for the Home Department, I am sure that he will appreciate the feelings of my constituents and others who wish to buy their own homes. They are seeing other tenants in other sectors receiving large discounts when they have to pay the full market price.
  I recognise fully that the Home Office needs to keep a stock of prison quarters to recruit staff and maintain staff mobility, and to provide for emergencies, but that is not the issue. By definition, we are talking about houses that are surplus to requirements. I understand that such houses are already available for purchase by their occupants. Once sold, whether at full market price or at a discounted price, they would cease to be part of the prison service's stock of houses. They would probably be sold, and what we are talking about is the price at which they would be sold. It is a matter of whether the occupants receive a discount, as many police officers are given a discount. In all equity, I believe that prison officers should be given a discount.
  The Prison Officers Association raised this issue in 1983 and the Government responded with a package that provided for discounts, but it would have meant the end of prison officers' entitlement to the provision of prison quarters. That package has been rejected by prison officers in a number of ballots on a number of occasions. I am sure that the officers are not against discounts in principle. In my view, they were rejecting the package as offered by the Home Office. I must ask whether such ballots are the right way to approach this subject. If two thirds of prison officers already live in private accommodation and receive a housing allowance, they are most unlikely to accept a scheme that robs them of the valuable advantage of quarters entitlement, should it ever be necessary for them individually or collectively.
  Perhaps it is not surprising that the prison officers rejected the Government's package, but the minority have been left in an unfortunate position. I do not think that the majority want the minority to be deprived of the possibility of a discount. Should we sit back and accept the results of the ballots as the end of the matter? I hope not. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to ensure that the Home Office continues to search for some way of providing some form of discount to the small number of officers who wish to buy prison service homes which are, by definition, surplus to requirements.
  734
  This is not an open-ended proposition as the stock of houses is limited and the number of officers affected is. I suspect, relatively few. That should make it easier, not harder, to find a solution. I should like the Government to try again.
  It seems that we have allowed a relatively simple matter of discounts to become unnecessarily bound up with other pay and allowance-related questions and with quarters entitlement. I suggest that that is not the best way to approach the matter. A courteous letter, dated 27 March, which I received from the Home Secretary said:
  "Now that the question of discount sales has been settled"—
  I hope that it has not—
  "we are considering whether, while retaining quarters to meet present and future demand, we can find a way to give further encouragement to those who wish to own their own home."
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
  Mr. Moate: The letter continued:
  "We hope to be able to make an announcement shortly."
  I received a letter dated 11 April from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury which stated:
  "The Home Office is considering whether any further encouragement can be given, and is looking into the possibility of an advance of salary scheme, similar to that currently available to Governors. As yet no details have been worked out and if an acceptable scheme can he put together, this too will need to be put to the POA membership for their approval before it can be implemented."
  I welcome those statements. It is quite clear that my right hon. and hon. Friends are anxious to promote home ownership within the prison service. There can be no doubt that if we are to continue to attract people of high calibre and dedication to the profession, it is fundamentally important that they have an opportunity and an advantage in securing a place in the housing market. That is fundamental to anybody planning a professional career. Whether that can be done by some other means of promoting home ownership, such as giving discounts. or both, I hope that we shall take some encouraging steps to help prison officers.
  I stress that it ought to be possible to find a way of giving discounts or assistance in terms of costs, such as moving and legal expenses, to that small minority of prison officers who feel that they are disadvantaged. If my hon. Friend cannot give me complete answers, I hope that he can give some hope to those affected.
  2.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) is proud of his constituency's association with the prison service. He spoke warmly of the work that has been done in his constituency. I know, from my perusal of the files in my Department, that nobody has been more assiduous than my hon. Friend in pursuing the rightful interests of his constituents in the prison service. He has made it clear, by quoting from letters, that there is a history to the matter. He has for some time been a distinguished advocate of the policies he set out today. The Adjournment debate is merely the latest stage in what has been an appropriately vigorous campaign that he has waged.
  I appreciated the warmth of my hon. Friend's tribute to successive Home Secretaries who have won resources

  735
  for the prison service above and beyond anything contemplated for decades. Therefore, it is all the more sad that I suspect I shall not be able wholly to satisfy him this afternoon. Of course, I should like to be able to do so because his presentation was fair-minded and obviously committed to a common sense approach to the matters which we are trying to pursue, as he recognises.
  To someone with my hon. Friend's commercial acumen and interest in the spread of wealth throughout the community, I can understand why he thought it was a straightforward matter for the Government to introduce a scheme to make it possible for the discount purchase of prison officers' accommodation. As my hon. Friend knows, although he was kind enough not to advert to it, it was possible in slightly different circumstances in 1981 to introduce just such a scheme for officers in Scotland. I appreciate why my hon. Friend feels that our position is a little exposed.
  Our difficulty is that all of this is bound up, whether we like it or not, with long-established conditions of employment. We have to take the greatest care to ensure that any changes with major implications for the longer term are broadly acceptable to all staff. I understand the point made by my hon. Friend about all staff being consulted, but that is not so much a matter for us as one for the internal regulation of the Prison Officers Association which plainly sets great store by its accountabilty to its membership as a whole. In a broader context, we can understand why that is.
  My hon. Friend has given an account of some of the alternative points that we have advanced. My Department, like every other Department, honours the Government's declared policy of encouraging home ownership. I take pride in the fact, as does my hon. Friend, that 62 per cent. of our fellow citizens own their own homes. There has never been such a high home ownership figure in our country's history. It is one of the Government's many major achievements. As the election approaches, the public will become aware of how much we have done and be all the more reluctant to make any changes.
  My hon. Friend has gone into detail, and I should, too. For some time we have been involved in considering the conditions of employment of prison officers. All prison officers, other than auxiliaries and night patrols, are entitled to a free quarter if one is available. Until 1979 they were allowed to live in private accommodation with the benefit of an allowance only for as long as a quarter was not available. That was a restrictive rule. When a quarter was available, they were compelled to move into it or they lost their allowance.
  In 1979, when the Conservative party came to office, we thought that that was not appropriate, so we negotiated a major change in conditions which gave prison officers a reasonable degree of choice between occupying free quarters and drawing an allowance to live in their own house. That was part of our policy of promoting the growth of home ownership. My hon. Friend has already said, but it bears repeating, that as a result the number of staff living out of quarters has increased over a seven-year period from one third to two thirds—a greater increase than the growth in home ownership in the community overall.
  736
  While operating against the background of increasing recruitment to the prison service, we have been able to retain sufficient quarters to meet demand. Where the new agreement resulted in a real and permanent surplus of quarters at a particular prison, and they were not needed by another prison within daily travelling distance, the surplus houses have been sold on the open market or to staff at full market price. About 2,500 houses have been disposed of in that way, most of them, however, in the valuable lower-cost sector suitable for first-time buyers and the like.
  Apart from basic provision at new establishments, it has not been necessary to add to the general stock of quarters, although we are refurbishing some older properties, especially in the London area, to bring them back into use to meet a growth in demand. There is no doubt that some staff, particularly when they join the service and when they want to transfer, find quarters attractive as a condition of employment. Decoration and maintenance—internal and external—are carried out by the Department, and most quarters now have central heating and are of a good modern standard.
  The conditions of employment of prison officers also include a notional addition to pay for pension purposes called the pensionable value of quarters. This addition is also taken into account in calculating rates of overtime and in fixing a percentage enhancement of pay called a shift disturbance allowance. The pay, earnings and pension of the two thirds of prison officers living in private accommodation with the benefit of an index-linked housing allowance also attract these additions. My hon. Friend will, I hope, understand that if a scheme for the discount sale of quarters had been agreed, it would have meant the end of quarters provision as a condition of service. We could not both retain an entitlement to a quarter and at the same time sell off at a discount, as we would have had to do, the very stock of quarters that enable us to make that entitlement a reality. The associated conditions of service would have no longer applied. This leaves on one side, of course, the operational and mobility problems which might be posed if no quarters were available, especially in view of the remote location of some of our prisons.
  There have been considerable discussions and negotiations about discount sales with the Prison Officers Association from 1983, when the matter was first raised, and when my hon. Friend, quick off the mark, took it up. We have all been involved for three years. In 1980, when two thirds of prison officers still occupied quarters, consideration was first given to a scheme of interest-free advances of pay to help with house purchase by those who wished to exercise their newly-acquired freedom to live in private accommodation with an allowance. Unfortunately, a national dispute arose at that time, and until it was finally settled we were not able to offer that scheme to prison officers. It was, however, introduced for governor grades and chaplains in 1981.
  In 1983, before the terms for the final settlement of the 1980–81 dispute were conclusively resolved, the national conference of the Prison Officers Association instructed its national executive committee to seek an offer of a discount sales scheme of some kind. I should emphasise that the initiative in this matter was taken by the association and that we made it clear from the beginning of the negotiations that then ensued that we could only consider

  737
  a scheme of discount sales that recognised and dealt satisfactorily with the entitlement to free quarters and the various linked benefits.
  The negotiations then led to an offer of discount schemes, an enhancement of pay and a lump-sum payment to staff to take account of the end of the entitlement. That offer was put to the 1984 annual conference of the POA and rejected, but there was sufficient interest in the matter for the POA to return to ask for negotiations on a different kind of offer. The main objection of the conference was to the lump-sum arrangement, and following further discussion a second offer was made, which included a larger increase in basic pay, which in turn fed through into rates of overtime and other payments. The POA put that matter to a national ballot of its members, but the result was against acceptance of the offer. The voting indicated, however, a continuing interest in an agreement, and after the 1985 conference we were asked to consider a further and final offer. Negotiations then led to two final and alternative offers, one of which provided for a residual allowance. These were again put to a national ballot by the POA, and this time the results were heavily against the acceptance of either offer.
  We have since been asked about the interest-free advance of pay scheme, which has the advantage that it can apply either to the purchase of a surplus quarter or to a move into private housing. We are currently considering such a scheme for prison officers, although my hon. Friend will understand that the POA is currently in dispute with us over another matter, and the resolution of that is being given priority. We hope that that will soon be out of the way. We have, however, been told by the POA that the following motion was overwhelmingly adopted at the association's 1986 conference. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has seen it, so I shall read it. It states:
  "This Conference is of the view that entitlement to quarters should remain a condition of employment for prison officers and that quarters disposal should be limited to those quarters which can be recognised as being genuinely surplus to foreseeable demand."
  The passage of that resolution suggests that the offers made and the two national ballots have caused prison officers to look very carefully at the long-term value of a quarters entitlement and the linked pay, allowance and pension benefits, which are so tightly bound.
  Before 1979, when prison officers were obliged to occupy quarters and could not easily get permission to live in private accommodation, quarters were seen as a mixed blessing, but when we changed the rules in that year to give greater freedom this major disadvantage was removed. Quarters seem now to be perceived as a valuable condition of employment, and this is borne out by the following second conference motion, which also attracted overwhelming support:
  "Now that discount sale of quarters has twice been rejected by the membership this Conference authorises the NEC to negotiate with the Home Office for married quarters to be treated as a priority matter and sufficient quarters to be purchased to give a good living standard to all members who wish to live in quarters and that blocks of flats gradually be phased out."
  I appreciate that that is the collective view of the membership of the POA, with the structure that my hon.
  738
  Friend has suggested. I know that some members of staff would like to be given some sort of discount if they are allowed to purchase quarters. But our difficulty is discriminating in favour of an individual in a matter that is part of the conditions of employment of the whole group. That is why it has been impossible to recognise the distinctions that my hon. Friend made about the positions in which different people find themselves.
  My hon. Friend was careful not to be parochial in his speech, for which I commend him, but some facts were looked out for me on Standford Hill prison. It might be helpful if I explain that about 15 vacant quarters there are being kept for staff at the new Swaleside prison, also in my hon. Friend's constituency, when it opens in 1988. If, as might be expected, some Standford Hill staff move into private accommodation between now and the opening of the new prison, that will release more quarters for incoming staff. Our current forecast is that all the Standford Hill stock of 54 quarters will need to be retained for use by staff of the two prisons. That is why it seems unlikely at this stage that any of those quarters will be released for sale.
  I understand the disappointment of individual members of staff who have been placed in a position of uncertainty because of the protracted negotiations over the past three years. We have tried honestly and sincerely to get an arrangement that would be acceptable and would lead to a successful outcome to a difficult issue. But it has been conclusively demonstrated that the view of the majority of prison officers is against the change in their conditions of employment that a discount sales scheme would involve. In the light of that outcome, we believe that a scheme of interest-free advances of pay for assistance with house purchase, similar to that introduced for governor grade staff in 1981, is probably the best way forward.
  Mr. Moate indicated assent
  Mr. Mellor: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees. That links us.
  We think that is the most viable way in which we can give further encouragement to those who want to become home owners. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall explore that possibility with the POA in the coming months. We know that he will continue to take an interest and that we shall have to give an account of ourselves regularly, which we welcome, because there is nothing like interest from the House of Commons for stimulating officials and Ministers to keep their teeth in a problem, however thorny it has proved to be.
  I hope that what I have said has not been too disappointing. The history that I have charted has shown that the matter has not been straightforward. If it had been, we would have resolved it. There is now a further window of opportunity, which we shall do our best to get through.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Three o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Photocopying (Costs)
  Photocopying (Costs)
PRIME MINISTER
  Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty
  Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty
  SALT 2
  SALT 2
  Dr. Usamah Al-Baz (Meeting)
  Dr. Usamah Al-Baz (Meeting)
  Quangos
  Quangos
ENVIRONMENT
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Departmental Costs
  Departmental Costs
  Housing Management
  Housing Management
  Seaside and Countryside Homes
  Seaside and Countryside Homes
  Parking Fines
  Parking Fines
  Local Authority Services
  Local Authority Services
  Local Government (Widdicombe Report)
  Local Government (Widdicombe Report)
  Local Government, Planning and land Act 1980
  Local Government, Planning and land Act 1980
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Higher Education (Funding)
  Higher Education (Funding)
  Sex Education
  Sex Education
  Nursery Teachers
  Nursery Teachers
  Teachers of the Deaf
  Teachers of the Deaf
  Mr. Jonathan Savery
  Mr. Jonathan Savery
  Reye's Disease
  Reye's Disease
  Educational Provision (HMI Reports)
  Educational Provision (HMI Reports)
  University Funding
  University Funding
  Careers Service
  Careers Service
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Scotch Whisky
  Scotch Whisky
  Electronics
  Electronics
  Regional Development Agencies
  Regional Development Agencies
  Japanese Vehicles (Import Restrictions)
  Japanese Vehicles (Import Restrictions)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  London Fire Brigade
  London Fire Brigade
  Prisoners (Costs)
  Prisoners (Costs)
  Women Prisoners (Brixton)
  Women Prisoners (Brixton)
  Suicides
  Suicides
  Hippy Convoy
  Hippy Convoy
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Prison Disturbances
  Prison Disturbances
  Prison Psychologists
  Prison Psychologists
  Prison Doctors
  Prison Doctors
  Protected Cells (Cost)
  Protected Cells (Cost)
  Residential Homes (Fires)
  Residential Homes (Fires)
THE ARTS
  Denning—Sadler Review
  Denning—Sadler Review
DEFENCE
  Command and Control Systems
  Command and Control Systems
  Home Defence Force
  Home Defence Force
  Defence Contracts (Offset)
  Defence Contracts (Offset)
  Pakistan (Frigates)
  Pakistan (Frigates)
  Defence Establishments (Portsmouth)
  Defence Establishments (Portsmouth)
  Petty Officer John Black
  Petty Officer John Black
  Schools of Music
  Schools of Music
SCOTLAND
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Enter and Search Powers
  Enter and Search Powers
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  EC (Contributions)
  EC (Contributions)
  Pensions (Taxation)
  Pensions (Taxation)
  Civil List
  Civil List
  EC (Currency Unit)
  EC (Currency Unit)
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  EC (Budget)
  EC (Budget)
WALES
  Waiting Lists
  Waiting Lists
  Education Services
  Education Services
  Housing
  Housing
  Taff Barrage
  Taff Barrage
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Animal Products
  Animal Products
  Land Settlement Association Properties
  Land Settlement Association Properties
  Radiation
  Radiation
  Entry and Search Powers
  Entry and Search Powers
  Aspartame
  Aspartame
  Radioactive Discharges
  Radioactive Discharges
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  IRA (Extradition)
  IRA (Extradition)
  Syria
  Syria
  Contadora Process
  Contadora Process
  EC Commission (Staff)
  EC Commission (Staff)
  International Year of Peace
  International Year of Peace
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  EC (Internal Market)
  EC (Internal Market)
  EC Commission (Legislative Proposals)
  EC Commission (Legislative Proposals)
  Petty Officer John Anthony Black
  Petty Officer John Anthony Black
TRANSPORT
  Iwade Bypass
  Iwade Bypass
  Roads (Construction)
  Roads (Construction)
  Motorways (Maintenance Costs)
  Motorways (Maintenance Costs)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  Prison Officers (Observation Duties)
  Prison Officers (Observation Duties)
  Employment Act 1982
  Employment Act 1982
  RUC (Stalker Report)
  RUC (Stalker Report)
ENERGY
  Nuclear Industry
  Nuclear Industry
  District Heating (Rating)
  District Heating (Rating)
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
  Office of Gas Supply
  Office of Gas Supply
EMPLOYMENT
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Equal Opportunities
  Equal Opportunities
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Wages (Arrears)
  Wages (Arrears)
  Home Workers
  Home Workers
  MSC Assistance (Calderdale)
  MSC Assistance (Calderdale)
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Equal Opportunities
  Equal Opportunities
SOCIAL SERVICES
  NHS (Residential Accommodation)
  NHS (Residential Accommodation)
  Private Residential Homes
  Private Residential Homes
  Mammographic Units
  Mammographic Units
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Social Security (Hippies)
  Social Security (Hippies)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Local Offices (Wales)
  Local Offices (Wales)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Family Credit
  Family Credit
  Potassium Iodate Tablets
  Potassium Iodate Tablets
  Reye's Syndrome
  Reye's Syndrome
  Residential Homes
  Residential Homes
  Visual Display Units
  Visual Display Units
  Departmental Costs
  Departmental Costs

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

The Baha'i Minority in Iran
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make further representations to the Government of Iran in the light of the recent reports of killing and torturing of members of the Baha'i faith in that country.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Iran, including the persecution of minorities such as Baha'is. The United Kingdom co-sponsored the draft resolution that was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1985 calling for an end to violations of human rights in Iran. We shall continue to express our concern at every opportunity.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply, and I am sure that the many thousands of Britons who are members of that minority religion will also be grateful for what she has just said.
Is the noble Baroness not aware that for six years there was the most heinous campaign against the Baha'i religion involving torture, killing, and all kinds of persecution? After representations were made to the UN there was a lull but, alas, it has all started again. Does the noble Baroness not agree that inasmuch as there has been in recent months stoning of members of the Baha'i faith, imprisonment, confiscation of finances and property, denial of legal rights, deprivation of livelihood and summary executions, the Government might now consider making representations not only to the United Nations but also to the EC and the British Commonwealth of Nations on behalf of that honourable though minority religion?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are aware of recent press reports of renewed persecution of the Baha'is in Iran. I believe that action taken by all international groups, and by the Community partners in particular, can be, and is, most effective. We have already made representations with our Community partners about human rights violations in Iran and we shall certainly consider doing so again should the circumstances warrant it.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the noble Baroness not aware that, in the Ayatollah Khomeini, we are dealing with an absolute religious maniac? The man is stark raving mad. Any representations we may make would be an absolute waste of time, when one is dealing with
504
people like him. Is it not logical to assume from all that that it is necessary—and I say this for the benefit of those who oppose—for Britain to have an armed defence, because we are dealing with crackpots throughout the world?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I note with interest the noble Lord's remarks.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, what evidence is there in the possession of the Government that the present Iranian Government are behind and are supporting the activities of revolutionary Shi'ite movements in other countries of the Middle East and elsewhere?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that matter is somewhat without the terms of the original Question and I am not able to give the noble Lord a reply, but I will look into it.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, would the Minister not accept that what she has said, particularly in answer to the first two questions, is very welcome? Will she bear in mind that a representative of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights was appointed to investigate the circumstances of the Baha'is in Iran? Can she give the House any information about the progress that is being made in that investigation?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am only aware that the investigation is under way; I cannot report back on it. With regard to recent press reports concerning renewed persecution, our own representatives in Tehran have not been able to confirm them. It is for that reason that it would not be appropriate for us to make specific representations at the moment, although we shall continue to express our concern about the general situation. But we will pursue, and will certainly take into consideration, the report of the United Nations representative.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I am very much obliged. Will the Minister consider making a further statement to the House about that report when further details become available?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not totally familiar with the procedures in such a case but I feel sure that if a Question were to be put down by the noble Lord, then we should be happy to answer it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that the state-inspired murder, torture and forced conversion of the Baha'is of Iran actually constitutes genocide, as defined by the 1948 United Nations convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can only reply that there was considerable support for the draft resolution that was co-sponsored by the United Kingdom in the United Nations in December 1985.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, will the noble Baroness be so kind as to make a reply in writing to the supplementary question that I put?
Baroness Hooper: Certainly, my Lords.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that the Baha'is in Iran are suffering from organised government tyranny, and although that government might be led by a crackpot, will she in no way take any notice of that fact? It is an appalling policy to say that, because a state leader poses as a crackpot, he will receive no condemnation from anyone. I hope that the noble Baroness will resist any such suggestion. I return to her first words in reply to my Question, which I know for certain will give so much encouragement and hope to the Baha'i people in our country and throughout the world.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can only repeat that we will continue to express our concern about those violations at every opportunity.

Tourist Coaches in Central London
11.10 a.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans to restrict the number of tourist coaches coming into the centre of London on the lines adopted in other European capital cities.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am not clear what restrictions the noble Lord has in mind. The Government do not have any plans to restrict the number of tourist coaches coming into the centre of London. We are not aware of any such restrictions being imposed in other European capital cities.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that Answer, but I am afraid that in those circumstances I cannot. It is clear from the literature on tourist coaches in London that the Government are taking this seriously, but I wonder whether they realise the urgency. We are progressively reducing the traffic of London to chaos with more and more coaches coming in. With 10 million overseas visitors London has a greater problem than any other city in the world. Therefore, should not coaches be staggered? At the moment the peak in the morning is considerable, being five times that for the afternoon. Should not coaches be staggered in days? Should not school coaches be allowed to come into London only in the afternoons rather than the mornings? Does not my noble friend agree that those methods should be used in controlling coaches and therefore lessen the problems which currently abound?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend was disappointed with my Answer, but I am most grateful to him for his suggestions. The department produced a report on tourist coaches in March this year which comprehensively sums up the problems. The report has been sent to all interested parties who have been asked to send in their comments by the end of July. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library and I have today arranged for a
506
supply of explanatory leaflets to be available in the Printed Paper Office. We are taking various practical steps this year to endeavour to improve the situation. We are experimenting with a new type of parking meter for coaches and we have commissioned studies of tourist coach activities this summer. We are taking the matter extremely seriously.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, is the Minister aware of one particular danger that is now arising, particularly outside the Palace of Westminster? Continental vehicles are relieving themselves of their passengers on the right hand side of the vehicle, which means right in front of oncoming traffic. Would it not be sensible for that class of vehicle to be required to disgorge passengers in more suitable places?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. There is no one in your Lordships' House who is not aware of the problem, as we see it on our doorstep every day. The problem of foreign coaches disgorging their travellers into the road is very serious and creates even more congestion.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that it is the almost unanimous opinion of regular drivers in London, including all taxi drivers, that unless some limits are put upon the number of coaches coming into London from the country and from abroad, and upon the hours they are allowed to use the streets of London, central London traffic will grind remorselessly to a halt, with all the disastrous economic consequences that that will involve?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I think that we are all very much aware of the problem. Tourists come to London to see what our forefathers created; the problem is that our forefathers did not have the foresight to see what problems the tourists would bring. We must do our best to reconcile today's economic and social realities with the physical constraints which we have inherited and the need to keep the traffic flowing. That is what we are trying to do.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that there is a case for greater police or traffic warden control of the approaches to the Houses of Parliament? Entering or leaving is now a hazardous exercise, as I myself on two or three recent occasions have discovered to my cost.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I will certainly pass on my noble friend's comments.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware of the continuing undue congestion of coaches in the Victoria area? Are the Government concerned with this problem and, if so, will he kindly indicate what progress is being made in dealing with it?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, although the Question is in fact concerned only with tourist coaches, I will say to the noble Lord that London Regional Transport is conducting for the department a study of coach terminal needs in London. We are all very aware of the problems associated with Victoria coach station.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that as tourists spend more and more of their time in London stuck in traffic jams on account of the increasing number of coaches they will become less willing to visit here? Have the Government never thought of having a depot in the outskirts of London where these coaches could stop and their passengers then travel to central London by public transport?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government have been thinking about all options. Obviously, off-street parking is the ideal solution, but sites are very hard to find. The Covent Garden Market Authority, the London Docklands Development Corporation, London Regional Transport and the National Bus Company are considering the provision of additional off-street parking this summer. In fact, not far from your Lordships' House there is an off-street coach park which is hardly ever used because the coach operators and drivers do not want to go there.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a fact that it is very important for us to have a continuing lively tourist industry? Whatever we do, we must take great care not to cause any cut-backs to an extent that would damage the revenue brought in from the tourist industry.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. Tourism is extremely important and is growing more and more in importance, particularly in London. We have to try to reconcile the needs of tourism with the physical constraints—which I have already mentioned—of London itself.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, following up the point that my noble friend does not have any evidence or information on what other capital cities are doing, can he perhaps send telexes to our numerous diplomatic representatives in those capital cities to ascertain how other people are tackling this problem? Will he also consider, as he is already using the Mall for coach parking at certain times, the possible use of Horse Guards Parade in the mornings to overcome some of the congestion which is currently self-evident?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, we have considered Horse Guards Parade and other parts of London in this area. Unfortunately, there are security problems on many of the most obvious sites. As regards ascertaining what is happening in other capital cities in Europe, we have already tried to do so and I will see whether we can obtain more information.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, although the Question refers specifically to tourist coaches, will the noble Lord agree that part of the current problem is caused by the increase in deregulated commuter coaches coming in and going out at particular peak times? Will he also agree that coaches are the most effective way of moving tourists in groups around London so that they can visit the heritage which they wish to see?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I certainly agree with the last part of the noble Lord's question. That is why coaches are used—it is for that purpose. So far as
508
deregulation is concerned I do not think that I have any figures to prove it either way.

Libya: Bombing: International Reaction
11.20 a.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: 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 governments share the Anglo-American view that the American raid on Tripoli and Benghazi was justified in international law and how many consider that it was not justified.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we do not have figures for the number of governments who hold this view, but it is clear that there was widespread understanding of the United States action.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that there was a much more widespread understanding to the contrary? Is she aware that the Security Council was only prevented from condemning the American action by the use of the veto? Is she further aware that the third world countries meeting in Delhi unanimously agreed to condemn the American action? In those circumstances are the Government not in a minority position on this issue and will they look at it again?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that there is widespread condemnation of terrorism and agreement that it needs to be combated. Reactions have varied but, as I have said, they have demonstrated considerable understanding of why we supported the action taken by the United States against Libyan state-directed terrorism.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is considerable evidence that the American action has caused certain governments to think twice about supporting international terrorism, and that there is further evidence that the terrorists themselves have been deprived of some of the support that they have enjoyed over recent years? Should we not take that into consideration when looking at the weighty deliberations of the Security Council and the third world conference?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's remarks about this very positive aspect of the action taken by the United States in this case.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, would the Minister accept that there is indeed a need to condemn terrorism of all kinds, including Libyan terrorism? Has she noted the widespread and authoritative view that the action which was taken was not justified under the principles of self-defence in international law, and that this was the authoritative and powerful view put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, in our debate on the 18th April? Would the noble

509
Baroness agree that the danger of seeking wrongfully to use that sort of justification is that it opens the door to abuse by countries that are not so scrupulous in their actions as is ours?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are aware that not all countries, nor indeed all individuals, agree and that there are differences of opinion and interpretation. However, it remains our view that the action was in accordance with the inherent right of self-defence that is recognised under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that perhaps cutting Colonel Gaddafi's cash surplus might be the most effective way of combating terrorism?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, together with our European Community partners we have taken a number of steps to combat the situation. I believe that the cutting of cash may well be involved and be helpful in this respect.

Birkbeck College: Funding
11.25 a.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they intend to take to ensure the future of Birkbeck College, University of London.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the funding of Birkbeck College is in fact a matter for the University of London.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, with respect, is the Minister aware that I am totally disappointed by that reply? Is she aware that the trouble has arisen because the University Grants Committee changed its formula and that the threatened cut of one-third in the financing of Birkbeck College is ultimately owing to the Government's own cuts in further education? Will she give a guarantee to the House that Birkbeck will not be crippled or indeed forced to close? Is she further aware that at present it is the only college that is devoted entirely to further education for part-time students who pay their own fees? Does she not think that this is something which the Government will want to encourage? Will she therefore assure the House that whatever the University of London or the University Grants Committee are forced to do because of lack of finance, the Governmment will give a clear undertaking that this unique college will continue and that its future will be assured?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am sorry that my original response disappointed the noble Lord. However, I may be able to give him some comfort. In fact there has been a development, and I understand that there was renewed discussion on the funding of Birkbeck when the University Grants Committee
510
visited the university on Wednesday of this week and that the Committee will be considering its future grants to London University in the light of what was said and the further evidence which will be provided by Birkbeck. There is no doubt that the Government recognise the very valuable work that is done by Birkbeck and indeed by other part-time colleges of this nature.
Lord Denning: My Lords, as I was President of Birkbeck College for over 30 years, may I ask whether the Minister is aware, or indeed whether the University Grants Committee is aware, of the unique and valuable work that is done by this college? It is for students who work by day and study by night, and it has produced in its time some of the best graduates, not only for teaching in our schools but for our industries and sciences. As it is unique in this way, I hope that everything possible will be done to allow it to continue its excellent work.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I have said, the Government are very well aware of the unique contribution that is made by Birkbeck. In fact, the University Grants Committee has not issued instructions or advice about the funding of Birkbeck College. It has drawn the attention of London University to the weighting that it has applied nationally for the funding of part-time students, but that is only one of the factors which the University Court will need to consider when determining Birkbeck's grant.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, as a graduate of Birkbeck and a Governor at the present time, may I ask the Minister whether she and the Government realise that though we are described as part-time students, in fact we are reading for full-time internal degrees of the University of London? The fact that we study at night rather than during the day is no reason why we should be devalued to 0·5 of a full-time student. Do the Government think that we obtain our books or our laboratory equipment at half price? Do they think that we pay our staff half-price or maintain the buildings at half-price? It seems to me that as we are talking about public money the Government ought to take more direct interest in this important question.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is the University Grants Committee, and not the Government, which has decided on the weighting to be applied nationally for the funding of part-time students, and indeed other students. It may help the noble Baroness to know that the recurrent grant to the University of London is over £200 million a year and it is for the university itself to decide how to fund its constituent bodies within that substantial total.
Lord Scarman: My Lords, before I ask my supplementary question, I must declare an interest. I am Chairman of the Court of the University of London, which is the body that is responsible for allocating among the schools of the university the block grant received from the Government on the advice of the University Grants Committee. It was with a hollow laugh that I greeted the initial reply to this Question, that the scale of finance for Birkbeck is

511
a matter for the university and not for the Government. The question that I wish to put is this: are the Government aware that either in the department or in the University Grants Committee, or in both, a technical calculation has been used in estimating the money that Birkbeck will need which the university considers to be wholly unreal?
I shall indicate what it is. Is the Minister aware that the calculation that was used was that each part-time student was worth 0·8 per cent. of a full-time student? That was the old reference. The Government have reduced it to 0·5. That means a heavy reduction of grant. Are not the Government responsible, even though the university has to distribute it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the UGC has adopted a standard weighting of 0·5 for part-time students at all universities and has made that explicit for the first time. The funding implied is less than some universities have previously allocated for part-time students but more than others have allocated. Individual universities are free to continue allocating their resources internally, as they judge best. I wish to repeat that it is not for the Government but for the UGC and the universities themselves.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: My Lords, as I sat on the Court of London University for some 10 years, may I reinforce what has been said about the impossible task that it has in the allocations that it has been given? Is the noble Baroness aware that the effect of the UGC decision, if it is a decision, is to cut the budget of Birkbeck College by more than 20 per cent.—£2 million out of £9 million? Is she also aware that most of the students there have got on their bikes to get a job and they then get on their bikes to improve their education and skills? Will she please bring pressure to bear to relieve the college of that impossible burden?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that all the remarks made this morning will be carefully considered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. But I must repeat that the UGC makes a block grant to London University and it is for the university court to decide how that is allocated.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness has sought to distance herself from the grotesque error made by the UGC. Will she recall that when the announcement was made in this House of the allocation of resources to the UGC for the forthcoming year the Government took great credit for the way in which the grant was to be allocated and the reforms that were to be made in the allocation? Is it consistent with the attempt to take credit for the method of allocation now to deny responsibility for one of the effects of the allocation? Is she aware that the simple error is that these are not part-time students in the same sense as students in other universities? They are full-time students working at night.
The noble Baroness gave an indication that there might be rethinking by the UGC. Will she take note that if that does not come out in the way that
512
universally, I believe, in this House it is expected and hoped, I shall be asking my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip to seek time for an occasion in the House when we may take a vote on these matters?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I note all the noble Lord's remarks. I remind him that the position of Birkbeck College is under review or reconsideration, but we believe that the general approach of the UGC as a result of its review and detailed survey has been beneficial.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has consistently drawn attention to the responsibility of the UGC, does she agree that by applying that formula, which has resulted in about a 30 per cent. cut (which is the figure that I have) in the allocation to Birkbeck College, the UGC has made it impossible for it to survive and has passed a death sentence on that worthy college? Does she agree that perhaps it has made a mistake?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the suggestion that Birkbeck's grant has been cut by 30 per cent. is speculation. That is not the case. So far as the Government are aware, its grant for 1986–87 has not yet been determined.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if that is speculation, what is the true figure?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I cannot give the House that, since it has not been finally determined.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say whether this is her understanding of the problem? The UGC had the most difficult allocation that it has ever had to make this summer, and that it was so difficult is the Government's responsibility. But, that having been said, one of the things that the UGC did was to try to iron out the great differences in the cost of educating part-time students in different universities.
In doing that, it came to the conclusion that the simplest thing to do was to calculate that half a part-time student was the equivalent of a full-time student. Nevertheless, that produced an anomaly at Birkbeck College which has now been brought to the attention of the UGC. Is it her understanding that that having been done, the UGC recognises that it may have made a slightly false calculation in determining the grant for the University of London?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the UGC's task may have been difficult but I believe that it was conducted thoroughly and based on sound principles and objectives. I cannot prejudge anything that it may determine as a result of the recent meeting and any new evidence at which it may be looking.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the Minister admit that the new rating of a part-time student as 0·5 of a full-time student means a loss of 35 per cent. of the grant allocated to Birkbeck College? That is the figure that has been given to us. Will she confirm that that is the anticipated loss?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it may well be that the UGC pointed out that the national figure for part-time

513
students was based on a weighting of 0·5. But it is up to the individual universities to decide what in their circumstances they wish to do. They are not in any way restricted by the weighting.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, while we may hope that the UGC will think again about its new formula, will the Government make it crystal clear that they understand the difference between the so-called part-time students, who indeed are whole time at Birkbeck College and who do a four-year course for which they themselves pay, and the negligible number of part-time students who are enrolled at other universities?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I shall ensure that that distinction is fully considered in the right places.

Public Order Bill
11.38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is 50 years since in order to counter the specific threat posed by the rise of fascism and the violence and intimidation engendered by it, Parliament passed the Public Order Act 1936. It has served us well. It has for a long time provided a structure of public order law. But with all the changes in the last half century the Government thought it right to take a hard look at the new problems confronting us today and take new powers to provide additional protection for the citizens of this country from the violence and disorder that increasingly impinge upon our lives. The Bill is the result. The long list of speakers is evidence of the interest in the problem, and of course we all look forward to the maiden speeches of my noble friends Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Brocket.
This Bill is not a hasty response to any one particular problem. My noble friend the Lord President of the Council, when he was Home Secretary in 1979, initiated a review of public order law in the wake of disturbances during an election meeting at Southall in that year. In the course of that review the Government took the opportunity to consult widely on their proposals. A number of important reports also became available in the intervening period. The Law Commission produced a report on offences relating to public order in 1983, which has proved invaluable in helping us frame the public order offences in Part I of the Bill. The Select Committee on Home Affairs in another place similarly had important points to make on the law relating to public order in their 1980 report. And we have taken account of the full and important report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, on the Brixton disorders in 1981.
As the review proceeded we also took account of the growing public disorder which emerged in a number of different spheres; on the picket lines, we all witnessed the disgraceful scenes at Warrington and during the miners' dispute, we saw the blight of football hooliganism culminate in the tragedy at the Heysel stadium; and we witnessed riots in our inner cities in 1981 and again last year. Above all we all share an
514
increasing concern at the growth of petty, mindless hooliganism which causes so many of our citizens, particularly the elderly, to live in a constant state of apprehension, frightened to leave the safety of their own homes.
A major duty of any Government must be to protect their citizens from violence and disorder. It is only when there is order in society and people can go about their lives free from intimidation, violence and fear, that democracy and civilisation can flourish. But similarly we have kept firmly in mind during our review of public order law the rich tradition this country has in preserving and enjoying democratic freedoms and liberties. Freedom of assembly and of speech, and the right to demonstrate peacefully and lawfully are at the heart of a democratic and free society. Any steps that affect those freedoms have to be taken soberly and carefully. Yet these rights can never be absolute, as the European Convention on Human Rights makes clear. The rights of the demonstrator have to he balanced with the rights of the wider community to go about its lawful business.
This Bill has already been subjected to thorough scrutiny in another place. A number of changes were made there to strengthen its purpose and hone its application. The Government welcomed that scrutiny and look forward to your Lordships' careful consideration. But I would not seek to disguise the fact that the Bill does raise points of principle. They deserve the fullest possible debate, but I have no doubt that it will be possible to work constructively in examining the detail of the Bill.
Part I draws heavily on the Law Commission's report on the offences relating to public order. The common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray will be abolished and replaced by new statutory offences of riot, violent disorder and affray.
The Law Commission proposed, and the Government accepted in the White Paper, that the maximum sentence for riot should be 10 years' imprisonment. But before the Bill was introduced a sentence of life imprisonment for riot was imposed on a football hooligan. The Government believed that it would be wrong to be seen in advance of any appeal that might be lodged against that sentence to appear to pass comment on it by forecasting a reduction in the maximum sentence available for riot to 10 years. We also wished to take the views of Parliament and to take into account any judgment of the Court of Appeal before settling our minds on what the correct maximum sentence should be. Hence, while the Bill preserves the existing maximum sentence under common law for riot of life imprisonment, the Government do not have a closed mind on this and I look forward to hearing your Lordships' views about it.
The existing offence of threatening behaviour currently contained in Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936 is replaced by Clause 4 of the Bill. It is different in two respects from that offence. First, it extends to private land, so it will be able to be used where trespassers such as those who call themselves the peace convoy invade and behave in a threatening way on farmers' lands. Secondly, Clause 4 adopts the Law Commission's reformulation of breach of the peace which appears in its offence of conduct intended

515
or likely to cause fear or provoke violence. Recent case law suggests that in certain circumstances intimidatory conduct may not be caught by Section 5 if the victim (for example an elderly lady) is someone who is not likely to be provoked into violence by the defendant's behaviour. Clearly, this is a loophole which the Law Commission's reformulation will close.
Clause 5 of the Bill introduces the new offence of disorderly conduct which also extends to private land. The aim of the new offence is to provide additional protection for vulnerable members of society from hooliganism which is not in itself violent but which nonetheless makes their lives a misery. We have in mind in particular the elderly living alone on housing estates in inner city areas who are frightened to leave their home, or members of ethnic minorities who are subject to persistent harassment. Your Lordships will need no exhortation from me in adopting the principle behind the new offence as a worthy one. But, as the Government have made clear, the offence has not been easy to frame. None of us wish to resurrect the old discredited "sus" laws or penalise high spirits. That is why the White Paper proposed that the offence should be framed in terms of someone actually causing another alarm, harassment or distress. But we have been advised by the police and by the Magistrates' Association, among others, that if we were to require victims to give evidence in court in every case, which the White Paper formulation almost certainly would have required, those for whom protection is most necessary, the vulnerable and the elderly, would not enjoy the protection of the new offence because they would be unwilling to face their persecutors in court. In introducing the offence in another place, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made clear that the Government wished to remove this difficulty and would welcome views on how best to frame the new offence and how to strike the right balance.
The new offence has been recast and I believe substantially improved by another place. There is no possibility of a resurrection of "sus", because the offence now requires there to be someone within sight or hearing of the accused's behaviour who is likely to be alarmed, harassed or distressed by it. Thus the new offence requires a victim, and the prosecution will have to prove that this victim was present. But the victim himself need not always give evidence, because the court needs to be satisfied only that he was likely to suffer alarm, et cetera, rather than actually to have suffered in this way.
I turn now to that part of the Bill which perhaps raises most fundamental points of principle—Part II. The Government have been accused of unnecessarily interfering with traditional democratic rights and civil liberties. That is nonsense. This Government fully uphold and will continue to protect the traditional rights to assemble, to demonstrate or to picket peacefully and lawfully. But we will also protect the rights of individuals against groups who use sheer weight of numbers as a legitimate excuse to intimidate others, or who use violence against others and unnecessarily disrupt and bring chaos into their daily lives.
Clause 11 of the Bill requires organisers of processions to give six clear days' notice of the
516
procession to the police. The aim is to encourage discussions between organisers and the police so that the march can pass off in the right spirit. Most organisers of processions are already in contact with the police and discussions between them are fruitful and constructive. We should expect and encourage such discussions to continue in future. The advance notice requirement was amended in another place, first to exclude from its scope processions with the sole aim of getting from A to B—school crocodiles, for example—and to enable advance notice to be given by post. The opportunity was also taken to make clearer that in the case of spontaneous processions when it is not practicable for notice to be given, none need be given.
The existing powers of the police to impose conditions on public processions are extended in Clause 12. Under the 1936 Act the police may impose conditions on processions which they believe will result in serious public disorder. Three new tests will be added to the existing criteria: serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community or the intimidation of individuals. These are all stiff tests. Mere annoyance or inconvenience will be insufficient to trigger the powers. The serious disruption test was proposed by the Select Committee. It will enable the police to reroute a march to limit the resulting congestion of traffic, or to avoid city centres being brought to a standstill. The intimidation test is a safeguard to prevent demonstrations being used by those whose real purpose is to intimidate and coerce. The White Paper gives the example of a National Front march in a racially sensitive area.
Clause 14 extends the powers to impose conditions to assemblies held in the open air in public places. Public assemblies can just as often be the occasion of serious disorder as marches. The Government believe, with the Select Committee, that it is unacceptable for such gatherings to be outside the Public Order Act framework of controls. The Bill originally extended to assemblies consisting of three or more persons; but the Government accepted an Opposition amendment so that the Clause 14 powers will now only extend to assemblies consisting of more than 20 persons. Clause 13 preserves the existing procedure for banning processions. There will be no powers to ban assemblies; nor will advance notice of assemblies be required.
Peaceful demonstrators need have no fears of these provisions. They are important powers which will enable the police to prevent marches and assemblies from getting out of hand and leading to disorder and chaos. It must be proper for the right of someone who wishes to go lawfully about his business to be protected against those who would mass together and intimidate him and his family. It is not unreasonable to ask demonstrators who wish to get a message across to heed and respect the rights of others and their right not to demonstrate or to take an opposite view. And it does not seem sensible that the police should have powers to prevent marches resulting in serious disorder but be powerless to prevent that serious disorder should it arise from an assembly instead. At present they have to wait until disorder is imminent or has occurred before they can act.

517
Perhaps I may mention in the context of the new controls on assemblies the problem of the so-called "peace convoy". The Government fully share the public concern about the activities of the convoy. No one could have watched the ordeal of Mr. Attwell without a feeling of anger, and it is plainly not acceptable that deliberate trespassers can inflict such harm on innocent farmers. But of course the law of the land does not accept such behaviour. Mr. Attwell obtained his remedy in the civil courts, within a week, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is considering how the civil law procedures might be further streamlined to grant more speedy recovery of the possession of land.
But the question that has been put to us is whether the criminal law might have a more important part to play. The police already have wide powers to take action where there is an imminent risk of a breach of the peace, and to prevent obstruction of the highway, and to arrest for offences like criminal damage. We have strengthened those powers in both the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and this Bill. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the police have more effective powers to arrest offenders, in particular against people who fail to give a satisfactory name and address; and this Bill, if enacted, will also help by extending the public order offences in Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill—that is, threatening behaviour and disorderly conduct—to offences committed on private land, as I mentioned earlier.
However, quite understandably people have asked, particularly in the light of the suffering caused to Mr. Attwell, whether new police powers are required, and in particular whether any change is required to the law of trespass. There are strong arguments against making simple trespass a criminal offence. No one wants to criminalise the activities of ramblers and birdwatchers, and no one wants to harass genuine gypsies. But we are discussing with the police and, in meetings held last week, with the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association whether some further strengthening of the law is required, and if so what form that change should take. They have urged upon us extending the Clause 14 powers to cover assemblies on private land, which is why I mention the subject at this point. An alternative would be some limited form of criminal trespass. I cannot say at this stage precisely what changes in the law we have in mind; and it may be that wider consultation will be required. What I can say is that we are fully aware of the strength of feeling on this issue, that we have the matter very much in hand, and that I hope that when we reach the Committee stage I shall be able to give a clearer indication of our thinking on this very important matter.
Part III of the Bill substantially strengthens and improves the existing offence of incitement to racial hatred in Section 5A of the 1936 Act. While other parts of this Bill may be controversial, I would expect your Lordships to welcome this part in particular. The existing offence is tied to where the likely effect of a person's behaviour or the publication or distribution of inflammatory material by him is to incite racial hatred. There have been cases where, because of the level headed nature of those who receive this obnoxious material, racial hatred is unlikely to have
518
been stirred up. So we are extending the offence to where it is the intention of the accused to stir up such hatred.
Clause 18 provides a new offence of possession of racially inflammatory material. And Clause 19, which replaces that part of Section 5A which penalises the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words, likely to stir up racial hatred, will be extended to cover the use of such words in private places—at present it is restricted to public places and public meetings—except dwellings. It will also carry for the first time a power of arrest. I hope that your Lordships will agree that these measures represent a significant strengthening of the existing law in this field and will provide additional and welcome protection for members of the ethnic minorities who are often subject to this kind of affront. We also intend at a later stage of the Bill to bring certain other media within the scope of the Part III offences; for example, video and soundtapes and films.
Part IV of the Bill contains new measures designed to further curb the menace of football hooliganism. It will provide the courts with the power to exclude from football matches those convicted of football-related offences. Of course we accept that the exclusion order scheme cannot be enforced 100 per cent. effectively. But it will be an important deterrent measure, and anyone defying the ban imposed on him will be liable to spend a month in jail.
Of the provisions contained in the schedules, I should perhaps just mention briefly one matter that I know is of some concern to your Lordships and upon which we dwelt at length last summer. When, with generous assistance from all sides of your Lordships' House, the Government introduced the controls on the sale and possession of alcohol at football matches, I said that we would ensure that the Public Order Bill was drawn widely enough to enable amendments to be made to the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Act 1985. The aim in particular was to ensure that if there was a case for relaxation of control on the sale and possession of alcohol in executive boxes, this could be accomplished in the Bill. Schedule 1 to the Bill provides for such relaxation. The dry period within which alcohol will not be able to be sold or consumed in executive boxes is being reduced from approximately four hours 40 minutes to two hours 10 minutes; and there is provision for the Secretary of State to reduce this dry period still further by order, should events justify this.
This Bill contains an important package of proposals. They are designed above all else to provide additional protection for the citizen from those who would intimidate him or use violence and disorder to disrupt his daily life. It is a balanced package and provides only such new powers as the police need to deal effectively with the contemporary public order mischiefs they have to face. It represents no threat to traditional democratic rights and freedoms. But it does threaten the bully boys and the thugs of our society who seek to impose their views on others by numbers, by violence and by force. I commend the Bill to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
11.59 a.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for taking us over the course of this complex and obviously very important Bill. I share with him the pleasure that I am sure we shall enjoy of hearing the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Brocket, in the course of the debate. I hope that they will not be too dismayed by having to wait rather longer than is usual for maiden speeches. But good luck to them.
The Bill comes to the House after a marathon course in another place where its Committee stage took up 34 sittings and 80 hours. I notice that the Government Chief Whip is absent. Perhaps that information would depress him unduly. I hope that we shall not take quite so long. Its duration there and the fact that no fewer than 26 noble Lords are to speak today marks the importance and, if I may say so, the difficulties in this Bill.
It is obviously a highly important Bill because it involves the need to maintain a proper balance between, on the one hand, the important necessity of protecting public order and, on the other, the no less vital need to preserve and if possible to extend the classic liberties of the subject, such as the rights to freedom of speech and of lawful protest and the rights of public assembly and of procession—rights which have been fought for through the centuries. In many respects, this Bill fails to maintain the proper balance that is required and it does so to the detriment of the rights of the individual citizen and of the public.
There is at least one comfort in studying the proceedings of the Bill in another place. The strenuous opposition that was put up there—and if I may say so, the willingness of the Minister of State at the Home Office to make several concessions that were asked for—holds out some comfort for what we may expect here also. We know that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, is sensitive to what is said in the House. I am at least comforted by his indications already that on some of the disputed matters the Government apparently have an open mind. We shall seek to make it even more open and to improve the Bill.
The Bill comes before the House at a time of grave concern about the mounting level of serious crime in our community. Last year, more than 4 million serious crimes were committed in this country. Despite the determined efforts of the police, the clear-up rates have fallen in recent years. In 1985, the perpetrators of nearly two out of every three crimes got away with their crimes; five out of seven burglars escaped with their loot. In that situation, the support and involvement of the whole community in the fight against crime is called for. It cannot be left to the police.
In that situation, friendly and co-operative relations between the police and the public are vital. Yet there are disturbing signs that in the very areas where the highest level of crime exists there is evidence of a divide between the police and the local people. While concern about public order is real, we must look carefully at the provisions of this Bill to ensure that they do not and will not bring new risks of conflict between the police and the public without improving public order. Unless the Bill is amended in some
520
important respects we fear that this may well be the result.
There is a further fear that the Bill could penalise the work of peaceful voluntary organisations and fail to distinguish between reprehensible conduct of those bent on violence and ordinary citizens who may wish to ventilate publicly their disapproval of government policies, whatever government there may be.
Part I of the Bill deals with the offences relating to public order. It starts with the trumpet sound of the possibility of imprisonment for life for the offence of riot. The noble Lord has indicated how that came to pass and I anticipate from what he said that that will be abandoned. Riot is not murder. Your Lordships may think that the Law Commission in its report on this subject was wise in recommending that the maximum penalty for riot ought not to be as high as that which may be imposed for the most serious offences against personal property. The Law Commission recommended 10 years, which I should have thought is nearer the mark. However, I am glad to hear that the Government do not have a closed mind on this and we shall obviously discuss it with care. I think it is a bad start that it is in the Bill at the moment, although the circumstances, as the noble Lord has indicated, may be the explanation.
The new offence in Clause 5 of the Bill of disorderly behaviour has been widely criticised as unsatisfactory. In our view the Government would have been better advised to follow the original proposals in their White Paper Review of Public Order Law. Paragraph 3.26 of the White Paper states:
"The Government recognises that there would be justifiable objections to a wide extension of the criminal law which might catch conduct not deserving of criminal sanctions. For this reason the offence contains the safeguard that the behaviour must actually cause someone to feel alarmed, harassed or distressed (not that it is merely likely to do so)".
That creeps into the definition of the Bill at the moment.
The paragraph goes on to say:
"Any degree of annoyance or disturbance will not suffice: because the offence would be concerned primarily to protect the weak and vulnerable, the proposed definition requires evidence that the victim suffered substantial alarm, harassment or distress".
The italicising of the word "substantial" is important and, alas, it does not appear in the language of the Bill. The offence as it is defined in Clause 5(1)(a) is too vague, and I am glad that it is to be reconsidered. It will also extend the offence to private places. The noble Lord has indicated already that the prosecution will not have to produce in court the person who is likely to have been alarmed, harassed or distressed.
In any event, the making of causing distress a crime is surely far too vague to constitute a crime. The law, after all, should allow room for some tolerance. All sorts of things can distress us. Each of us has his favourite forms of distress—the use of a car horn on a Sunday afternoon when one is trying to relax; playing a tape-recorder in the garden; even singing in the streets on a Saturday night after a football match. That would never offend Cardiff but I can imagine that many might well be offended and even distressed.
If the standard is to be applied to any distress or alarm, depending on the sturdiness or otherwise of the person alarmed, would that definition of the crime not

521
greatly extend the criminal law and bring us back again into the field which was so much attacked when we dealt with the discredited "sus" law. I shall be interested to hear in due course the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, on this matter.
Part II of the Bill has given rise to serious concern because of the new and unprecedented powers that are given to the police over public processions and public assemblies. As the Government's White Paper points out:
"Marches and processions are a traditional form of celebration and protest in our society".
However, there is no recognition in the Bill of the right to demonstrate peacefully. Nor is there any adequate remedy for the citizen against mistaken or arbitrary use of the powers in Part II, which are conferred on the police should that occur.
I agree with the view expressed by Justice, the all-party lawyers' organisation, that there is a need in the Bill for provision for quick, informed review of the merits of the police decisions in this sphere by a judicial authority which is familiar with local conditions. Crown court judges or magistrates' courts could well perform this duty. In our view, the availability of judicial review in that situation is not enough. After all judicial review determines only the question whether the decisions have been properly reached. It does not involve the merits of the decisions themselves, and in my view the availability of judicial review is inadequate as a safeguard for the public.
In this connection, I should like to ask the Minister this question. Am I right in understanding from the Hansard reports of what went on in another place that the Minister at the Home Office has undertaken to issue guidance to the police on the way in which Clause 5 is enforced? Are there to be similar directions or guidance as to the use of police powers over assemblies and processions? If there are, should they not be given statutory or obligatory form by one means or another?
The key feature of Part II of the Bill is the requirement of advance notice of public processions. At present there is no national requirement to give advance notice of public marches and processions to the police, although I understand that 92 local authority areas do require advance notice of marches of between 36 hours and five days. Many other areas have no notice requirements at all. The Bill proposes a national requirement for organisers to give written advance notice of marches and processions six days before the event or, if that is not reasonably practicable, to give written notice as soon as is reasonably practicable.
March organisers are made subject to the criminal law. One notes in Clause 12(4) of the Bill:
"A person who organises a public procession and knowingly fails to comply with a condition imposed under this section is guilty of an offence, but it is a defence for him to prove that the failure arose from circumstances beyond his control".
I am not sure where that leaves the burden of proof, but perhaps we can go into that in committee.
However, what is significant is that a person guilty of an offence under that subsection is liable on summary conviction to go to prison for a term not exceeding
522
three months, or a fine is imposed. There is no indication of a right to trial by jury. We shall have to look at this very carefully. It adds a new terror to organising processions or public meetings.
The criteria in Clause 12 for imposing conditions on public processions is also a matter which we shall have to examine very carefully. The view of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which has responsibilities and experience in this field, is that the provisions in Clause 12 are likely to give primacy to the needs of motorists and traders, and to give second place to the right of peaceful procession and protest.
Clause 14 deals with the new powers given to the police to impose conditions on public assemblies and public meetings. Those who may organise a street-corner meeting on a new issue that may suddenly have sprung up calling for public protest had better beware if Part II of the Bill as it now stands becomes law. I note with great pleasure that my noble friend Lord Soper is to speak in the course of this debate. Perhaps he too should take care. How many present at his meetings will make it an illegal assembly? I am sure that my noble friend will riot be troubled by such fears, but nevertheless this needs to be looked at. The test seems to be whether his or other people's meetings will constitute serious disruption to the life of the community. The words are as broad as that and may give rise to a peril for those who organise public meetings and protests, which, thank God, are an important part of our democracy. Dictators do not allow them; we do. We shall seek to ensure that they continue.
Incidentally, it is perhaps not irrelevant to remember that Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that everyone has the right to freedom to peaceful assembly, and I pray that this Bill will not affect that. However, Clause 14 as it now stands imposes rigorous constitutional limitations on public assemblies and could well prevent and frustrate public meetings to the point of those meetings losing their impact, and could bring about a serious diminution of the civil rights of the public to make known their views by peaceful means.
I have wondered whether the police have really wanted all of these powers and what consultation there has been. As I say, we must not project them into the political arena as this part of the Bill may well have the effect of doing. I venture to ask this question: are local authorities to have no say in relation to processions, marches and open-air meetings? Indeed, the role of local authorities in this whole field is notable by its absence from the provisions of the Bill. I submit that throughout the Bill puts far too much of the burden on the police and too little on local authorities and local folk.
I now turn briefly, happily, to a more acceptable part of the Bill; namely, Part III dealing with provisions to control and prevent racial hatred, which of course we greatly welcome. Indeed, the provisions include some of the strongest statutory provisions ever introduced against the odious promotion of racial hatred. I ask in passing: should not the proposals be expressly extended to broadcasting? However, perhaps we can go into that again in Committee. The old statutory provisions requiring proof that the defendant intended, by the offending publication, to stir up racial

523
hatred presented difficulties, as I remember from the days when it fell to me, as an attorney, to bring those charges before the courts. However, now the position of the prosecution has been strengthened by Clause 17(1)(b) of the Bill, and a person is guilty of an offence if,
"having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up as a result of the publication or distribution".
Clause 19(5) is noteworthy because for the first time it gives a constable—and this has been much asked for in the areas which have suffered from those who promote racial hatred—power to arrest,
"without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section"
who intends by the use of words or gestures to stir up racial hatred.
Therefore this Bill, like the famous curate's egg, is a Bill which is good in parts, but as I ventured to indicate, it is bad—and seriously bad—in others. I hope therefore that the indication (slightly faint) that we have had of an open mind on the part of the Government on this matter will prove that we can turn what is potentially a dangerous Bill into a beneficial one.
12.20 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, from these Benches I also should like to welcome the two maiden speakers who are to speak in this debate. It will be of interest to see how they manage to be non-controversial about a subject so controversial as public order. Part I of this Bill is founded on the work and the recommendations of the Law Commission, as your Lordships have heard. In their report there is a key sentence, and I quote:
"This area of the law is closely concerned with the exercise of the fundamental liberties of the subject, and it is therefore necessary to move with caution in considering the ambit of any new offences."
The noble and learned Lord Scarman, whose contribution to this debate we look forward to with keen anticipation, in his report in 1981 displayed the same wisdom. He welcomed a modern re-statement of the law, but in view of the substantial array of offences and arrest powers already in existence he at that time saw no urgent need for the creation of new public order crimes. In so far as the Bill codifies, clarifies and simplifies the common law we on these Benches give it a broad welcome, as indeed we do to Part III, the control of racial hatred, an area close to the hearts of all members of the Alliance.
However—and here I echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones—it would seem that in some crucial clauses in Parts I and II of this Bill caution has been abandoned, new offences have been created bringing behaviour which may be no more than an inconvenience, or socially undesirable, into the ambit of the criminal law. There are catch-all provisions in this Bill which will criminalise new areas of public behaviour, will draw young men and women and juveniles into an extended area of delinquency, and which may well seriously compromise, or appear to compromise, the vital impartiality of the police.
We do not share the view of the Minister that the liberties of the subject have nothing to fear from this
524
Bill. It is intolerable that those who live in the inner cities or on run-down estates should suffer from the offensive, violent or threatening behaviour of groups of young thugs or louts, and that people anywhere should be put in fear when going to work or going about their lawful occasions. Their rights, their fundamental freedoms, are the real and genuine concern of all those on these Benches, and have repeatedly been shown so to be.
However, at the same time we recognise that public order is a particularly sensitive area of the criminal law. Many of those who abuse their right of peaceful protest, and their right to assembly, who sometimes trample on the rights and freedoms of others, are not criminals as such. Those few who commit arson or criminal damage, who loot or commit serious assaults, must no doubt be treated as criminals; but to get the matter into proportion I would advise all those of your Lordships interested in the matter to have a look at Appendix B in the Law Commission's Report which sets out the public order offences of riot and unlawful assembly recorded by the police between 1973 and 1981, and the sentences passed by the courts in those nine or 10 years.
It is clear that there was only a minute number compared to the number of crimes. They vary, in riot, between 18 and 30 in each of the years; of unlawful assembly, between seven and 19, and so on. Throughout that period there is no sentence—and this is relevant to the life sentence which it is suggested should be appropriate to the new offence of riot—of more than five years for any offence under the public order provisions. It is important to get these matters into proper proportion.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, emphasised in his report that much of the violence on the streets in the inner cities cannot be understood—and I would add cannot be contained or prevented—unless it is seen in the context of the complex social and economic factors that exist. In this Bill the Government, in Parts I and II, have fallen into the temptation of creating new offences, extending the powers of the police to interfere and control, in the belief that this is the route to the achievement of public tranquility. It is the duty of the police to enforce the law that we create, and law enforcement in itself can cause friction and division within the community. In a robust and tolerant society there are other great dangers in multiplying criminal offences to cover behaviour which really is no more than an affront, or an upset, or an anger, or distress, to some members of society. Some parts of Clauses 5, 11, 12 and 14 of this Bill do just that.
The Law Commission made a further point, and made it strongly, that public order offences should penalise only the actual conduct of the offender. Accordingly in the draft Bill they carefully separated acts of violence from mere threats, and the sentences in their Bill reflected the differentiation between those two types of conduct with, as we have already heard, a ceiling of 10 years for the most serious and worst offence. I would suggest that it is a pity that this Bill has not followed those precepts. Clause 2 embraces in one offence the use of violence or of threats, the maximum penalty of five years being equally applicable to each. It would also appear—and I would ask the Minister to

525
clarify this—that violent disorder by threats alone could consist of the use of words alone.
In Clause 8 we have a definition of "violence" which is used throughout the Bill. When one looks at that definition what does one find but that "violence" means "any violent conduct"? Furthermore, that definition section goes on to say that
"it is not restricted to conduct causing or intended to cause injury or damage but includes any other violent conduct (for example, throwing at or towards a person a missile of a kind capable of causing injury)"
which may not actually hit, or falls short. It is somewhat surprising to find an example as part of a penal statute. Nevertheless, it is a definition, as so many things are in this Part of the Bill, which I would suggest is far too loose for a penal statute dealing with public order.
Clause 1 in the Bill follows exactly the Law Commission's draft offence, except for the penalty of life imprisonment which they suggested was 10 years. I do not know whether the Minister appreciates, having regard to what he said, that the sentence of life imprisonment which was passed at the Central Criminal Court—which was perfectly obvious to anyone who knows anything about these affairs was on the face of it ludicrous sentence—was reduced by the Court of Appeal many weeks ago. I sincerely hope, as the noble and learned Lord who spoke before me, that this sentence of life imprisonment, which is entirely out of proportion to related offences, will be reduced in Committee.
I find the language of Clause 1 a little difficult to follow. I would ask the Minister's assistance as to what would happen at a trial where four of the 12 persons were acquitted on grounds of self-defence? That would mean that only eight could have been using the necessary unlawful violence. Would it therefore mean that all the defendants would then have to be acquitted?
Equally, I find Clause 7 extremely difficult to understand and I should be grateful if the Minister could give guidance on this when he winds up this debate. Clause 6(7) has to be read with Clause 1 which states that these subsections
"do not affect the determination for the purposes of riot … of the number of persons who use or threaten violence."
If that means that the mental element in this offence of those participating is entirely irrelevant, then how do you prove that they all had a common purpose? I appreciate that this is a Committee point, but it is vital to the proof of Clause 1 and I should be grateful if the Minister could give guidance upon it.
It is, as the noble and learned Lord has already said, Clause 5 that is so loosely drawn as surely to be unacceptable in its present form. It contributes this new concept of disorderly behaviour and makes it criminal if it causes "harassment, alarm or distress". At common law threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour can only be an offence if there is a likelihood of a breach of the peace. In the Law Commission's draft Bill it can only be an offence—I agree with the drafting—if there is a fear of violence. But here mere alarm or distress are to trigger off criminality. Surely, in a plural society living in freedom under the law, we must be prepared to tolerate all sorts and kinds of disorderly behaviour
526
which may cause some of us harassment, alarm or distress. Examples have been given. I add to them: a student rag-day; a Saturday exodus from a pub; protests and vigils outside premises; abuse at meetings—I, too, fear for the future of the noble Lord, Lord Soper—the picketing of a shop allegedly selling South African produce; banners bearing words such as "Child Murderers in Libya".
Are really all these manifestations now to be criminalised? I fear that if this all-embracing offence remains as it is drawn we may well be on the way—here I differ from what the noble Lord the Minister said—to a return of the old sus situation: the police evidence alone suffices; the onus is shifted to the defence to prove innocence; a power of arrest on the say-so of a constable; no trial by jury and, almost certainly having regard to the penalty, no legal aid. Although the Minister draws attention to the amendment in another place that a victim is being brought into the definition, in reality it is only the say-so of the constable concerned who will say that there were within view of these youths making this noise two old ladies who looked extremely upset. That amendment makes very little difference to the situation under this clause.
As has already been pointed out—and I shall not repeat it—in the White Paper, there were four vital safeguards for this new offence. Every one of those safeguards in the Bill as drawn has disappeared. It is our view, subject to anything the Minister has to say, that the offence of disorderly behaviour should either be removed from this Bill or fundamentally redefined.
Finally, I pass to Part II of the Bill dealing with advance notice of processions and assemblies and the imposition of conditions by the police. Under Clauses 12 and 14 a police officer is given the widest powers to impose conditions "as appear to him necessary", before a meeting or a march takes place, if he reasonably believes that serious public disorder may result which is, no doubt, acceptable but in addition if
"serious disruption to the life of the community"
is foreseen. How can those words be defined in a court of law? The blocking of a pavement, the snarl-up of traffic, the shouting of slogans, the vigil outside premises—all these may disrupt some part of a community's life, the shoppers or the inhabitants. The judgment is purely subjective. In a spontaneous procession or assembly it will be the senior officer present, however junior, who with no obligation to consult and with no form of appeal will have to make these difficult decisions. All those taking part, and knowing that a condition is not being precisely observed, commit a criminal offence. Anybody who gets someone else to take part in such a march or such a meeting, is liable, as the noble and learned Lord has already pointed out, to three months' imprisonment. One must ask: is it really necessary? Is it sensible to erect such an edifice of criminality in the circumstance of a protest or celebratory meeting or march? To criminalise the actions of maybe hundreds of citizens in circumstances of deeply held concern when there is factually little possibility of mass prosecutions is surely, as the miners' strike so vividly showed, a most damaging and hollow policy to pursue. Unlike the Minister I believe that that surely very seriously erodes the freedom of the citizen to meet or to march.

527
What in the Bill is "a procession"? Once again, one looks to the appropriate clause, Clause 16, to find guidance. "Public procession" is defined as:
"a procession in a public place".
That is not very much more help than the last definition that I drew to your Lordships' attention. Quite apart from the definition of a procession, the clause which makes these offences, Clause 11(1), uses these words:
"to hold a public procession intended … to demonstrate support for or oppositon to the views or actions of any person or body of persons … to publicise a cause or campaign or … to mark or commemorate an event".
One is bound to ask what people will come under those words: a group of ramblers opening another stretch of the South Downs Way, or mothers pushing prams when making a demonstration in favour of a new zebra crossing, or a sponsored run or walk which collects a large following? I ask the Minister: Is it really to be said that there is a situation now obtaining in this country that such draconian and such widely-drawn powers have suddenly become a necessity? This surely is all miles away from stopping and containing chaos.
These clauses in their present form look, do they not? like steamrollers employed to crack a fairly fragile nut—and a nut which hitherto in the vast majority of cases has been cracked by mutual discussion and consultation between the police and those organising the marches and demonstrations. This Bill sets out to clarify the law, to make it more sure and to make it more easily enforceable. In so far as it does these things and makes the enjoyment of individual rights more secure, improves the relationship of police and public and secures the impartiality of the police, so we will give it our support from these Benches.
But where it criminalises acceptable public behaviour, creates unnecessary criminal offences and makes more difficult the crucial co-operation and mutual respect of police and public, we shall seek to amend or remove the offending clauses in an area of the criminal law which is particularly sensitive and would affect, one way or another, every member of the community.
12.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, we are dealing in this Bill with what I believe is one of the cherished inheritances of our country, the maintenance of the Queen's peace, which enables the ordinary citizen to go unhindered and unmolested about his lawful business throughout the length and breadth of the land. Some of us can remember the events of half a century ago when the law had to be strengthened in Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936 to deal with the political dissent on the streets of London which led to grievous violence at that time. I do not believe that anything quite as organised or quite as menacing as those events has been repeated in recent times. But there are clearly various other developments which make a review of the law necessary at the present time, as the Minister explained to us in his introductory speech.
I think that these developments can be summed up in one word: pluralism. Our society now embraces a
528
wider range of views, not just among those with different racial origins but also across the various geographical regions of the United Kingdom and among the different economic groups in our society. The report Faith in the City: a call for action by Church and nation, after quoting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, the Lord Chief Justice and the Commissioner of Police, suggested that a consensus view is developing that crime policy cannot be successfully formulated in isolation from the community, and that the community should be involved in a programme which has as its aim the prevention of crime.
I think that this view presupposes that the community, however you define it, regards the law as a friend and that general respect for the forces of law and order arises from the sense that the law is framed to protect inalienable human rights. So long as all new legislation continues to seem compatible with these principles, then I believe that respect for the law may reasonably be expected from everyone. But we know, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has reminded us already, that in some places this is not so. But I think that we need to remember that there are other encouraging signs as well that we must not overlook. Several initiatives of the probation service have an essentially community approach, as does the new importance given to local policing and to the community-based improvement schemes on certain housing estates. I hope that we can keep these wider aspects of law and order in mind as we look carefully at the provisions of this Bill.
Reference has already been made more than once to the widespread concern which has been aroused by the offence of harassment, referred to in Clause 5 of the Bill. I take some reassurance from Clause 6(4) which says:
"A person is guilty of an offence under Section 5 only if he intends his words or behaviour … to be threatening … or is aware that it may be".
None the less, I am bound to say that I think that this offence seems to be drawn very widely and, as The Times suggested in a leading article, police application of this power will require tough monitoring.
I should like to ask the Minister—and I think that he has been asked already—whether he does not think that it will be important that there is a code of practice worked out at an early date and even meanwhile perhaps a circular of guidance for the police on this question of harassment, similar to that which is proposed in a later Part of the Bill. The clauses in the second Part of the Bill dealing with processions and assemblies touch on matters that are intimately bound up with what we are proud in our better moments to call our British democratic process. The history of the gradual development of the freedom of the citizen against the Royal Prerogative, against tyrannical local leaders, and even against tiresome prelates, involves debate, assembly and procession at many points.
As the Minister has said today, a balance has surely to be struck between maintaining freedom for all sections of the community to go about their lawful business and permitting sections of the whole community to declare jointly, and to demonstrate by procession, their convictions; and to do this as a means of making them known to others. These clauses affect

529
not just the rights of pickets and of political parties, but also those of religious bodies to hold vigils for peace, for human rights, or to demonstrate against identified social ills. Very considerable sensitivity will need to be shown by the police in implementing these clauses. I think that this is recognised by the fact that the Home Office has promised to issue a circular reminding the police, when considering their use of these new powers, of the right of people to assemble and to demonstrate peacefully.
I hope that when the time comes at the Committee stage we shall look very carefully at the provisions of Clause 14 and particularly, as has been suggested already, at the use of the phrase, "serious disruption to the life of the community". I really think this is a rather unfortunate phrase which could drive a wedge unwarrantably between a community and a public assembly. I do not think it will be easy for policemen to decide, for instance, whether the rights of people to queue for a No. 24 bus in Trafalgar Square in order to come to lobby Parliament are greater than those of people who want to demonstrate at that same spot in front of the South African Embassy. And both groups might be held to be interfering with the right of other citizens lawfully to proceed to St. Martin-in-the-Fields to take part in a vigil of prayer for peace. Perhaps these examples may serve to highlight the importance of a proper definition of "seriousness" and of the need for guidance to be given to the police, preferably in a code of conduct.
Many of the matters in this Bill touch upon individual freedom and for that reason I hope that those in your Lordships' House who have more knowledge and expertise in this field than any of us on these Benches would presume to claim, will scrutinise the provisions of this Bill very closely indeed, lest we present both our democratic processes and the police, upon whom we rely for our protection, with legal dilemmas that will prove too great for them.
12.50 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, as I stand here with a certain trepidation, embarking upon my first speech in your Lordships' House, I can assure noble Lords that I shall not unduly tax your patience. Today is Friday the 13th, and it would certainly be unwise for me to tempt fate any more than is strictly necessary!
We are today debating proposed changes in the law of public order. From time to time it is necessary to look at the rules under which we carry on an orderly society within our great nation. These rules must tread a narrow path between preventing oppression of opinion, protecting freedom, protecting minorities against victimisation and protecting the majority against unduly vociferous and intimidating minorities—a fine balance, but one which this country has achieved for a very long time, perhaps even for hundreds of years.
I believe that we have been the most progressive nation in the world in the protection of freedom under the rule of law. We even fought two world wars as a result of our conviction that freedom must prevail. Today's Bill amends many parts of the Public Order Act 1936. That Bill was enacted in response to the threat of serious public disorder on a national basis which threatened our cherished freedoms if the
530
objectives of that disorderly behaviour had been achieved. The Fascist movement, with all its paramilitary behaviour, gained support in Britain at an alarming speed. Equally, the concern and the fear of the then government and all right-minded citizens grew swiftly. That was before the salutary hindsight of the Second World War and before the birth of television, which would eventually give us immediate awareness of disturbing factors in our community.
The 1936 Act was never used against those who made it necessary, but it has served the nation well for 50 years. In relation to this new Bill, there has been much comment on why it is necessary. "As a reaction to changing circumstances" is undoubtedly the most widely-expressed reason, I should like to explore briefly what I believe to be two examples of fundamental changes in our society over the last half century which have contributed to making an update of public order laws an advisable move.
The first example concerns the different social and economic conditions that we live in today compared to 1936. We have a larger population; we have seen our great welfare state reduce poverty and improve health care for all. Our education system is both more extensive and better; we have a higher standard of living; we have more leisure and more money to spend on it. We have greater mobility within our country; we even have more ethnic and other minority groups. I believe that all the above changes enable our people more readily to indulge in causes in which they believe. This leads to a greater frequency and size of public meeting, march or assembly; so inevitably a greater strain will fall on the police, who must enforce the law regardless of the number of people present at a gathering. Related to this aspect of change is an increased tendency for a peaceful protest to be hijacked by a trouble-making minority, who react to the slightest excuse for violence. The police then have a most delicate job to prevent escalation. When public violence does erupt it causes great worry to people throughout the country.
This brings me to the second change of circumstance that I wish to mention: that of the media. There is a very considerable increase in communication and information available to every household in the land and to every citizen. This media revolution is apparent even over the past 10 years, let alone the past 50. At the time of the 1936 Public Order Bill, newspapers were the principal medium in this country. They provided for a broad range of tastes, political or social, but collectively they probably formed some reflection of public mood. Then, as today, social issues were the key to the thin veneer of ordered behaviour. As your Lordships will be well aware, even the least contentious gatherings can contain widely differing views, stances and opinions. This is only revealed by dialogue and publication. The changed circumstance before us now is that television, the telephone and other electronic media eliminate a potential filter on news coverage. I choose my words carefully here, but I very much doubt whether even my grandfather, the first Lord Beaverbrook, would have got very far in suppressing comment on the events leading to the abdication crisis in 1936 if he had had to contend with the media industry that we have today.

531
So news of breaches of public order, even on a local scale, now reach the people of this country faster and more vividly. This tends to cause terrible concern to many people over relatively minor and perhaps short-lived events, so inevitably increasing the call by public opinion for a review of public order laws. Furthermore the presence of the media, particularly television, at public meetings, at sporting events, on picket lines and in other places, hoping to film a newsworthy happening, can indeed be self-fulfilling. Today the media are often unwittingly used as an instrument for promotion of sometimes dubious causes.
My Lords, I have attempted to outline merely two instances of changed circumstances that have occurred since the last Public Order Bill. There have been other important changes, both evolutionary and revolutionary, and I am sure that your Lordships will mention many of them. I undertook not to detain your Lordships so I must shortly sit down, but I should like to emphasise how vital it is to safeguard the freedoms that we have in this country, many of which are not enjoyed in other places in the world. We must continue to demonstrate great tolerance and patience within a rule of law that is enshrined in inviolable, enforceable and understandable legislation. I am sure this will be the case, and I welcome this opportunity afforded to us of reviewing the public order laws. I shall be most interested to hear the views of other noble Lords today.
12.59 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, it is my privilege and pleasure to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, on his maiden speech and to assure him that when he remembers it he will think of it more auspiciously than ever on Friday the 13th. I am particularly grateful, as I am sure the House will be, for the kind of panoramic historical survey out of which this particular emergency and this particular Bill arise. Let me particularly thank the noble Lord for the last sentence of his speech, which seemed to me totally admirable. I hope we shall hear many more speeches as well-tuned and as carefully prepared as that to which we have listened from him today.
I think no one could possibly object to the introduction of measures to contain and to reduce the ever-increasing violence in contemporary society. In that regard, I welcome a Bill and I welcome certain elements in this particular Bill, because I believe that this violence has to be dealt with radically and basically. As a minor contribution to the argument against the Bill, may I say that I believe it would have been far more effective had it gone much more deeply into the causes of social disorder, and propounded rather more carefully those parameters of public debate and of association in which I believe a new kind of authority can arise and a new sort of authority can prevail. I will confine what I have to say to the areas of the Bill which are primarily concerned with demonstrations of one sort or another, and outdoor exercises, equally, of one sort or another, and I would claim that I have some experience in these matters over a long period.
Your Lordships may allow me, first, to say why I ventured into demonstrations and have so continued.
532
The answer is simple. I was sent as a young probationary minister to the Old Kent Road and it was my intention to preach the Gospel there, but practically nobody attended the church to which I was appointed. If I were therefore to be effective in any way I had to go to people where they were, not where I would have preferred them to be, and most of them were not in church. In that regard I have persisted over a very long period now, because one of the essential characteristics of any kind of evangelism, or the prospecting of those matters which are of public interest, is that it has to be undertaken in a realistic recognition that unless you are working within the environment of those whom you wish to influence you are wasting your time.
In the first instance, I find that this particular and necessary part of public speaking and the cherishing of freedom of speech is impaired, where the actual location of the speech is determined not necessarily in terms of the appositeness or the importance of the issue but in terms of certain other regards to which I will come later on. I find that where an immediate issue is localised in a particular part of London, a particular street or a particular place, where there are certain issues to be resolved, it is impossible to support any kind of Bill which says that if there is likely to be some kind of disorderly conduct, then you must move the demonstration away from the spark fire of such discontent and re-route that procession so that it will avoid the approximation of those problems to which you are endeavouring to make your claim or to present your case.
Furthermore, here is one of the illustrations of that fundamental difference which is now increasing almost day by day between the North and the South, between those who have and those who have not—the fact that there is a world of difference between Gateshead and Guildford. Unless we are prepared to recognise that, unless we have the opportunity of spending our evangelical exercises in that kind of area where it can have the maximum impact, we shall be impairing that very necessary part of public propaganda and public witness.
Furthermore—and this is just as important—unless we recognise, and are allowed to recognise, what we are doing in public exercises, such as public meetings and the general propagation of what we believe, within a framework which is actual and realistic, we are indeed being inhibited from the real purposes to which we ought to be committed. It is in those regards that I believe that the attitude taken in this Bill in many respects to the propositions that are included in public assemblies, demonstrations and marches has to be revised and has to be altered. I hope that it can be altered in Committee and I believe that it must be.
I turn now to disorderly conduct and ask myself: are you really asking a parson not to seek to alarm his congregation? Are you really asking somebody to be careful not so to upset the feelings of others that they will feel any measure of distress? As for harassing people, I have a very healthy regard for the prospect of harassing people—mentally, of course, and not physically—because I believe that many people are resistant to almost every other kind of appeal except for harassment which jogs them out of their contemporary sense of ease and well-being and

533
presents them with the real facts of the case. That is exactly what happens when you compare Gateshead with Guildford.
I reject in toto the idea that in order to preserve the sort of conduct in public affairs which avoids great disorder, it is necessary to stimulate a kind of reticence about matters of distress or, indeed, of alarm. I am not at this moment talking of alarm in the eternal sense, so much as the alarm which is very proper to those who look out on the contemporary scene and see what ravages there are in the lives of so many people, and how easy it is for those who are well-off and already well-contented to avoid any kind of unpleasant reaction to something which, unless we take it to them, they can very easily ignore.
What bothers me most of all is the problem of the way in which a police force, which should, I think, be restricted to the application of the law, is now required in many cases to interpret it. Let me tell your Lordships a true story. Not so long ago I was arrested on Tower Hill. I was about my normal avocation and I noticed a uniformed officer, who told me that I must get down because I was creating some kind of disturbance. He said further that I was preventing access. I asked: "What is this particular offence of which I am guilty?", and he replied, "You are preventing people from their lawful occasions in the Tower of London." I found that quite unacceptable and I said, "I am not prepared to get down." I was promptly arrested and told to wait for the wagon. A wagon did not turn up, but a senior officer did. He was fairly apologetic and said that a mistake had been made. I, with what I hope was magnanimity, said that I hoped that the constable would not be prosecuted or penalised. He said, "No, he will not be penalised; he will be informed."
That raises a question. I can understand a policeman being informed on a clear-cut proposition of law or the enforcement of it. What I believe this Bill, in many respects, does is to criminalise in complex situations those who, in what they do, go far beyond the precise information which a police force at any particular time can muster. It is, in my judgment, a very dangerous thing, not because it is necessarily malevolent, but because it is fragile mentally and in many other ways, to increase the powers of a police force to interpret a complex social situation. It is in that regard that so much of this Bill, in its relation to voluntary bodies, is a Bill which is imprecise and which, time and time again, demands from those who would put it into effect an interpretation which may or may not be obvious and in many cases is highly complex. I hope, therefore, that in Committee these questions which vitally affect the freedom of public utterance, to which I have been addicted for a long time now, can be considered.
I would ask your Lordships to permit me to make a final comment. I have spoken in the open air at Yarrow Bank in Melbourne, at Domain in Sydney, and in various places in the United States of America. I cherish the greater freedom and the greater civilised acceptance of public meetings that is still, I believe, a curious treasure of the country to which I belong and which I love. I am more than ever convinced that we have an imperishable virtue in our determination in very large measure to create something and to
534
maintain something that I would presume to call a fellowship of controversy. That fellowship of controversy, if it is carried within the framework of non-violence, produces effects. I will characterise one of them.
I am not gay but I have many friends who are. I ask your Lordships to believe me when I say that there has been, in a fellowship of controversy, a change in which, in Hyde Park on Sunday afternoons now, the gay community is free, or relatively free, to present its justifiable case against the absurd and iniquitous nonsense about the Old Testament characterising homosexuality as being itself a sin. That is a great virtue, which has been attained in a fellowship of controversy rather than in the deadpan attitude that either one agrees, or one is sinful or destitute of moral understanding if one does not.
I hope that that fellowship of controversy can be enshrined in a far better way than the difference that is now expressed, as between a breach of the peace and causing distress or alarm, or indeed harassment. I believe that it can. I myself have had the experience over the past six months of the deploying of quite an amount of violence in Hyde Park. It is now finished and it is over, and it is over because there has been recognition that it is better to take the risk of occasional disorder rather than so to impose upon the presentation of one's case the kind of parameters that will prevent either its prosecution, or the understanding that we can well disagree, and still remain within the framework of a general consensus of appeal and desire for a better world in which we could all live.
That is a claim; it is a plea. In many respects I support this Bill, but in the various matters to which I have given some comment I believe that the Bill is flawed, and I hope that it will be radically transformed in Committee in order that the better parts of it may prevail.
1.13 p.m.
Lord Brocket: My Lords, this is my first speech in your Lordships' House and I hope that your Lordships will forgive any shortcomings on my part. I should like to address myself to the problem of trespass, which has been highlighted by recent events. I believe that the law must change but that the proposed amendments may not overcome the basic problem. I should like to look at the principle as I see it.
Not long ago we boasted in Britain that an Englishman's home was his castle, and "private" was a word that we learnt at school, and the meaning of which we understood. Today, things have changed, and quite frankly I believe that they have become a little muddled. In the old days, the population was smaller and there was more common land. Bands of people roamed from place to place providing essential labour to farms and businesses, and they camped peacefully. That still happens to a certain extent today—for instance, with the annual hop-picking.
Today the population is far larger and land is well accounted for. In living with our population density it is becoming increasingly necessary to abide by a set of rules, to create a framework within which to live. We have in Britain what really amounts to a social

535
contract. In exchange for the security and protection offered by our legal system and police, we undertake to restrict our behaviour within certain limits. We contribute to a system so that if we are ill we receive proper care; if we are homeless we receive shelter; and if we are without work we receive certain benefits. That, then, is our social contract.
Recent events have brought to light the other side of the coin: people who take the cherries and the cream off the pudding but leave the rest. They claim the benefits but demand the right to flout laws that do not suit them. We seem as a country to be able to grasp that to enter someone's house when they have gone out shopping is somehow wrong, but that to enter someone's field when they are actually standing in it is somehow all right. For those who are not in a rush to legislate against such behaviour, their attitude soon changes if one mentions, for instance, occupying their garden. The principle seems to have become linked with size: big areas of land are fair game but small areas, such as gardens, are not.
The trouble is that we have already set off in one direction and have created a precedent by giving one group of people rights that the rest of the population do not have. Travellers may have land rent-free, but if I and my friends are in caravans, we may not. Travellers may leave scrap and rubbish all over the road, but I may not. There is one rule for some and another rule for others.
The present situation is rather a nonsense. It goes against all the values for which, I was always taught, this country stood and fought. In most situations the police are left sitting piggy in the middle, looking helpless and often ridiculous. Occupying someone's garden, allotment or field is not a criminal offence, so the police cannot act. Breaking down fences or destroying crops is criminal, but proving which individuals were responsible is almost impossible, so that is of little help. A typical example occurred last year, when 20 to 30 caravans smashed through a fence and moved onto a field of mine let to a farmer who was muckspreading at the time. The farmer was stopped because the intruders threatened assault. The police were called because criminal damage had occurred and a breach of the peace was imminent. The police could not prevent the farmer from fertilising his field, they could not prove the damage, and they could not ask the convoy to move on.
Forty policemen in riot gear stood there for an hour looking quite ridiculous, and were powerless to act. The farmer eventually went home, prevented from doing his work, and he was deprived of part of his livelihood until such time as the convoy elected to move on. The farmer could not afford a court order. When the intruders moved on, they smashed up the fields of neighbouring farmers. Similarly, public land at Stoney Cross was occupied and considerable damage caused. Trees were cut down, land was polluted and sheep were killed.
Good legislation prevents trouble; bad legislation causes trouble. The proposed legislation in the Public Order Bill relating to trespass will, I believe, be counterproductive. The problem will tend to shift from public land to private land, and I cannot
536
understand the reference to numbers of people in relation to criminal trespass or committing criminal acts. Are we suggesting that two people committing the same act as 40 people is somehow something different? Principle, surely, is what we are dealing with. People of any number causing a nuisance, damage or offence on public land should surely be held responsible. If trespass is deliberate, the degree of trespass is academic. Deliberate trespass in someone's home, garden or land must surely be wrong.
Recent talk of hunts, ramblers and bird-watchers objecting to trespass becoming criminal I find a little puzzling. If they are not supposed to be there and they are asked to move, then surely they will move. If they do not, we should expect and receive immediate remedy under the law.
From discussions in other places I get the distinct impression that practicality is having too much say over principle and that it is thought that police manpower will be stretched further by changes in the law. I believe that the opposite will be the case. If trespass—that is, deliberate trespass—becomes a criminal offence everyone will know where they stand and the police will be able to spend more time attending to more important matters. People will cease to take wholesale advantage of the gap in the law as they do now and an Englishman's home, however modest, will once more be his castle.
1.20 p.m.
Lord Scarman: My Lords, I know the House would wish me at once to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, on his interesting and excellent maiden speech. We have heard two admirable maiden speeches in what so far has been, even for your Lordships' House, a debate of very high standard and quality.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, in a speech as notable for its brevity as for its lucidity and impact, made the point which is surely a very important one, and which was elaborated upon by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, that the time is ripe for a new legislative look at public order. He reminded us that the Public Order Act 1936 is 50 years old and that men and times, and women, have changed very much during those 50 years. We must now really tackle, as I foresaw in the Brixton report, a modern restatement of the law.
The noble Lord, Lord Brocket, in his equally excellent maiden speech has given us a view—perhaps to some of us a fresh view because not all of us are countrymen—of the problems of the landowner confronted with deliberate and sometimes destructive and damaging trespass to property. The lesson which I hope the House will learn from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, may be a lesson already fully absorbed by the Government; namely, that they should approach the reform of the law in this very difficult area very slowly and carefully indeed. Never have I appreciated so powerfully in this context as I do now, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, and the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, that the essence of speed and effectiveness is to make haste slowly.
Coming to the immediate subject of our debate, let me say at once that, like the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester,

537
I welcome the attempt to restate the law relating to public order. I welcome the Bill but I have misgivings. It is not a Bill to which I can offer three cheers. It is a Bill some aspects of which I applaud and other aspects of which cause me most profound misgivings. As is to be implied in all the speeches that have so far followed the opening of the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, this is a Bill which, at whatever cost in time, must be examined in Committee in certain respects very strictly and very severely. Unless that scrutiny is given, there is a risk that the Bill will encourage—although it is certainly not the intention of Her Majesty's Government that it should encourage—a creeping invasion of our common law civil rights and liberties.
Common law follows the admirable principle that anyone may do or say anything that he or she likes so long as it is not contrary to law. That is an admirable principle and may well be the reason why common law has survived for so long. However, in today's society we are finding that legislation which is passed to restrict some of those rights and freedoms in the interests of public order or some other cause may encourage not only judges and juries but the public to look to the restrictions rather than to look to the substantive rights upon which they are, at best, no more than limitations.
There is the risk of an unwarrantable extension of criminalisation in this Bill, particularly in the new offence of disorderly conduct in Clause 5 and in some of the provisions governing the power of the police, and in some cases the local authorities and the Secretary of State, to impose restrictions upon the conduct of public processions and public assemblies.
I make one further general comment here. There has been a stalwart attempt in the other place to introduce into the text of the Bill certain provisions limiting the restrictions on civil liberties and rights involved in certain of the offences formulated in this Bill. These, of course are not enough. We do not have in our law a formulation of the right of free speech, although the general common law protects it. We do not have in our law a formulation of the right of public protest or the right of public demonstration. Indeed, we do not have the right of association, the right of assembly in a public place or the right to strike. All those rights, it can be said, are recognised by our law, but they are, in a strange way, the unspoken part of the law. They can get forgotten when courts and others start to have to consider a statute, even a statutory code, imposing one restriction after another and creating one offence after another.
It may occur to some of your Lordships—I am sure that it will occur to my noble friend Lord Broxbourne—that this Bill would be a much safer legislative exercise if, in another place, passage is given to a Bill, the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Bill, which was introduced by my noble friend and which succeeded in passing through all its stages in this House. Together, the two Bills would achieve a statutory balance in our law. We should then have a positive parliamentary affirmation of our fundamental civil rights and liberties that would stand together with a Public Order Bill which, of necessity, to some extent has to be a restriction and a limitation upon the exercise of those rights.
538
So much for my general approach. I think that I can be very much briefer than otherwise I should have been because I find myself in total agreement with the general approach of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Soper. One does not have to agree with every detail but surely that is the correct approach. I find myself continually harking back to what the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, said about changing conditions. We are in a different world now. It could be said that our society has become so complicated and our representative system of government so remote to many fellow citizens, that there has to be an alternative way of expressing dissent other than the constitutional way of doing it through representative institutions. Of course, representative democracy must continue and develop. At the same time if all views are to have access to the immensely powerful media which control men's minds to a large extent, there has to be in our community an alternative approach to the public ear: alternative democracy, if you like, or, if you belong as I almost do to the steam age, a safety valve.
We are concerned here, in the interests of public tranquility, to impose certain restrictions and limitations upon that exercise in alternative democracy, or upon that safety valve; and let us not do it unless we are quite sure that our representative institutions give voice to everybody in time. No one can be sure of that; the Athenians never were, the Swiss are not, and I do not think that we can be.
I now come to the two or three specific points that I wish to make on the Bill. First, with the exception of Clause 5, I broadly welcome Part I of the Bill, which creates the new offences. The Law Commission was absolutely right to recommend the abolition of the complex old common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray, and to put forward—which the Government have substantially accepted—a modern reformulation of those offences. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and for the reasons that he indicated, I should like to ask the Government to take another look—indeed, I think they are doing so—at the maximum penalty of "life" for riot. But by and large the new offences put forward, the statutory offences of riot, violent disorder, and affray, and the reformulation of the Public Order Act offence of harassment—the Section 5 offence in the Public Order Act 1936—are acceptable.
I am a little troubled, and I always have been, by the Public Order Act Section 5 offence which is now the offence formulated, and on the whole well formulated, in Clause 4 of the Bill. My problem with it is that it is of course a summary offence, and to ascertain commission of the offence a number of somewhat complex facts are required to be established by evidence. To be criminal or offensive the conduct must be directed against someone. It must be such—and I use these words for brevity only—as to cause or be likely to cause or provoke a breach of the peace. If lay justices come to the prosecution case strictly and judge it on the evidence by reference to the exact language of the clause, I shall have no difficulty. But of course, it is a summary offence and therefore it is essentially left to magistrates.
I turn now to Clause 5. With respect, the Clause 5 offence seems to me to be extending the bounds of

539
criminality further than we can accept, given the importance of the alternative democracy to which I have referred. First of all, the offence can be committed by using offensive words alone. Secondly, even the adjective "threatening", (which of course is used together with "insulting" and "abusive") is vague. If one looks at the reformulation of the common law offences, when the adjective "threatening" is used, it is always threatening unlawful violence, express or implied. We are now extending into the criminal law an offence which does not require a violent intent. It requires merely a threatening intent. Threatening what? I am troubled, and I hope that this matter will be looked at.
Similarly, in the context of Clause 5 the words "abusive" and "insulting" are of course without objects. Now "abuse" and "insult" may be clear to some minds but the same language may not appear to others as anything other than a strong, powerful exercise of freedom of speech and comment. Magistrates have to decide where is the dividing line between what is abusive or insulting and what is acceptable as an exercise of the right of freedom of speech.
It has never been easy, even for High Court judges, to determine what is an insult and what is not. Although I need not remind the lawyers among your Lordships, I tell the laymen that a distinguished and witty 19th century judge, when he was faced with a complaint of a certain word being used by a sea captain—a word which most magistrates would think was insulting if applied to themselves or to anyone else—said "Ah, but remember sea captains and remember this one's record in particular. He has used the same word to describe the weather, his dog and the meal, and indeed he uses it as a term of endearment".
Any noble Lord who may guess what the word is—I shall certainly not allow it to pass my lips in this august Chamber—and anyone who like me and like the noble Lord, Lord Soper, has personal knowledge of the East End of London, will know that that word, insulting even in today's Chelsea—well, I rather doubt that; let us say, Kensington—would be regarded there as a perfectly normal use of the English language. I tell that little story merely to indicate that we are leaving all this to magistrates, because it is a summary offence. I go along very much with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, as to the dangers in the vagueness of this offence.
I remain doubtful whether the offence is necessary. I follow the argument elegantly put by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, but I was of the view—this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson—when writing the Brixton report that there was no need to add to the criminal offences protecting public order; that Section 5 of the Public Order Act, now this Bill's Clause 4, dealt with it and that nothing further was needed. That remains very much my opinion. But if we must have this offence, I implore your Lordships to look at it extremely carefully in Committee.
There is one other factor about Clause 5 which troubles me. It is the power in certain circumstances, which are defined, of a police constable to arrest
540
without warrant. Let us bear in mind that the maximum penalty for a Clause 5 offence is a fine. When I find in the law a criminal offence created which does not carry with it the possibility of imprisonment as a penalty, I view with the utmost suspicion a power, if the statute should give it, to a constable to arrest for that offence without warrant.
We all know that the police at the moment are finding it convenient when faced with disorder to arrest and then thereafter to bring no charges. I am bound to ask whether the enthusiasm for this clause exhibited in some areas is an enthusiasm for that practice, which means, as the noble Lord, Lord Soper, pointed out in another context, that we are leaving that area of the law to be administered by the police, without the likelihood of review in a magistrate's court and subject only to the dim possibility of the thing getting within the scope of judicial review in the High Court.
I come now to Part II of the Bill, that part dealing with public processions and assemblies. Here I applaud the clause requiring advance notice of public processions. I thought that the situation was wrong when I investigated the Red Lion Square disorders. I had come to the conclusion that such a provision was needed when I investigated and reported on the Brixton disorders. I do not see advance notice, particularly as formulated in Clause 11 of the Bill, I think it is, as being any threat to a spontaneous and immediate demonstration, which is a right which we must continue. If there is any threat, contrary to my provisional view, let us eliminate it in Committee, but do not let us do away with advance notice.
My experience in the Red Lion Square inquiry and in the Brixton inquiry was that everybody, both those who organised processions and the police who had to control them, like advance notice being given; people like the opportunity to confer with the police. There is not the slightest reason why that should not now be put into statute as a statutory requirement, always assuming, as I think the Bill does, that the spontaneous, immediate demonstration in reaction to something that has happend—and of course the demonstration has to be immediate to be effective—is protected.
My misgivings about police control of public processions and assemblies is the introduction of this new criterion for the exercise of the power to give directions—the criterion of serious disruption in the life of the community. Who is to judge what is the life of the community? Who is to judge what is a serious disruption of it? Are the police to tell us what is the life of the community? Is a local authority to tell us that, or is the Secretary of State to tell us? I fear that many, particularly those who are as well dressed as the noble Lords and noble Baronesses of this House, will say that the life of the community is the ability to walk down the street unmolested, go quietly into the supermarket, watch your husband or your wife buy what you then have to pay for, and then come out and go home. That is part of the life of the community but it is not all of it.
I find that that criterion could lead the police away from the likelihood of disorder and of violence being caused or provoked into a realm where they would be

541
handling values which they are no better able to assess than any other one of us in our individual capacities and which are not values which ought to determine whether restrictions should be put on the right of free speech, of demonstration and of assembly. Let us bear in mind that in our world today, with its alternative democracy, the right of public demonstration, protest and assembly are all part of the life of the community.
There is one matter on which I think that the Bill could be strengthened. It is Clause 13; it is the power to ban processions. There is no power to ban a single procession. There was not in the Public Order Act 1936. There is no such power proposed in this Bill. In the Brixton report I said that I thought there should be such a power so long as it was exercised only if the Secretary of State were satisfied that there was a risk of incitment to racial hatred.
I can see no reason whatever why, given that criterion, there should not be a power to ban a single procession without having to ban either all processions in a district for a certain period or a class of procession. I think that I know enough about the ethnic minority communities in some parts of our country to be able to tell your Lordships that no single amendment to the Bill would bring greater comfort to them than if Clause 13 were amended so as to empower the Secretary of State to authorise a ban on a single procession.
I have talked for far too long. I apologise. My conclusion is that the Bill is a Bill of immense importance. It touches upon rights and liberties of immense importance. It suffers in certain respects from a lack of balance, which can be corrected in Committee, but it suffers from a more fundamental lack of balance which can only be corrected if Parliament has the courage at last to enact a human rights and fundamental freedoms Bill or a Bill of rights.
1.52 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, I have great pleasure in beginning by congratulating my two noble friends, Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Brocket, on their immensely impressive and effective maiden speeches. I hope that I may be allowed, as one who was a great admirer of Lord Beaverbrook's distinguished grand-father and who had much kindness from him, and who was a colleague in another place with my noble friend's father, to say how pleased I know that those two great men would be if, in the workings of Providence, they could know that their son and grandson was making such an effective entry into the debates of this House.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has so rightly said, this is a Bill of major importance. After all, it concerns itself with what is the basic, fundamental duty of government—with the question for which governments were evolved in the first place—the securing to the individual of freedom and of safety for his person and his property. That, if one goes back to the dawn of history, is the purpose for which governments were created.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones reminded us, it is 50 years since Parliament legislated on this subject. It is only too painfully obvious that
542
those 50 years have seen the development of a situation which makes further legislation necessary. I should go so far as to say that if the government of the day were not introducing legislation of this kind—I shall not go into the detail of it—they would be failing in their duty. It is the duty of government, faced with the situations with which we are now faced, to seek to bring up to date our legislation on these matters so as to give society in general and our hard-pressed police in particular better means of coping with the dangerous and difficult situations with which they have to cope.
One need only remind your Lordships of the reference made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, to the fact that five out of seven burglaries do not end up by being successfully investigated and the perpetrators brought to book. We know also of the violence which has erupted in various directions, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, referred—the violence and harassment which lasted throughout the year or so of the miners' strike and the violence which is going on now in other parts of our society.
Unless the Government were to make an attempt to improve the legislative means of dealing with those matters they would be in default. That is not to say that any of us necessarily agrees with any particular aspect of the Bill. In what I hope will be a brief speech, I shall have occasion to press one matter on which it seems to me that improvement could be found. I was impressed by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said about Clause 13 in his antepenultimate paragraph. An amendment along the lines that he suggested should be seriously considered. I was, on the other hand—and I hope the noble and learned Lord will not mind my saying this—a little disturbed by his reiterated reference to the need to provide for an alternative democracy.
As I understood the noble and learned Lord, that meant that there must be full facility for demonstrations to enable an alternative to our system of representative democracy to be effective. I find such a concept coming from so distinguished a source a trifle alarming. I feel that it is essential in this country fully to maintain and support the view that the proper method of securing change in what one wishes done in public affairs is through our representative democracy.
I had the advantage, which the noble and learned Lord has not had, of being in another place for a number of years and therefore of having contact with a parliamentary constituency. Those of your Lordships who have had that experience well know that any point of view, however extreme, eccentric or odd, can be and is frequently put to each Member of another place in his constituency. It is now the practice of Members of all parties in another place to hold regular surgeries—I think that is the technical term—at which their constituents can see them. The amount of mail pouring in to the other end of this Palace gives full vehicle for the expression of views.
I hope that nothing coming from this House, particularly from so eminent a source, will give any encouragement to the idea that one should be prepared to by-pass our ordinary, well-tried system of representative democracy. The right and effective way

543
for people who have strong views on any public topic to express them is to and through their Member of another place. If they happen to know Members of this House, so much the better. I have no doubt that many of your Lordships have found, particularly since the advent of television, that a surprisingly large number of members of the public—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, agrees with me—exercise that perfectly proper right to communicate with us and to express their views on public issues.
My purpose is to ask one or two questions of my noble friend as to the effect of the Bill. First, is it going to deal with what one might call the Wapping situation? I would here declare an interest as I have a daughter who works for The Times. Week after week, month after month, those who have worked in that part of the world, and indeed those who live in that part of the world, have been subjected to organised disorder. Night after night, noisy crowds have assembled. It has been necessary for a large police presence to be there. The theory is that these are peaceful pickets peacefully objecting to what Mr. Murdoch has done in respect of their previous employment.
However, those who organise these gatherings now know perfectly well that they are going to cause disorder and that they are going to attract many people who, I understand, have nothing to do with the printing or newspaper industry but who see the opportunity to take part in a riot. I should like to know whether those who deliberately organise these gatherings, knowing this as they do, cannot be brought, if this Bill becomes an Act, within the ambit of the criminal law. If it does not do that, the Bill will be failing in what should be a substantial purpose.
Similarly, does it cope with cases—Greenham Common is an example—in which perfectly proper peaceful demonstrations are organised regularly outside military establishments and then those responsible organise break-ins to those establishments and damage the wire in an attempt to get close to important military equipment? It seems to me that if the Bill does not cope with that situation and those who organise and perpetrate that kind of violent action, then, again, it requires some further consideration.
I pick up the very important point made by my noble friend Lord Brocket in his maiden speech. That is, basically, the adequacy or otherwise of the proposals in the Bill to deal with the hippy convoy situation. My noble friend the Minister will have seen in The Times a few days ago an interesting letter from the president of the Country Landowners' Association in which he points out that according to his understanding of the Bill—it was also, I think, my noble friend Lord Brocket's understanding—those who, in an organised body, proceed to occupy someone else's land, do not for that reason commit any criminal offence and that the only remedies are in the civil law. I understand that in another place an attempt was made to clarify this position but that it was not wholly successful. I should be grateful if my noble friend would say a word or two about this. It is certainly a matter that seems to have attracted some attention.
544
I have a letter from the National Council for Civil Liberties, not very usual correspondents of mine. I am bound to say that a letter from that source I read with peculiar interest. Here the argument is made that it is quite right that only civil remedies should be available. The writer of the letter, apparently based on the fact that the National Council for Civil Liberties got hold of a speakers' list for today's debate—this is stated in the letter and it would be interesting to know how such information was obtained—says:
"The clause as amended will give the landowner the power to go to a police officer and say, 'Look, there are people on my land and they are causing serious disruption to me'. The officer will be able to order the people to leave and if they fail to do so, arrest them".
The writer of the letter suggests that this should simply continue to be a civil matter and that all that the aggrieved person has to do is to go to the county court and get an order for possession or go to the High Court for possession under the Rules of the Supreme Court Order 113. How is a small farmer in the depths of the country at the week-end to regard that as an immediate and practical step? In this case, Mr. Attwell, apart from being a sick man, was taken completely by surprise—I think at the weekend—when these people came and occupied his land. It is all very well for organisations backed by plenty of lawyers and plenty of money, with access to solicitors and so on, to be told that it is perfectly easy to go to the High Court and get an injunction. But, in the practical world in the country, this is really not the case. The result, as my noble friend Lord Brocket said, is that the police have to stand by unless actual criminal damage is done. And yet the police could, if the law was so amended as to make this a crime, simply remove the trespassers quickly and with the minimum of damage done.
We are warned from various sources today that taking this measure through the House will be a considerable effort. It was certainly a massive one in the other place. If the Government are to go through that effort of legislating to improve our law in these matters to deal with contemporary problems, it would seem that we are missing a considerable opportunity if we do not take steps to prevent a repetition of this hippy convoy business by bringing it within the ambit of the criminal law. I hope that my noble friend will indicate in his reply whether or not the Government are beginning to look favourably at this approach.
The problem with which this Bill seeks to deal is as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, rightly said a matter of balance. You have in each generation to seek to balance the civil and political rights of the individual against the wellbeing of other individuals and the stability and safety of society. If one is a realist about it, the point of balance will vary from time to time and in accordance with circumstances. I hope I do not offend any of your Lordships when I say that the contemporary situation, with its widespread crime and its widespread violence, indicates that the balance requires to be shifted in favour of the forces of law and order, at any rate for the time being. It is surely the experience of human organisation through the centuries that the need for strong, perhaps all but oppressive laws, is created when violence is used against society, and equally those laws can be relaxed when there exists a law abiding, civilised and orderly society.

545
We are, alas, as noble Lords recognise only too well, in a situation in which our police are under very great pressure indeed. I take the opportunity of expressing my immense admiration for the courage and sense of duty with which they are working throughout the country. There is so much crime and violence that this is an occasion when it is necessary to shift the balance further in favour of the forces of law and order and therefore to some extent against the liberties of the individual citizen.
How far exactly we do it, how technically we do it, is a matter of judgment which no doubt will emerge in Committee; but I approach this Bill with that view and based on the old saying:
"Kings will be tyrants from policy, when subjects are rebels from principle".
2.11 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to our two maiden speakers. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, is not in his place because when I listened to his speech I felt that I need not have remained to make mine. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has also picked up this point.
The Minister will be relieved to know that I intend to concentrate on one point only—the question of trespass. I have said many times before that the law of trespass is totally inadequate to deal with various situations. Trespass must be made a criminal offence. I would say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, that on this occasion he need not worry about the Government hastening slowly—they could not have been slower. There was a consultation paper in 1983, Trespass in Residential Premises. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, introduced a Bill in 1983 and again in 1984 to which the Government appeared to have given their blessing, so I cannot understand why they have not grasped the nettle and included such a provision in this Bill. There is never much danger of bringing in laws too fast—that is not my experience after 22 years in the House. I can think of a number of matters that have been raised over a period of 10 years. Eventually it penetrates governments that something has to be done about it.
I should like to put forward a slightly different aspect of this problem. We have heard about the rural situation. I know that to be true because I was in Devon two weeks ago and heard many cases of this kind. I endorse what was said by the noble Lord who has just spoken, that it always seems so easy to solve somebody else's problems. But the people who are so benign and radical have only to have someone come into their garden and they take a totally different approach.
In 1984 I cited another aspect of this problem, and this has actually become worse. This is an example of an urban centre suffering trespassers. I could give the House a large number of examples but I shall not do so. I shall give one or two classic ones. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, is not in his place because this would perhaps give some fuel to his fire. This document comes from a large shopping centre in the Midlands. It says:
"Following our efforts to make the centre more conducive to family shopping"—
546
not unreasonable the noble and learned Lord may think—
"recently two youths aged 19 and 17 years were running about the upper part of the centre kicking cans, shouting, knocking into people and using abusive language".
We all know what abusive language is, from whatever class of society we come.
"When they finally knocked into two elderly ladies"—
and this is the classic example given by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, of how unimportant this would be—
"they were taken up. So many complaints were received from other members of the public that they were finally charged".
At the magistrates' court they were found not guilty of threatening behaviour, which was the only charge which could be brought against them, the magistrates saying that swearing and threatening was unpleasant, but was not in fact threatening behaviour as they understood it. This seemed to be a total nonsense because the two youths promptly went straight back and continued behaving as they had before. That is a clear case where the law of trespass could have been used.
I give another example; I am only picking out the classic examples. This took place in the North of England in a large shop. The letter states:
"We are presently faced with a a group of youths, around 20 in number, who frequent our restaurant.
Apparently they never purchase any refreshments but they have annoyed a number of customers. They have been asked to leave but refuse to do so. They abuse and insult the staff and they remain in the restaurant for up to three hours a day, constantly irritating and harassing customers, who are ceasing to come to the restaurant. That is the point. Why should people have to submit to harassment? I would take issue with the noble and learned Lord when he said that it is not enough just to be able to go the supermarket and to purchase one's goods. I would say that every citizen should be entitled to go about his or her business or pleasure without harassment or threats from anyone.
The document continues:
"We have informed the police of these youths but have been told that unless they are committing an arrestable offence, they are unable to take action. As the youths are also on private property the police are unable to intervene",
so they must continue to suffer it.
As one manager said to me the other day, there seems to be a tendency in society to focus on television screen football violence—this is highly political from a government point of view—and to ignore a growing conviction that the city centres where people would like to go are rapidly becoming places where one goes only if one has to because of the threat that is both implied and often explicit.
It has often been said that it is difficult to frame a law of trespass without embroiling innocent parties. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, mentioned, I too received a copy of this communication saying that I was a speaker and I too am mystified to know how they knew that I was a speaker as I only knew this morning who was actually speaking, apart from myself. Therefore, they obviously have a very good mole in one of the offices here.
In the document they make the point about bird watchers and picnickers. We all know about the

547
innocent walker. I would be the last to want to prevent anyone walking across a farmer's land. However, the Canadians seem to have been able to grasp this nettle. They have an offence of trespass on property, which is designed to deter individuals from engaging in prohibited activities, even when they enter lawfully. In other words, they erect notices saying that a person may hike but may not hunt. Therefore, if you enter with the apparent intention of hiking and then you commence to hunt, you have committed an offence.
It is not impossible to frame some kind of law or table an amendment to one of these clauses which would make that possible. So far as I can see, neither Clause 4 nor Clause 5 meet the points raised by the retailers. Civil law is slow, costly and absolutely unworkable for the average citizen. No one could seriously suggest that that is the way to deal with this.
That is the only point I want to raise. It is one which I have raised before on many occasions. It is one which I shall raise again. I hope that during the course of the Bill the Government will see whether there is some way in which they can make it possible for people to go about their business without harassment. I find it strange that the legal people in our society cannot determine what are harassment and threats. As a lay magistrate I never found any difficulty, but then I live in the real world and perhaps this does make some difference. I wish this Bill a speedy passage and I hope that during its course we can make some useful amendments to it.
2.19 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I rise in the knowledge that no part of this Bill is applicable to Northern Ireland. However, I make so bold as to speak in the hope that the provisions of what in many ways is an excellent piece of legislation will be applied to the law of Northern Ireland in the not too distant future.
I look first to Part II. I would not only accept but I would defend, and strongly defend, the right of anyone to protest. I would defend the right of anyone to withdraw his labour. I would defend the right of anyone to close his business if he wanted to do so as a form of protest. But equally strongly I would defend the right of anyone who does not want to participate in that particular protest to go about his normal business. I think of the so-called day of action in Northern Ireland on 3rd March. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who unfortunately is not in his place, questioned what serious disruption in the life of the community means. I fully respect a question of that kind from such a learned and experienced source. There was no doubt whatever in Northern Ireland on 3rd March what serious disruption meant.
In Clause 12, in Part II, the word "intimidation" is mentioned. There was no doubt at all about intimidation in Northern Ireland on that day. I knew people who wanted to go to work, and set out in good faith to go to work having been assured that there was going to be nothing but a peaceful protest and orderly picketing. That was not the way it worked. Trees were felled across the roads so that traffic physically could not get through. In other places road blocks were set up by gangs of louts who intimidated people and told
548
them that they would subsequently suffer if they defied the orders of those who told them to turn back.
Indeed, one politician was so incautious as to quote the citation that is used on Remembrance Day. He said:
"At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them".
That was the kind of intimidation to which people were subjected on that occasion. The natural reaction of the ordinary small farmer or shopkeeper is to keep his head down. He does not want to make himself conspicuous because he does not want his place of business burnt or vandalised, or destroyed. He does not want to have a brick through his front window.
The provisions of this Bill are admirable, they are all very well, but if they cannot be enforced they are only going to fall into derision; and I sincerely hope that in the maintenance of public order on a future occasion—which I hope will not happen—intimidation and disruption of public life will not be allowed to occur again.
Turning to Part III, which deals with racial hatred, on 15th January last I ventured to propose a rather laboriously titled Bill, the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (Incitement to Hatred) (Amendment) Bill, and on that date your Lordships were good enough to give it a Second Reading. I agreed on that occasion not to press for a Committee stage if in fact legislation in Northern Ireland would be brought up to date on the lines of this present Public Order Bill, which at that time had just received a Second Reading in another place.
I adhere to that view, and I should be grateful to have an assurance from the noble Lord that in the light of the Public Order Bill legislation in Northern Ireland will be brought up to date, because, as I explained on 15th January, there are many ways in which it could be improved; and when this Bill has gone through all its stages I hope that the law in Northern Ireland will be revised accordingly.
To refresh the memories of your Lordships, the purpose of my Bill on that occasion was that the necessity to prove intent to incite hatred should be removed. Therefore I welcome Clause 19, in Part III of this Bill, because the word "likely" is employed, and that is the important word. What in fact I said in my Bill was that an offence will be caused by,
"A person who… publishes or distributes written or other matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting; or… uses in any public place or at any public meeting words which are threatening, abusive or insulting, being matter or words likely, having regard to all the circumstances, to stir up hatred, violence, contempt or hostility against or arouse fear of any section of the public in Northern Ireland on grounds of religious belief, colour, race or ethnic origins".
If I may be presumptuous enough to ask the noble Lord the Minister to give an assurance that the law will be looked at in Northern Ireland along the lines of the Bill which was read a second time, taking into account some of the very worthwhile provisions in the present Bill before your Lordships' House, I should be very happy to withdraw. If not, I think that I shall have to ask for a Committee stage.
I should add, in conclusion, that perhaps rationalisation of the law, so far as incitement to hatred is concerned, is perhaps even more important now that the Northern Ireland Assembly, in my view

549
quite rightly, has been dissolved, because the self-fulfilling prophecy is the threat with which we are always faced. I am sure your Lordships may have read some of the statements that have been made. Now that the Government have scrapped the Assembly we shall not be able to stop our people taking politics on to the streets, and that can be a self-fulfilling prophecy whatever way it is worded.
Therefore I hope the noble Lord will give consideration to what I have said, and I look forward to hearing his reaction when he winds up.
2.27 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, in echoing the congratulations which have already been proffered to my noble friends, Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Brocket, I should not wish to be limited in any way by the conventional requirements of courtesy. I should like to say to both of them how much, like others in your Lordships' House, I enjoyed those two speeches and how much I hope we shall hear from them both again frequently. My noble friend Lord Beaverbrook outlined his requirements for an Act of Parliament: that it should be viable, enforceable and intelligible. Indeed, he has set himself a very high target. I shall immensely enjoy his efforts to clean up the statute book, though I hope he has realised what an arduous task he will be undertaking in making that messy volume intelligible.
I have long had only a qualified admiration for our legislative procedures. They seem to me to have three unfortunate effects in that they highlight the differences which exist between us; they diminish and erode any sense of common purpose; and, too often, the end product is both complex and uncertain. I should like to state at this point that, even though I have misgivings about our procedures, I have even greater misgivings about the call made just now by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for an alternative democracy. Frail though our system may be, I believe that the search for an alternative democracy could well open up opportunities for people with whom I think the noble and learned Lord would not wish to be particularly associated.
This Bill at least attempts to sort out the law and to update it but I think that to an extent it reflects an ambivalence of attitude which is often to be found in our country today. In the first place, while it is generally accepted that people have a right to be protected against injury to themselves and damage to their property, nevertheless our enforcement of those rights is often both sluggish and uncertain.
I should like to make here the point to which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred. I should like to take the opportunity at this time, when the police are so often subjected to a stream of accusation, misrepresentation and abuse, to say that they still stand comparison with any other force anywhere in the world; and, secondly, to say that no other force comes under more strict scrutiny, some of it of a very irresponsible kind. It is also generally accepted that the police have a duty to uphold the law. It is accepted, too, that for that purpose they need appropriate powers and that in the exercise of those powers they should be subject to certain clear rules.
550
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said from the Front Bench opposite, we need to strike a balance and it is vital that we should do so—a balance between a sensible restraint on the exercise of police powers and a degree of hobbling the police as to render them wholly ineffective. Mr. Atwell has already been referred to. I make no apologies for bringing up his name again. He was at one time both a constituent and a very near neighbour of mine. I knew him well. I do not think that it would be possible for any reasonable person to withhold sympathy from Mr. Atwell and, particularly, we should draw attention to the fact, as did my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that Mr. Atwell's remedies were slow in coming and expensive when they did.
In my view, it would be quite unfair to blame the police for their handling of that situation, for they faced the problems of lack of power and uncertainty as to where their duty lay. This Bill in some parts appears to throw the net unduly wide; in others it seems to be in danger of defeating its own purposes. Clauses 4 and 6 relate to intent. I cannot think that it is very easy in circumstances of violent disorder to prove intent unless the mere presence on the scene of such a disorder is to be taken as evidence of intent. The Bill does not state that, but I imagine that the general view would be that such a presumption of intent would be highly undesirable.
It was said in another place that London had become the demonstration capital of the world. It is perfectly right and proper that in these dignified and calm surroundings we should stress the importance of retaining the rights long enjoyed by the public to make manifest their anxieties and, on occasion, their indignation—provided of course that they do so peacefully. But I wonder whether some of the comments we have heard today in your Lordships' House do not go a little too far—so far indeed as to suggest that the right to demonstrate, to protest and to march is somehow more important than the right of ordinary citizens not to be alarmed or frustrated in making use of the highway which plays an important part in their everyday lives.
I should like to conclude my remarks by echoing what has already been said, that the police have been recently under very heavy pressure indeed. Violence has become a more frequent occurrence in public places. It is in those circumstances particularly important that the police should be given a reasonable opportuntity to perform their duty in an effective manner.
2.37 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, like every other preceding speaker, I rise to begin what I have to say by offering my sincere congratulations to the two noble Lords who have given us their maiden speeches today. I think I can best describe them by saying that it has been an enjoyable experience. All of us who have gone through this process will understand the tensions and the preparation involved but if at the end of the day, or on any other occasion, colleagues come up to one and say, "I enjoyed what you had to say", I believe that is an accolade. I enjoyed what I heard from our two maiden speakers today and I look forward to hearing from them again.

551
I want to begin by echoing the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. I would also repeat the comment, made more than once, that while the thrust of the Bill is to be welcomed, the Bill itself is like the curate's egg: good in parts. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, promised the House that at the Committee stage we would tease out of the Bill a number of areas in which he and, I am certain, others of your Lordships can see the Bill can be improved. I am certainly looking forward to that process. I believe that one of the most effective contributions we have heard today came from the noble Lord, Lord Soper. I was particularly struck by what he called a plea for the fellowship of controversy within a framework of non-violence. If we can keep that not only as the main purpose of the Bill but also as the main purpose of those who criticise it, I believe we shall have a very productive Committee stage indeed.
The Minister who introduced the Bill claimed that it is an answer to public disorder. However, in my view there is a grave risk that it will penalise the work of peaceful voluntary organisations and make little distinction between the reprehensible conduct of persons bent on causing violence and ordinary citizens concerned over the direction of certain policies of the Government, who wish to display that concern in public and to oppose those policies.
I also want to enter into this debate the severe caveats of the trade union movement. I have been a trade unionist all my life, and continue to be a proud and happy member of my own trade union. The TUC have drawn my attention to what they term their "serious concern" about the Bill. In the view of the TUC, the Bill as it stands will adversely affect civil liberties. All the Bill's provisions appear to be restrictive of civil liberties and none protects or extends civil liberties. In other words, the Bill is unbalanced, and "unbalanced" is a word that has been used more than once during the debate.
Although the Government's decision to send a circular to chief constables on civil liberties is welcome, this obviously cannot compensate for the restrictions imposed by the Bill. The TUC say, in particular, that the Bill's provisions taken together will place stiff restrictions on the right of assembly, which is a basic human right enshrined in a number of international conventions. As has been said by more than one noble Lord, although the right to assemble is not written in British statute law, it is still widely understood and accepted as part of a free society. I believe that we shall come back increasingly to the points that I shall be very happy to make at the Committee stage on behalf of the trade union movement.
Like a number of other speakers, I have received a brief from the National Council for Civil Liberties, and although we still have the Committee stage ahead of us I wonder whether the Minister can deal even now—or, if not now, certainly at the Committee stage—with one or two of the points that they make in their brief. For example, the organisers of a picket outside a department store selling South African goods could find that conditions were imposed, because the
552
police believed that the demonstration would disrupt persons going to and from the store and to the surrounding shops, or it would intimidate customers or mean that there was a risk of property being damaged by slogans sprayed on walls. The police decision could result in the rally being limited to six people, being moved to the outskirts of a city and being limited to 30 minutes. Could the Minister or his advisers tell us whether that is a proper interpretation of a situation of that kind?
The NCCL also told me that in June 1984 the Friends of the Earth, in Halvergate Marshes, Norfolk, sat down in front of bulldozers to preserve rare plants and flowers in a field. Much publicity was given to that and the policy was subsequently changed. We in this House have been kept well abreast of this change and helped to bring it about. If the Public Order Bill had been law at the time, the demonstrators could have been moved from the area and the purpose of their demonstration to save rare wild plants would have been defeated. That is another illustration of the concern that the Bill could result in situations of that kind.
A group of tenants in residents' associations may have known for a month that the local authority were about to take a decision to widen a road between their estates, which they believed would make the area less safe for children to play nearby, but they may have reached agreement with all the bodies involved to have a demonstration only six days before the event. If the police decided that the advance notice was not as soon as was reasonably practicable, then the threat of prosecution and a fine of £400 may well inhibit parents who would otherwise organise such a peaceful demonstration. If those are some of the consequences of the new law, then I believe that they are very bad indeed.
The National Association of Probation Officers have also sent me their views on these matters. What particularly concerns that association is the proposal to retain the power to sentence a person to life imprisonment for the offence of riot. In introducing the Bill earlier today, the Minister pointed out the particular dilemma that exists there, but the National Association of Probation Officers believes that such a sentence should be retained exclusively for extremely serious offences such as murder. Although the Minister has told the House that, subject to the appeal against the life sentence imposed in 1985, for public order offences arising from a football match the Government would be well advised to consider leaving the situation as it is.
I recognise that the apparent increase in disorderly behaviour causes all responsible people concern, and that the fear of perceived harassment, alarm or distress is a matter that needs proper attention. However, the offences described in Clause 5 extend the power of the police and would place many young people prone to boisterous and extrovert behaviour at risk of arrest.
My good friend Alan Mattingley, who is the secretary of the Ramblers Association, draws to my attention another aspect of the very sad and disgraceful impact that fell upon Mr. Atwell on his farm in the past two weeks. Certainly the Ramblers Association shares my concern that something should be done about it. What needs to be done is the issue.

553
The association is very concerned at the possibility that there could be hasty action, with unforeseen consequences for the millions of innocent people who regularly enjoy a walk in the countryside, if there is to be a change in the law of trespass.
From time to time ramblers do trespass, either because their path is not clearly marked or, not infrequently, because the farmer has shown scant respect for the public's right and has blocked the path with barbed wire or with crops. If the public were then to be threatened with prosecution for finding a way around such obstructions, the resulting bad feeling would cause lasting damage to relations in the countryside, and a serious injustice would have been done.
I understand that the Home Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd, has recently said:
"We are fully seized of the arguments against making simple trespass a criminal offence and have no intention of going down that road. We certainly do not wish to make life difficult for ramblers, bird watchers and other genuine lovers of the countryside".
I simply say to the Minister that I will watch with care and with sympathy for the drafting of any changes which may take account of the position but which should also protect the point that I have made.
In conclusion, I believe that the police have more than enough powers, especially now that the police and criminal evidence legislation has been implemented. The Bill demonstrates an unhealthy bias against the legitimate expression of protest by the public, who will have the greatest difficulty in challenging police decisions. It represents a real threat to the expression of dissent through traditional channels. It is evident that the Government contemplate the solution to social problems in the rather limited terms of law and order. In my view, it would be unacceptable to allow the Government's ideology, coupled with public anxiety about recent events, to act as a catalyst for the creation of offences that are altogether more serious than is really necessary to meet the exigencies with which they are designed to deal.
2.49 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I have cast aside the speech that I intended to make because it is late on Friday afternoon. I do not know what it is that invites us all to make longer speeches on Fridays than we otherwise might.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Not all of us, my Lords.
Lord Hooson: Perhaps not all, my Lords. Instead, I shall make a few general observations on the background to the Bill. I may first say that I very much agree with the speech made by my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I will add just one point that I know he would have added. We entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, that the greatest single improvement to the Bill would be an amendment to Clause 13 to allow the Secretary of State to ban certain marches and protestations. I say the Secretary of State because that would, under the normal procedures of the Commons, allow emergency debates, if approved of by the Speaker, to be raised to challenge that decision. That seems to be an extremely effective way of handling the matter.
554
If I may borrow a phrase, one of the dilemmas of democracy is that we have to tolerate a great deal of what we do not like in order to preserve what we do like. Nothing so illustrates that problem than dealing with the question of public order. We all agree that one of the chief functions of the state is to maintain public order and to make people law-abiding, and so on. Nevertheless, there is a great danger that in this sphere, as in this Bill, we legislate in a way that will create more difficulties than are solved. In this sphere it is important that the less legislation we have the better, and the fewer laws we have the better. Those laws that we do have should be precise and easily interpreted. The worst element in this kind of law is the large element of discretion and imprecision which so abounds in this Bill. One will have a totally different law in Devon, Cornwall or Montgomeryshire from that in the East End of London.
I have in mind the altercation (if that is the description I should give to it) that occurred between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on the alternative democracy. I should like to give an illustration of what actually happens. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Soper, I have never been a demonstrator or a marcher, save when it was compulsory upon me; and I have never thought of it in my particular part of the country as an effective form of political expression.
Nevertheless, when I was a Member in the other place, as was the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I represented an agricultural constituency where my constituents were, by and large, law abiding people who thoroughly disapproved of marching, demonstrations and violence. There then came an economic crisis in the agricultural community. Many of your Lordships will remember it. It was at the time when we had a Labour Government. There were demonstrations all over the country.
In my area I saw normal, law-abiding citizens—some of then even JPs—resorting to demonstrations and putting tractors on railway crossings to prevent the trains coming from Ireland which carried beef cattle, and so on. There was very little protest from Members on the opposite Benches. My constituents were entering into a form of alternative democracy which quite shocked me at the time although I had great sympathy with their plight. We tend sometimes to judge these questions of demonstration according to our own political viewpoint. We should bear that in the back of our minds when dealing with this very important Public Order Bill.
I give another illustration that we should bear in mind. I remember in my earlier days in the other place a very senior police officer—senior, that is, in age and experience; he was a constable—told me a story of how he had been taken to help control a demonstration. The police, anxious to avoid violence, had linked arms to prevent pressure being imposed upon them from the outside. Suddenly he felt an incredible pain in the back of his leg. Someone had pushed into the back of his knee the pointed end of a pair of compasses—the type used by children in schools. He immediately whipped round and struck with his truncheon the man who was pressing against him. The man promptly punched him and there was a general fracas in which other police officers were involved.

555
In the end they concluded that someone else had crawled along under the feet of the persons who were demonstrating and had succeeded in escalating the violence by provoking a violent reaction from the police officer and an equally violent reaction from the innocent victim. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that it is not the organisers of these demonstrations who are by and large the people one has to fear. It is those who exploit the situation. That is very common.
I have often been puzzled as to why at rugby matches—I am a devotee of rugby, and in my experience there is great consumption of alcohol as well as a feeling of comradeship at these matches—one never encounters the kind of violence among the crowds that has so marred football matches. I believe that one of the reasons is that football matches and football crowds have been exploited. They have been targeted. One of the great dilemmas with which we are faced—and I make these remarks simply as a general observation on the background—is how on earth to preserve the right to demonstrate and march and yet prevent so far as is possible exploitation of demonstrators by minority groups who are targeted on them. I do not think that this Bill begins to deal with the real problem of what happens.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, mentioned Wapping. I think it is right to say that many people go there to demonstrate peacefully; equally, I have no doubt at all that others go there to exploit the demonstrators, and do exploit them. In those circumstances the question of where to draw the balance is a difficult one.
Criticism was made of the old Act because it was passed in the wake of the Black Shirt marches and the countermarches, and there was no great love of the Public Order Act 1936 by the Bar. It is right to say that it is a bad time to pass such legislation in the wake of the kind of disorder that we are seeing at the present time. One has every sympathy with the farmer and landowner in the South of England, who no doubt at enormous personal cost will have to deal with what was imposed upon him. I seek only to say that there are many general considerations which at the Committee stage of this Bill should point your Lordships in the direction of the need to have far greater preciseness and far less vagueness than exists in the Bill at the present time.
2.58 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, may I first of all join other noble Lords in warmly congratulating our two maiden speakers. The speeches were shrewd and pertinent as well as being beautifully delivered, and both speakers surmounted with ease the ominous hurdle of Friday the 13th, which I am sure I should never have been able to do in similar circumstances.
It seems to me to be generally expected by the press and others that one should make some comment on the so-called hippy convoy in so far as it relates to this Bill. I shall only say that the so-called hippies have been described by the Home Secretary as mediaeval brigands, which I have to say seems to invest them with a certain glamour that am not sure they deserve. They have subsequently been described by a chief of
556
police as rebels and anarchists. The latter may well be true, but that is not the point.
What should concern the law is whether those in a convoy are harming individuals by causing criminal damage to crops and fences, are allowing their dogs to worry sheep or are harming the community at large by depositing litter, fiddling their social security benefits or driving round in an unlicensed and uninsured vehicle. Whether their principles or mental attitudes are rebellious or anarchic is neither here nor there; nor is their dress, degree of cleanliness or hirsuteness. It is only their deeds, not their thoughts or their appearance, that should concern the law, civil or criminal.
As I have said on other occasions, far too many new offences for which people can be fined or imprisoned have been created since 3rd May 1979 and far too few have been repealed. The ratio is in the order of 300 to 1. For that reason I wonder whether we could not try enforcing the existing law fully first, together with greatly speeding up and reducing the costs of the civil procedure for regaining possession, before thinking of introducing yet another criminal offence.
But if in the end the existing law proves inadequate—and the noble Lords, Lord Brocket and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, gave us examples to suggest that it might be—I would favour the suggestion that it should be made a criminal offence for a trespasser to refuse to leave private property if requested to do so by the owner in the presence of a constable.
Now to the Bill before us. In general I understand and approve of the purpose of Part I of the Bill, but, like my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman, I am worried that the wording of Clauses 4 and 5 casts the net too wide, and for this reason. At least 95 per cent. of us can agree on the definition of the words "threatening" and "abusing" respectively but the word "insulting" is a very different matter. It is subjective in the extreme.
We live in a most curious age when, if there are not already chips on people's shoulders, there are always plenty of organisations anxious to rush in and place them there; so people can deem themselves insulted nowadays by the most extraordinary things—Miss World contests, advertisements in Underground stations, Irish jokes and photographs of Labour parliamentary candidates in the presence of their wives and children. The consequence is that anyone rash enough to wave page 3 of the Sun at a militant feminist might well find himself accused of an offence under Clause 5(1)(b), and if the feminist in question is really militant, under Clause 4(1)(b) as well.
Noble Lords may consider that to be a rather far-fetched example. Very well; let me give another one. A pedestrian crosses a street when the lights are in his favour. Halfway across he is almost knocked down by a motorist who has driven through a red light and then squeals to a halt. The pedestrian rushes up to the motorist and says, "You bloody fool! Why don't you learn how to drive? You almost killed me". The motorist, taking any reflection upon his driving ability as a slur upon his virility, as motorists tend to do, gets out of his car and aims a punch at the pedestrian. I do not know under what statute the motorist may be accused, but it seems rather unfair that the pedestrian

557
should find himself open to prosecution under the provisions of Clause 4. I seriously believe that some safeguard is needed such as the insertion of the word "seriously" before the word "insulting", both in those two clauses and throughout the Bill.
Turning to Part II of the Bill, which deals with processions and assemblies, I think that one ought to consider carefully some fundamental principles. We constantly hear the wholly unchallenged slogans: "The Englishman's basic right to protest" and "The Englishman's basic right to demonstrate". But what does that right mean? If it means free speech, one can agree totally, without hesitation. If it means dignified, peaceful, orderly, considerate and preferably static demonstrations, that is fine too. But if it means noisy and aggressive marches, 12 abreast, though the centre of our cities, paralysing traffic, causing thousands of engines to overheat, wasting thousands of gallons of petrol and polluting the atmosphere, and causing thousands of people to miss their trains, planes, business meetings and job interviews, I do not think that that is acceptable at all. The marchers, in demanding the right to use and to monopolise the Queen's highway, are depriving countless other citizens of their right to use that same highway.
It is a funny thing that in this country a large group or a mob nearly always finds it easier to get away with things than a small group or individual. A bearded, besandaled individual, walking down the middle of Piccadilly, carrying a placard announcing "God is love" or "Jesus saves", will almost certainly be arrested, hauled off and charged with obstruction. In contrast, a group of 2,000 people and bearded, besandaled or otherwise, marching down Piccadilly waving placards and chanting, "Disembowel Reagan", or "Hang Thatcher"—I have seen such placards—is at present normally given every consideration by the authorities. However, the ordinary citizen going about his or her lawful business has to play second fiddle to the demonstrators and risks missing business or holiday flights and being late for work, dentists' appointments, hospital visits and so on.
That is why I welcome so warmly the emphatic assertion by the Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. Giles Shaw, on 30th April in another place (at col. 1073 of Hansard), which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, this afternoon, that the rights of demonstrators must always be balanced against the rights of others to live their lives peacefully, and that the Government rejected the notion that because a person formed part of an organised group that conferred special privileges upon him.
As a counterbalance to those restrictions on noisy and too often disorderly processions, I should like to see much greater official tolerance of dignified, peaceful forms of protest which do not cause obstruction in the popularly accepted sense and do not cause inconvenience to members of the public. Ideally, I should like to see every large town and city obliged to set aside a public open space where any individual or group could freely express opinions, however unusual or unpopular—the equivalent of Speakers' Corner at Marble Arch.
Pending that, one hopes for no repetition of the scene that I witnessed in Kensington High Street some
558
weeks ago, when on a wide and uncrowded stretch of pavement, a small group of extremely quiet and polite young Iranians—members of some Socialist group, I think—was handing our leaflets protesting about the torture and oppression in Khomeini's Iran. No one was offended, unless there happened to be some supporters of the Ayatollah passing by, which I do not thing there were, and yet those students were smartly moved on by the police. That seems wrong. It would be reassuring to have confirmed that such a quite and dignified method of disseminating information is legal and should not be interfered with.
Lastly, I should like to mention Part III of the Bill. In his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, seemed to be expressing the hope that it would go through on the nod. The difficulty is that everyone is desperately anxious to be seen to be on the side of the angels with regard to this Part of the Bill. I hope that I am not too far removed from that heavenly host, but although I naturally fully endorse the overall intention of this Part of the Bill, I am worried that as drafted certain clauses could in future be misused to gag legitimate expressions of opinion.
It is not the deliberate stirring up of racial hatred that causes problems. We can be unanimous in opposing that, but racial hatred might be provoked incidentally in the course of making some other point. I shall give two examples. The Sikhs, whom the noble and learned Lords in their wisdom deemed to be a separate racial group, decide to hold a march through a Hindu district on the anniversary of the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi, chanting slogans in favour of an independent Sikh State. Their behaviour is undoubtedly insulting and provocative, but it is not intended to stir up racial hatred, although it may well do so.
My second example is that of a newspaper which on the 30th anniversary of legislation restricting mass immigration into this country, decides to publish a powerful article attacking those who, by doing everything in their power to frustrate such legislation, allowed hundreds of thousands of people to slip into this country under the barrier, as it were. It accuses those politicians, churchmen and academics of the 1960s of being criminally shortsighted and self-indulgent with an arrogant disregard for the sentiments of the mass of the British people. Those words are undoubtedly abusive but they are not abusive of a different racial group but of people in the same racial group as the author. Such an article could fall foul of Clause 17 on the argument that bringing the whole immigration controversy into the open once again is likely to reawaken latent racial antagonisms.
Some noble Lords may argue that the fact that the Attorney-General's consent is required before prosecutions can be brought is a safeguard against the misuse of those powers. I do not doubt that this is so at the present time, but before the end of the century it could just be that we have an Attorney General who is a member of the Militant Tendency. Stranger things have happened. I am also very worried about the extraordinary provision in Clauses 17 and 18 whereby an individual risks prosecution if he quotes from a straightforward report of court proceedings unless those proceedings are very recent. With those provisos, I am happy to welcome the Bill as a whole.
3.10 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I, too, should like to start my remarks with a sincere tribute and congratulations to my noble friends on their excellent and felicitous maiden speeches. Like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I had the privilege of enjoying the acquaintance and listening to the always stimulating conversation of the grandfather of my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook and also, of course, of his distinguished father. I had the privilege also of the acquaintance of the grandfather of my noble friend Lord Brocket in the county of Hertfordshire, part of which I had the privilege for so many years of representing. I am tempted to embark upon a catalogue, "Grandfathers whom I have known", but I feel that if I did so your Lordships would begin to wonder, in so far as you have not already done so, why I am still alive. I see my noble and learned friend Lord Denning looking at me. For the avoidance of doubt, I must make clear that I did not have the privilege of knowing his grandfather.
This is a wide ranging Bill. Its five parts exceed by two the three parts in which Cicero told us that all Gaul was divided. If it be not too abrupt a transition from the classical to the culinary, I would adopt the verdict of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that it is a curate's egg of a Bill. The least appetising and digestible part, I would think, is Part II, to which I propose to confine my remarks, with the short preparatory statement that on the Bill as a whole I congratulate Ministers on their approach and for giving expression in statute law to the view of their White Paper in 1985. I accord a particular welcome to Part I of the Bill that gives statutory definition to the complex common law relating to riot and associated offences. I would therefore ask your Lordships to accept that any comment that I may have on Part II of the Bill that is necessarily of a somewhat critical nature should not be taken to overlook or derogate from my recognition of the valuable contribution made by the Bill as a whole.
Part II seeks to provide a solution to the problem of what the White Paper repeatedly and perhaps rather quaintly refers to as sedentary demonstrations—language that the Bill translates into the more appropriate statutory language of public assemblies. This matter, as your Lordships know, received the attention of the Select Committee of the other place, and the Government's views, partly though not wholly, endorsed the recommendations of that committee. Time has passed, however, since then. We have now to consider what is required of the law and whether it is sufficient in present circumstances and in the predictable future. Before coming to this, I would just say that I do not intend to pass any moral judgment on the attitude or state of mind of those who, by their rejection of society, have created or at any rate exacerbated these problems. Enough has been said on this matter by others. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has quoted some of it just now and I propose to follow the maxim:
"Judge not that ye be not judged".
History shows that the rejection of society by certain elements is not unique, although it may well be hard to find a precedent for the simultaneous rejection of society and the enjoyment of its benefits. History also
560
shows that this country has succeeded in dealing with such problems by way of achieving the highest common factor of the preservation of order under the rule of law and the minimum interference with individual liberty. The key to this problem is to be found on page two of the White Paper:
"to regulate these freedoms to the minimum extent necessary to preserve order and protect the rights of others".
In the striking phrase used just now by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, what is wanted is a fellowship of controversy in a context of non-violence. Our approach is and must be governed by Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights to which we are internationally committed and which, if the House of Commons emulates the wisdom of your Lordships and gives effect to the Bill which your Lordships have passed, will have the force of law in the United Kingdom and the jurisdiction of the British courts. I endorse what my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman said on this matter and I am happy to inform your Lordships that the Bill is about to be presented in the House of Commons under the distinguished auspices of Sir Edward Gardner, Queen's Counsel, with all-party backing.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, made reference to this article but, if I may respectfully say so, in a somewhat over-simplified form. He omitted to mention that the convention makes clear that the right to freedom of assembly is subject to the imposition of restrictions required for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. What we have to consider is whether the Bill as drafted meets this test and gives adequate protection to the rights and freedom of others—in this case specifically the owners and occupiers of land—while imposing the minimum necessary restrictions on the rights of peaceful assembly. The Bill seeks to make this requirement in Clause 14, a single clause compared with three clauses devoted to the subject of public processions. This clause is of vital importance because on its adequacy depends the protection of the rights which English law and the European convention alike require.
The only other protection available is by invoking remedies for tort—the tort of trespass. It is true, of course, as your Lordships know, that every unlawful entry on the land of another is in law a trespass for which an action lies, but the remedies by way of trespass are inadequate to deal with mass invasion and occupation of land. In law, an owner or occupier of land whose request to leave his land is rejected may remove the trespasser, using no more force than is reasonably necessary. But in this context, surely, this right is academic, since a single person is hardly likely to invoke or be able to enforce such a right against a mass invasion. Nominally, the owner of land can recover damages if damage is sustained, which in such cases it is likely to be; but again this is an academic remedy since the entitlement to damages is hardly likely to be followed by the recovery of damages, owing to the means or lack thereof of the trespassers. Again, he may apply to the court for an order for possession and an injunction. Again, that requires an initiative by the landower, who has the inevitable delay, costs and uncertainty of such a proceeding.
Therefore one must conclude that the remedies of trespass are clearly inadequate and they have to be

561
found in this Bill. Alas, I have to tell my noble friend on the Front Bench that Clause 14 is inadequate to provide sufficient protection. Clause 14 gives such powers in regard to public assemblies which may result in serious damage to property. "Public assembly" is defined in Clause 16 as:
"an assembly of 20 or more persons in a public place which is wholly or partly open to the air".
"Public place" is defined as:
"any place to which the public … has access on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission".
By confining the powers and remedies in this way the clause excludes the category of case which is causing concern, since these assemblies are not taking place on land to which the public has a right of access either by express or implied permission or at all. It follows that on its present wording Clause 14 provides no protection for private land, and therefore no solution to the particular problem which has arisen.
There are two other perhaps less basic defects, but nonetheless significant ones. There is no requirement of advance notice to the police in Clause 14, and that of course severely limits their capacity to give appropriate directions to those organising the assembly. This omission is the more surprising as the Select Committee specifically recommended a requirement of 72 hours' advance notice—a recommendation rejected by the Government in their White Paper as being unnecessary. However, that is simply a bald assertion unsupported by reasoning or evidence, and perhaps my noble friend will see fit to fill that gap in his reply and explain this somewhat paradoxical and unexpected deviation from the recommendation of the Select Committee.
The third defect is an ambiguity in the drafting of Clause 14(4), which provides a defence for a person charged with a breach of a prescribed condition in organising a public assembly that it,
"arose from circumstances beyond his control".
What sort of circumstances are envisaged? Will it be enought to mount a successful defence, to plead force majeure? Will he be able to say "I am but one and they are many. How can I be expected to control my numerous and determined associates?"
If this be a sufficient defence—and in the wording it certainly seems possible—then the prescribed conditions would be difficult of enforcement and of little value. This being so, Clause 14 in its present form is clearly inadequate and needs supplementation. It has been suggested—I think by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, among others—that such supplementations should include a degree of criminal trespass.
This is supported by the Country Landowners' Association, which on the kind initiative of my noble friend Lord Middleton has been good enough to send me its views. I sympathise with most of what it has to say as I hope my speech has shown, but I do not think it is appropriate to seek to include provisions for criminal trespass in this Bill. Indeed, I doubt whether they would come within the Long Title of the Bill at all, though on that matter the learned Clerks at the Table can speak more authoritatively than I.
Trespass has remained through the generations a tort attracting civil remedies, and those only. It would
562
not be in accordance with our approach to the law to introduce by a side wind, as it were, a new criminal offence without full, detailed and informed consideration. So far there has not been such consideration. It has not been in the terms of reference, so far as I know, of any of the reports on which this Bill is based.
I do not say that such a development must be excluded from consideration for all time. In the words of Sir Winston, "It is an unwise politician who ever uses the word 'never' ". But the first step should be to make a reference of the matter to the Law Commission so as to gain the authoritative guidance that the importance of the matter so clearly requires. In the light of such report, the question of legislation can then be considered in its proper setting.
Fortunately it is not necessary to make so radical and precipitate a change in the law of trespass if this Bill, and Clause 14 in particular, can be suitably amended. If that is not done, the landowner or occupier is left in the invidious position that he is liable, under the law dating at least as long ago as the old case of Rylands v. Fletcher, for any nuisance caused to adjoining land from his land, however unintentional and inadvertent on his part, but he would be denied remedy for injury done to his land from outside. Surely the law should not contemplate so paradoxical and inequitable a position. Our law is not based on paradoxes such as that. It speaks, and always speaks—or seeks to speak—the language of logic and equity, and in the name of those principles I invite my noble friend the Minister to introduce the necessary amendments on the Committee stage of this Bill.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I listened with some dismay to some of the observations of my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman. He spoke about alternative democracy. We have in this country the best form of democracy that civilisation has yet seen. I would ask your Lordships not to consider any alternative even at the instance of my noble and learned friend. My noble and learned friend gave no cheers to this Bill. On the contrary, he found 50 or more misgivings. In answer, I would give it three cheers, with few if any misgivings.
The vital importance for all law-abiding citizens in this country is that we should have peace and lawful good order for all law-abiding citizens. We should not allow that peace and good order to be disrupted by law-breaking citizens. As I read this Bill, it seeks to achieve law and good order in our community.
May I also say this in favour of the police. They are the people who are entrusted with preserving our good order. They are the people who have to contend with robbers, thieves, and the like. It is the duty of all law-abiding citizens to support the police in their task. But how different it is today; so different from my young days. If a police officer was put into the witness box I did not dare cross-examine him to show that he was unreliable, because the jury had complete confidence in the police and I would lose my case if I went against the police.
Nowadays in many sections of society when they do wrong and the police go to arrest them, they have no

563
answer, but they turn round and say, "Police brutality" or, "Police this, that, and the other". Whole sections of the community are turning against the police. We should all condemn it. We should all support the police in their difficult and important duties. This Bill is an attempt to give the police much of the power which they ought to have. As indeed Winston Churchill once said, "Give us the tools and we'll finish the job". Give the police the right laws, give them proper powers of enforcement and that will do a great deal of good to help restore good order to our community.
In the first part of the Bill the old offences of riot, unlawful assembly, affray and so forth were not contained in any statute. They were contained in our common law. They could only be dealt with by being taken on indictment before a jury. It was very ill defined. Those old judges did their best with the common law of riot, unlawful assembly and affray, but it was out of date. The Law Commission did a first rate job in going through that old law and bringing it up to date so as to define what are "unlawful assembly", "riot", and "affray".
Clause 4 is good. In the old days it had to be three or more people to make unlawful assembly. To create fear of violence also came under unlawful assembly. That was brought up to date in those first four clauses. The new one which the Law Commission did not recommend because it did not consider it, is Clause 5 about which my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman expressed such disquiet. It is necessary to have some such clause as Clause 5 to deal with disorderly conduct which is so prevalent today.
Let me give an illustration which we had in the Court of Appeal where the law could not do anything about it. In Cornwall there was a proposal to make a survey to see whether there should be a nuclear installation there. No work had been done but the surveyors had to go in with their tools and their jigs and so forth to try to ascertain whether it was a suitable site. Then a group of protestors came. They tried to stop that survey. When a lorry tried to go into the site they lay down in front of it so the lorry could not be used. When there was a small jib working they would sit on it so that it could not be worked. They prevented that important survey being carried out.
What was the law to do about it? The police said they could not do anything. There was not a breach of the peace. They had not threatened anything, but had merely stopped the work being done. Therefore it was stopped altogether and the police could do nothing. The case came to our court. It was quite right. No criminal offence had been committed and so they could have committed that offence indefinitely. We managed to make an order to get the police constable to do something, but that is by the way. There was no criminal offence being committed.
Surely the law should be altered to make such conduct punishable. It need not be serious, or anything of that kind. Let them be taken off before the magistrates and given a small fine. That is the way to deal with it. That is the way that Clause 5 would operate in cases of disorderly conduct, in that and many other similar cases. We might have another illustration of a man who rushed on to a cricket field.
564
He disrupted the whole thing by pulling up the stumps and running off with them. I should have thought that that was disorderly conduct all right and that it caused alarm, harassment or whatever. At all events, for what might be called minor cases like that there ought to be provision in the law.
Clause 5 deals with the person who uses abusive, insulting and threatening words. That is perfectly all right. The magistrates know exactly what those are. Lord Reid once said. "There's free speech all right; but you mustn't use threatening, abusive or insulting words because they are apt to lead to violence". So there it is. They are treating it as though it is a serious offence triable by jury and all that. That is a very important new procedure. Let them be taken before the magistrate and given a small fine. So I would endorse the first Part. There may have to be minor amendments, perhaps, in Committee, but I would endorse the first Part fully.
As for the second Part, about processions and assemblies, people talk about this right to demonstrate. It has never been stated in our law or defined at all by the judges. We have had a few cases lately in which it has been said, "There is a right to demonstrate". We have never defined what it is. A right to demonstrate does not carry with it a right to disrupt the life of the community. A right to demonstrate is a right peacefully to persuade others to your point of view, to meet together and persuade; but not to try to compel people to do what they have or have not a right to do. Take the matter of those massed pickets when men wanted to go to work; and they had a right to go to work. Surely, it was wrong for pickets to gather together and stop them or try to stop them from exercising that lawful right. One could go to case after case.
Take Wapping and the like. Why is that firm not entitled to send its lorries to and fro and carry on its lawful business? What right has anyone to try to disrupt such lawful activity. These people are not trying to persuade at all; they are trying to compel the person not to do that which he has a lawful right to do. I come back to what I have said before about disorderly conduct. What about those people, the hippies and the like? Is that not disorderly conduct of the worst kind? Does it not cause harassment, alarm and the like? The Act is not yet in force. There is going to be a remedy. This conduct is so disorderly and so disruptive that I would be all in favour of framing a law so as to make that kind of thing a trespass punishable by a criminal court—not seriously taken before a magistrate and sent to prison or before a jury or anything like that. It is better to send them before a magistrate. Arrest them and take them there and award a small fine or a bind-over. But the law ought to be strengthened in all these respects so that the police can be given the powers to enable ordinary people lawfully to live their lives in peace and prevent others from disrupting the good order of our country.
I will not go into all the details but, by and large, as I said at the beginning, I give three cheers to this Bill and hope that it will go through virtually unamended, but subject to minor things. I hope that it will go with speed through your Lordships' House so that this important measure can get on to the statute book.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I am quite sure that he will return to many points on the Committee stage. My own contribution has to do entirely with Part 11. I intended to confine my comments entirely to that subject but I might veer off slightly later. However, I shall start by so doing. In this Bill among other things we consider the democratic rights of people in this country to proclaim their views on many subjects by way of processions and demonstrations. We are jealous of the rights of the individual although we are not unmindful that liberties granted to one person may place constraints on many others. This is recognised in the Bill so far as aggressive behaviour is concerned. However, with the massive growth of public demonstrations—dealt with in Part II—it is necessary to see that everything possible is done to minimise inconvenience caused to the public in general.
Your Lordships are aware of my experience in the bus industry, and I am conscious that this is one industry greatly affected by processions of pedestrians blocking the normal flow of traffic. Let me make it clear that when I speak of the bus industry, my concern is ultimately for its users. They are the sufferers, whether it be by delay or increased operating costs—which at the end of the day are passed to them as fare-payers, or possibly as tax-payers.
May I give one example of an experience told me by some people of my acquaintance? This occurred last November when they were trying to take a bus from Oxford Street to South London. They, like the considerable queue at the bus stop, had no knowledge of an assembly formed by processions to Trafalgar Square. They waited one hour in a freezing north wind blowing down Orchard Street; and, along with the others waiting, they blamed London Transport for its inefficiency. When the next bus arrived they were able to get on; but their next experience was a diversion from Piccadilly Circus to the southern—or is it eastern?—end of Lambeth bridge, which added a mile and a half to the journey on congested roads, sometimes through unsuitable back streets. This frustrating crawl added a further hour to the delay. In due course it transpired that the problem lay with the demonstration and not with the bus company. My Lords, what an image to give the passenger!
I made inquiries of London Transport regarding this delay, who, let one say, praised the police for their co-operation. They calculated that the cost to them of this one occasion was over £5,000, without taking account of the considerable overtime paid to crews for finishing late or of the cost of publicity—which it would seem was too late and insufficient to reach the majority of their passengers. If one takes account of the great inconvenience caused to the travelling public, the cost to the police and other authorities, it can be seen that there is a very heavy price to be paid for every demonstration of this sort—and this is but one example. I would remind your Lordships that the bus industry carries 6,200 million passengers every year. This is a great number of people to be inconvenienced by the views of those who choose to exercise their right to demonstrate.
566
It would be wrong to seek to prevent people from using the public highways for the lawful purpose of passing and re-passing—although an individual carrying a banner down the middle of the road may well be prosecuted for jay-walking. This brings me to the purpose of my intervention in this Second Reading debate. We must try to achieve a balance between the freedom of one set of individuals and the freedom of the remainder also to pass and repass. I intend to return to this subject at the Committee stage, when I shall table amendments which will enable your Lordships to consider this balance in more detail.
One is concerned that bus operators should be given proper notice of all processions and demonstrations affecting the routes over which they operate so that they can at least plan to reduce to a minimum the disruption of services to passengers. One is also concerned about the cost of demonstrations and, although it may not be possible to place financial responsibility on the organisers of demonstrations, we should perhaps look at the implications.
One was at first puzzled by the requirement to give notice of a procession but not of a public assembly. It seemed illogical. Yet, having made inquiries one is satisfied that in practice—which is what matters—the distinction is justified: that is, provided all police forces remember to take account of, and consult with, other interested parties. I hope my noble friend the Minister can reassure me in this respect.
I should like now to follow the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who referred to Mr. Alan Mattingley of the Ramblers' Association. I declare an interest here because I am president of the Sussex branch of that organisation. I agree with what the noble Lord said, that he had sympathy with Mr. Attwell in Somerset and also with the views of Mr. Alan Mattingley—and I speak as a walker. Legislation in that area is very secure and one would not like to see it departed from. But, speaking as a lone walker, I do not think that anybody would get very cross if one trespassed. One should be able to follow a map, but if one apologises and is fairly humble the person who has stopped one is usually sympathetic. That is an area to be looked at. But I am not quite so worried as the noble Lord, and I am sure that any amendments in that direction will be dealt with.
In conclusion, I come to the most pleasant thing I have to say. I should like to welcome the amendment to the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act made by Schedule 1 to this Bill. When that legislation came before your Lordships last year, I expressed concern that voluntary controls introduced by coach operators were leading the hooligan element to hire minibuses, and that these vehicles were not covered by the very necessary requirements in respect of certain sporting events. I am grateful to the Government and, in particular, to my noble friend who has to deal with the Bill at short notice, for the fact that this matter has been put right.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, the need to increase the powers of the police to control assemblies which make use of land in ways which constitute risks of public disorder is a long-standing one, and I listened with

567
great attention to what my noble friend Lord Brocket had to say on the subject. I listened with equal pleasure to the speech of my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook and I hope that we shall hear both of them again before long and on frequent occasions. This need of increased powers has been highlighted by recent events in the south-west to which many noble Lords have referred. It is met to a great extent by this Bill and my noble friend Lord Glenarthur confirmed this by referring to the extension to public order offences that are made in the Bill to offences committed on private land. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur has rightly pointed out the difficulties surrounding the law of trespass, but he has given an assurance that this will be looked into by the Government. These difficulties have, of course, been touched on by my noble friend Lord Broxbourne.
I shall be very brief and will confine what I have to say to one issue, an issue that has already been taken up by my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Broxbourne. As the Bill now is, there is a very large loophole in the provisions dealing with public assemblies, and, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has referred to it, I shall refer also to the letter to The Times that appeared last Wednesday from the president of the CLA, in which he stated his fear that convoys and others with good legal advice would be very quick to jump through it.
As my noble friend Lord Broxbourne has described so clearly, the loophole exists because police powers to impose preventive conditions on assemblies which threaten disorder, damage or disruption apply only to assemblies which are held on land to which the public, or a section of the public, is expressly or impliedly granted access. My noble friend Lord Broxbourne has, with his great knowledge and expertise, dealt with the present inadequacy in this respect of Clause 14, so I will only echo him by saying that these important preventive powers ought to be extended to cover land on to which the public has not been invited. Until this is done, the "hippy" convoys are presented by this Bill with an open inducement to occupy land where the owner's or occupier's consent has not been given. Until that is done, the police will be hindered, and potential damage to property will be greater as the convoys are encouraged to trespass to avoid the imposition of those conditions that apply to private land to which the public do have access by right or by express or implied consent.
If, as we hear, the Government are serious in introducing a limited form of criminal trespass, then it would be illogical to do that and not at the same time close the loophole in the Bill that will encourage trespass. Having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and my noble friend Lord Teviot have said, perhaps I should comment that if the closing of the Clause 14 loophole should give rise to fears that it would penalise ramblers or other users of the countryside, then I believe—and perhaps my noble friend will confirm this, if I am right—that this will be the position. Under Clause 14, no criminal element arises until, first, one of three serious risks arises; damage, disorder, or disruption; secondly, the senior police officer has imposed conditions; finally, those conditions have been wilfully flouted. I do not believe
568
that ramblers would act in any way that would require Clause 14 to operate in their case.
My noble friend Lord Peyton and other noble Lords have referred to the case of Mr. Attwell. When his 100-acre farm near Yeovil was invaded by a convoy of 250 itinerants in buses and vans, causing him a heart attack and severe financial loss, it took seven days to shift them. It cost Mr. Attwell much more than he could afford to seek a High Court possession order so that the police could act. It was encouraging to hear that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is considering whether civil law procedures might be streamlined in order to grant more speedy recovery of possession of land.
It may be, as my noble friend the Minister has suggested, that the criminal law will have a stronger part to play. However, Mr. Attwell's invasion by hippies, and the ruin to his health and business, could not have been prevented under this Bill as presently drawn. I can think of no better illustration of the need to apply Clauses 14 to 16 to all land. I hope very much that we can improve the Bill in that respect in Committee.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I rise to speak about this Bill with, if I may say so, a certain proprietorial sense. It is 48 years ago, long before the births of our two excellent maiden speakers this afternoon, that I published my first book under the title of Public Order and Popular Disturbances. Before noble Lords rush off to the bookshops to seek illumination, perhaps I might enter two caveats. First, I believe that the book is long out of print; secondly, it deals only with the period 1660 to 1714. Nevertheless, having been plunged at a relatively early age into this subject, it has led me to conclusions that are different from those of noble Lords who have hitherto spoken in this debate.
It gives me a certain historical perspective that I feel has sometimes been lacking on the part of noble Lords who believe that the subject began with the Public Order Act of a mere half century ago. The conclusion that I come to is that the causes of disturbance, protest and riot do not differ a great deal. In the late 17th century, there were attacks upon foreigners who were presumed to be taking the jobs of native-born Englishmen. There were attacks upon people who were believed to be unnecessarily raising the price of provisions—the common give and take and discontent of all societies. The difference was that in those days there was no alternative to that form of protest. The mass of the people were disfranchised. Many were illiterate and the possibility of reaching the centres of power, which were very restricting, was very limited indeed. It is not surprising that protest, demonstration, marches and assembly came to be regarded as the normal outlet for popular sentiment.
However, we now live in a very different set of circumstances. We have a basically elected legislature. We have elected organisations of local government. We have universal franchise. We have a whole series of organisations, trade unions, co-operative societies, voluntary bodies, through all of which opinion even of the ordinary citizen can adequately be expressed. Therefore I do not think that we should put quite the

569
accent that has been put on the tradition of assembly, the tradition of marching, the tradition of open-air protest as though the fact that those things were necessary in past ages is a guide to us today.
The argument for tradition was put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. If he were here I would remind him that one of his eminent predecessors on the Woolsack less than 200 years ago was talking as though hanging a man for stealing a sheep or a child for stealing a handkerchief was a necessary part of the British legal tradition. We must look at these matters afresh. I am surprised—as indeed many noble Lords have been—by the suggestion, perhaps thrown out in a moment of thoughtlessness, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, that in a country which enjoys parliamentary institutions there could be an alternative form of democracy—the democracy of the street.
All of us speaking today have, I gather, received voluminous material from a body that calls itself the National Council for Civil Liberties. It is national, perhaps, because it is not local, but civil liberties appear in the eyes of that body and, I judge by the pack of material that has been sent, to be confined to a very small number of liberties: namely, the liberties to march, to protest, to hang banners and to demonstrate outside the normal channels of political activity.
I should have thought that there are civil liberties far more important than any of those. They are the liberties perhaps best summed up for all time in the words of the American Declaration of Independence:
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
Those can only be enjoyed by individuals. Life is the life of an individual. Liberty is the individual's capacity for following his avocation and for expressing his opinions. The pursuit of happiness, though good governments will avoid impeding it, is nevertheless again an individual pursuit.
The point that I should like to emphasise to noble Lords is that in my view the guaranteeing of the ability of the individual citizen to pursue his lawful avocation, to move freely about the streets of his city and to avoid interruption to the ordinary amenities of daily life, is of infinitely greater importance than guaranteeing the right to hold meetings in public places, to march in processions or to perform any of those other activities. While no doubt those activities can be useful—I have no doubt that people will benefit from hearing the noble Lord, Lord Soper, preach in the open air; and indeed I am prepared to see a special clause exempting him from any provision of this Bill which, if passed, might be thought to impede his ministry—nevertheless I maintain that it is not, as many noble Lords have argued, a question of balancing one matter of prime importance against another.
The matter of prime importance is the security of the individual in his life, his liberty and his pursuit of happiness, which involves, as has been said, access to the free use of his own property. The others in their way no doubt are respectable ambitions but they should be subordinate if they are found to be an impediment to those primary civil liberties which are the liberties of the individual.
4.2 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, my main objection to this Bill is that the spirit of it is wrong. It will create a "we-they" atmosphere which will provoke civil discord, as some Labour spokesmen have been saying. As long as the authorities have such wide power to take away liberties on all sides, the condition of the British people will continue to deteriorate. As a result of the extreme intolerance encouraged by the police, the British people will develop an introverted instead of an extroverted personality.
We have the reputation of being the most violent nation in Europe; but disturbances such as occurred in the Heysel Stadium are a reaction to the violence instituted by our own authorities. The people involved ought to have been encouraged to have kind impulses toward their fellow men and not given bruising, oppressive and negative experiences by all the authorities in Britain, high or low, that make them want to be negative or destructive. Like everyone else they are best treated with kindness.
Under this Bill those demonstrating against the obscenity of nuclear weapons could be imprisoned for life. We must unite with such people and support them in the interests of preserving the lives of us all. The authorities should side with the supporters of CND and not make their endeavours look trivial. They should take them seriously, or the recent hope of reconciliation raised by Gorbachev and Reagan bringing an end to the Cold War will be wrecked. The United Kingdom should endeavour to make Europe into a happy community, disowning both Reagan and Gorbachev, and allowing everyone in Europe, young and old, to live their lives freely without fear of punishment, arrest, indoctrination, intimidation or brain-washing. Let us put our energies on the side of life.
As Amnesty International has proved, one prison anywhere diminishes us all. We should free the prisoners, and learn to have fun. After all, it is happiness not depression that is the hope of our existence. To spend 11 years in solitary confinement is to know Big Brother and to be able to speak from a really informed and authoritative position. The truth is that prisons and punishment do no good. They are the wrong methods and should be abolished.
The Public Order Bill proposes to increase the powers of the police, but as the entire public knows, the increase in police power has not benefited us in the past 30 years and is even less likely to do so in the next decades. The police have not brought social advance but its opposite, so why should they be given more power? By insisting with such oppressive force that the nation should be non-violent and never rebel, Mrs. Thatcher confesses herself a member of CND. Violence ought not to be suppressed by authority; it is part of nature and necessary to mankind.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has written, the conditions of life here are so bad for most people that there will have to be armed conflicts with the police. As every positive person can see, the solution is a peaceful revolution all over England and Europe, with kind Eurocommunism, without dictatorship, instituted, with the young people in charge of it and no sort of oppression of slavery lingering from the past.

571
So, no public order, my Lords, public kindness instead. It is the only practicable remedy. People should look after themselves or they cannot look after others. But they should look after others or they cannot look after themselves. If you do not look after other people, you have chosen suicide yourself. Now, Reagan and Gorbachev look after each other and create nuclear disarmament, give up this ridiculous hostility, go on with your rapprochement and bring it off. Once world peace has arrived, public order will be irrelevant, and no one will even propose a public order Act.
Again, the whole spirit of the Reagan-Thatcher policy against terrorism, just like the spirit of the proposed Bill, is the wrong spirit. You should not oppress people so that they become terrorists: you should always make for reconciliation and peace.
The Government would not have proposed this Bill if they were not mentally diseased. Think repression and violence and you get repression and violence. You are conjuring into being the very nightmare that you fear. Live in peace with people, and they will live in peace with you.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I think it is a little late to make ordinary speeches at this stage, at least from my point of view. I think that more properly I can make just one relevant point. I am sure that the noble Earl will allow me to say that if I were to reply to his speech it would take quite a time, and the hour is late. He probably will not think it discourteous of me if I do not deal with his speech now.
I wish to make one point only, and that is to refer to the practical side of the policing which comes up in this Bill and which came up a few months ago when we debated the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. Clarification of the law has come up many times during the debate, and I am pleased that it has. We have had many attempts at precise clarification, but we must not forget the practical side. The duties of police officers are frequently extremely difficult and decisions often have to be taken by junior officers. We must realise that. We are not thinking only of the police constable of 25 years' service but more of the junior whose service can be measured in weeks, not in years. That is particularly relevant to Clause 5 of the Bill. Noble Lords may agree with me that one of the best ways for the Bill to work is if it can forestall difficulties, rather than follow behind troubles that may happen.
The authority of the police constable is quite different from that of the soldier, but people are apt to forget that. That point is particularly relevant when the police constable is young. He has wide discretion. We have a tradition in this country whereby the police attempt to use that discretion to the maximum so that it may have the maximum after-effect. Again, there are differences in the way that the police operate in big towns and in the country. In particular that applies to the role and training of reserves for major operations for the police in big towns, compared to much of the routine work that we think about especially in country districts.
572
Earlier in the debate I heard a reference to drawing together the police and the public, which is so important. We have brought that up a number of times over the past year. That is one area in which we have to make an effort—the police on one side and the public on the other. We should not forget that. I hope that the public will be drawn more closely to the police and that the police will open their doors to the many people who are anxious to know their ways better. We want to see an improvement in the feeling of involvement which we have in this country but which many other countries do not have.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I must apologise because circumstances prevented me from being in the House for the start of this important debate. I wish that it could have been otherwise so that I could have heard the maiden speeches of my noble friends Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Brocket. A long-standing official engagement made that impossible. It is only because I came by helicopter that I am here.
I made a special effort to be here because of the important implications that the Bill has for the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission or, to use its popular title, English Heritage, of which I am chairman. I must therefore declare an interest. I hope that I shall not be tediously repeating points made by previous speakers. I wish only to speak briefly to those provisions in Part II of the Bill which relate to processions, assemblies and mass trespass in general.
As a landowner, I naturally share the widespread concern and anxiety about the damage to land and property which can result from acts of mass trespass. As a member of the public, I naturally share the sense of outrage, as have many noble Lords, felt by so many of us over the fate of poor Mr. Attwell and his farmland. We should not forget the many others who have suffered in previous years.
What I feel it my duty to say today stems from the statutory responsibility placed by Parliament on English Heritage by the National Heritage Act 1983. In that Act we are charged with doing everything in our power to protect ancient monuments in England. The picture which many people have of a typical ancient monument may be of a substantial castle or a standing stone ruin, but nevertheless solid and durable, which has survived for many centuries and looks like surviving for many more. That is far from the typical monument.
Many of our monuments are field monuments—barrows or tumuli, the remains of ancient field systems or the foundations of mediaeval villages. To the uninstructed eye, they may be hardly noticeable. They are fragile and vulnerable to threats of many kinds—development, deep ploughing and many others. A mass incursion onto land containing such monuments has been seen to cause incalculable harm to those irreplaceable relics of our past, particularly if vehicles park for a long time or camping is established and includes the digging of pits and the lighting of fires.
The land around Stonehenge is among the richest in the country containing relics of our ancient past. Since the mid-1970s, it has been the site of an annual so-called pop festival which was growing annually in size

573
and duration. In 1984, it lasted for six weeks and at times involved as many as 40,000 people. Your Lordships will know that in 1985 we supported the National Trust in its decision that it could no longer allow such an event to take place on that archaeologically sensitive land which it owns for the benefit of the nation as a whole. Not only was great damage caused, but £100,000 fell on the commission to provide essential facilities, to compensate the tenant farmer and clean up afterwards. That was money which was badly needed for other conservation projects.
When the decision to stop the festival had been taken, we found it almost impossible to invoke the law to carry it out. Although we had made it abundantly clear by advertising and in public statements that no festival would he permitted on the land in our care or near Stonehenge, people continued widely to advertise their intention to hold such a festival. It was therefore necessary for us to go through the difficult and expensive process of obtaining High Court injunctions against people who we believed intended to try to go to Stonehenge against our wishes.
Our advice was that if we had not done that we should be unable to invoke the law to protect our land against mass incursion and damage. Continued public advertising urging defiance of those injunctions, and the violent scenes which then ensued, were deeply deplored and regretted by us in English Heritage. We also very much regretted the necessity to close Stonehenge at the time of the solstice and to deny access to it to those individuals and groups who wanted to he there at the time of the solstice for spiritual or religious reasons or because it was the tradition to do so.
During the second half of last year, we went so far as to use our good offices and had several meetings with persons who claimed to represent the hippie groups to see whether it might be possible to find a nearby site for people to stay—for instance, a disused airfield—so they might be able to come to Stonehenge only on the night of the solstice. Only when those attempts failed did we decide in consultation with the National Trust and others that it would again be necessary to take legal steps to protect the monument and the surrounding land at this time.
But in spite of those injunctions the peace convoy and others made plain that they intended to ignore the injunctions and advertised widely the festival, urging others to join them. The question of advertising events on other people's land without their permission is perhaps a separate point which no doubt the Government may wish to consider. There can perhaps be discussions at Committee stage. But to my lay mind this must surely be a conspiracy to commit an offence. I find it strange that I could advertise a garden party next week in the garden of my noble friend the Minister and there would be nothing that he could do about it until my guests go there. Then he would have seven days to get them out.
I have told this story as background to our consideration of the provisions of the Bill. It demonstrates the difficult position in which English Heritage was placed in seeking to discharge its statutory responsibilities by the inadequate state of the
574
law both on assemblies and on mass trespass and conspiracy to trespass. Our initial reaction was to press for a change in the law to make it a criminal offence for some number, say, 20 or more, to trespass on land containing a scheduled monument and to stay there for 24 hours or more against the wishes of the owner or legal occupier where there is actual or potential damage to the ancient monument. We would have been content to see a provision with such strict tests in it because we are conscious that there is strong feeling in some quarters that it would be wrong to make a criminal offence of a simple act of going on to land.
We want to make clear our respect for that view, although many people outside this House and, I think, some in it find it difficult to subscribe to the view that it is impossible to differentiate between the modest rambler who has lost his way or the hiker who camps for one day in a field and the mass incursion that the peace convoy has done recently. However, we reluctantly concluded that the Government were unlikely to accept our view. We welcome, therefore, the provisions in Part II which would enable public assemblies to be controlled and we support most strongly the campaign led by the CLA to ensure that those provisions could be invoked when such assemblies take place on any land, public or private.
I should, however, like to ask the noble Lord whether we are right in understanding that Clause 14 as drafted could be invoked to control an assembly that is taking place on our land immediately around the monument at Stonehenge because we admit the public but not where it has happened on National Trust land on the other side of the road to which the public are not normally admitted. If the answer is yes, that is a direct incentive to trespass on private land. I am certain that we should remove it from the Bill as proposed when this was discussed in another place. Having studied comments made on behalf of the Government last week and having been informed as to what was said by my noble friend who moved the Second Reading earlier, I am now much more optimistic that a general provision will be brought forward at a later stage that will enable us in English Heritage to be confident that the general law enables us to carry out the duty of protecting ancient monuments.
If this does not happen, I must warn my noble friend that I shall have no hesitation in moving an amendment to make a specific provision designed to prevent trespass on land containing ancient monuments. I hope that I shall have support from all sides of the House for that amendment. We must be assured in English Heritage that we can fulfil our statutory responsibility towards the protection of ancient monuments. In any event, I regard it as imperative that Clause 14 should be widened as I have indicated. In conclusion, I give a general welcome to the Bill and urge that the provisions should be widened in Part II in the ways that I have suggested.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, woe to the Membership of your Lordships' House whose duty it is to wind up a debate on an important Bill at 20 minutes past four on a Friday afternoon, and gallant indeed are the courteous few who have stayed to listen to the closing

575
speeches. I think that the noble Lord the Minister would want to join me in expresssing our appreciation to them, including the two maiden speakers, whom I would want to congratulate from these Benches. If I say no more it is only because of the ruling of the Procedure Committee that words of appreciation to maiden speakers should be limited to the next succeeding speakers.
I listened with attention to all the speeches that have been made in this debate. I certainly listened as I always do to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He told your Lordships that the tome that he has contributed to the library of the world was irrelevant to this Bill because it merely covered the years 1660 to 1714. May I tell him that he understated the value of his contribution to learning because if he will turn, as I invite your Lordships to do, to Clause 9 of the Bill he will find that, possibly belatedly, noble Lords will, if they pass the Bill, be abolishing in Clause 9(2)(a);
"section 1 of the Tumultuous Petitioning Act 1661 (presentation of petition to monarch or Parliament accompanied by excessive number of persons)".
I am sure your Lordships will feel that you are doing something quite up to date in abolishing this measure, if indeed your Lordships had ever known that such an offence existed in our criminal law.
I listened with rapt attention, as he deserved, to the last speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who dealt with the vital matter of trespass relating to heritage, as indeed other speakers have spoken in sympathy for those who have recently suffered in country areas from trespass. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said that his experience as a rambler was that if he ever found he had been misled by his map and he had trespassed on some farmer's land all he had to do was to apologise and that was the end of the matter. He was courteously received.
While the noble Lord was speaking my recollection went back to early motoring days. I was driving in Sussex when a vehicle approached me at what in those days was deemed to be alarming speed. I do not think it would be so interpreted now. I had to swerve violently to get out of the way. My car overturned twice, went over a hedge and landed in a field. I just managed to get out, dazed and bruised, only to be faced by a farmer who said to me, "What are you doing on my land?" I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, was much more fortunate than I.
At this hour one ought to concentrate only upon the major matters which have been dealt with in this debate. There is a general welcome to the provisions of this Bill. There is a general feeling, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said, and indeed as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said—they both agreed upon this—that there is a need to look with the eye of 1986 upon the last measure of 1936,50 years ago. As was said in the course of the debate, conditions have indeed changed over those 50 years. However, I make no apology for repeating that as we see it on these Benches, it is the duty of Parliament to use a sense of balance and not to be carried away, possibly erroneously, in finding a path which puts some of our liberties at peril.
I notice that some participants in this debate—and there is no need to name them—felt that the balance
576
had become out of proportion, and that there were more important liberties than, for example, that of public lawful assembly and the right to demonstrate. It is a point of view that can be put forward and debated. I would merely say to your Lordships that the power to demonstrate, the right to hold a public assembly, has possibly rescued this country, especially at this moment, from abuses which we would all decry. If noble Lords curtail that right, they do so at the country's peril.
People have very strong views, views that are not satisfied merely by relaying their messages through proper democratic channels to their Member of Parliament, as has been suggested. If there is a Vietnam or a Korea, if there are other matters of vital importance to the world, or if there is the battle of the debate on nuclear armament or disarmament, it is not sufficient for some people, merely to see a Member of Parliament in his surgery, to which reference has been made in the course of the debate, or even, if one is literate, to correspond with him and hope that the view will be looked at by the Member of Parliament and possibly voiced.
Your Lordships well know that at the moment we live in an age not only of vital questions as to whether or not the world will survive but of more limited questions as to whether or not the dignity of families will survive in a era of mass unemployment. I believe that the Government fully recognise (I certainly hope they do) that the right to demonstrate and the right to march allow those of us in our communities who wish to register a point of view to do so in order that the public at large can see us do it and possibly be convinced, either by debate in a public assembly or by the banners that are borne in a demonstration. Therefore, let us interfere with those rights at our peril and let us respect the old traditions that we value so much in this context.
The danger inherent in this part of the Bill is the way in which the police are being introduced in order that they may make certain decisions as to whether it is likely that the demonstration or the public assembly will or will not be desirable if conditions are not imposed; and they have the right to impose conditions. I and my noble friends have the greatest regard and respect for the police of this country, but it is completely unfair to them to impose what after all in most cases is a political decision. It is quite unfair to them to impose a strain upon their relationships with the public, or with a section of the public, by making them responsible for imposing conditions or restrictions, whether it be on the route of the march or the way in which it can be held, and so on.
If I left it at that, your Lordships would feel that that was rather a destructive way of handling what we all know to be a perfectly proper matter for this Bill to deal with. I do not leave it with a destructive comment; I merely say that some alternative must be found. I throw this out merely as an example and not by way of a formal forecast of amendments yet to come, but should we not think in terms of an alternative: for example, an ad hoc tribunal in each area which could be called together at quick notice, consisting of perhaps a lawyer, plus a member of the majority party properly appointed and elected in the local authority, plus a member of the opposition party properly

577
nominated and elected from the local authority, and a representative of the police?
If there were such a local body so appointed, be it by the Lord Chancellor or by the Home Secretary, the police would be taken out of the firing line, and you would impose upon that little body, which is very representative and knowing the locality as they do, the job of seeing whether or not conditions or restrictions should be imposed. That seems to me at least to be an example by way of an alternative. In your wisdom your Lordships may think of a far better way of dealing with it when we come to other stages of the Bill. I merely ask for an alternative to be thought of rather than what we have at the moment.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I must rise to the noble Lord, and thank him for his characteristic courtesy. Is the noble Lord satisfied that his alternative would come within the Long Title of the Bill? I would doubt it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should have thought that the Long Title of the Bill, which deals with regulation of assemblies, and so on, would be able to encompass the way in which this legislation would be able to deal with how these matters could be decided. I obviously defer to the noble Lord, whose authority on these matters I respect, but at this time of the afternoon I merely wish to leave the matter there, he registering his view and I registering mine, with the optimistic hope that mine is right.
As I said, I deal in conclusion with one other clause of this Bill which has caused disquiet in various parts of your Lordships' House and from an authoritative source on the Cross-Benches, and I refer of course to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. We are fortunate in this House to have great debaters and great experts. I supose it is a matter of great enjoyment, more civilised than that in ancient Rome in the arena, when we see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, crossing swords with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. It is a gladiatorial battle that all of us enjoy. I am sure that most of us decide that if we take a course halfway between, we are most likely to enjoy the greatest possible wisdom.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would the noble Lord identify which is the lion and which is the Christian?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it would be singularly inappropriate for me, of all people, to make that diagnosis.
I was saying that I wanted to deal finally with the clause that has caused concern in all parts of your Lordships' House. I refer to Clause 5. I say this with a little amusement. I ask your Lordships—those who had the privilege, as I did not have, of being members of another place or if you are in my position of merely imagining that you are listening to "Today in Parliament" on a certain day of the week,—to picture Prime Minister's Question Time. I now ask noble Lords to read Clause 5 of this Bill
"A person is guilty of an offence if he … uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour"—
578
I then go on to finish the offence which is created by this clause—
"within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby".
As I said, you look at the vagueness of these words and every single word that I have read out would apply, in my judgment, to a typical Prime Minister's Question Time. I ask myself whether the introduction into our criminal law by Parliament is done in the case of Clause 5 with a full realisation of the offences which might occur within Parliament itself, since the clause applies to a private place, or whether Parliament rather selfishly says that the offence can be committed with impugnity within its own precincts, but it is a criminal offence capable of all the rigours of our criminal law if it is committed outside Parliament.
I turn seriously to what I really mean by this submission: it is that these words are undoubtedly much too vague. They have to be used with the greatest of care before there is any question at all of our importing them into our criminal law. But something of this kind may be necessary to deal with people who suffer fear, and genuine fear I understand. My last submission on this clause before I sit down is that I find it very unsatisfactory, as indeed does the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman—I believe I am right in saying that my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones introduced this into his eloquent speech earlier—that there should be an offence of this kind capable of being proved to the satisfaction of a criminal court, because of the way in which this clause is worded, merely upon one police officer's evidence alone. I take the point about the difficulty of getting a victim into court. I do not take the point that there is no alternative by way of saying that there must be some corroborative evidence by some other person there who saw the incident and who saw that the person concerned was likely to be caused fear, apprehension, anxiety or whatever words are used in the final evolution of this clause. There is a need for us to be extremely careful when we come to the later stages of this Bill. At this stage I welcome the Second Reading and the way in which the noble Lord the Minister introduced it.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have had a long, useful and thorough exploration of the purpose and principles behind the Bill. I am grateful to those who have welcomed the Bill, either in part or in whole, and I hope that I may persuade those with reservations that their fears are unfounded.
Before I deal with some of the points raised, I should like first to add my congratulations to those already extended to the two maiden speakers. My noble friend Lord Beaverbrook has made an impressive debut. That he also spoke in favour of the Bill, and without controversy in a difficult area, to my mind merely adds distinction to an excellent speech. My noble friend Lord Brocket, also in an excellent speech, gave us the benefit of his views on trespass as uncontentiously as anyone possibly could. He did so in a forthright and balanced way citing his own experiences and that of tenant farmers in Hertfordshire. I hope that he will accept from me that the important points that he touched on loom large in the consideration that we are

579
giving that important matter. I shall return to it later. We look forward to hearing both my noble friends' views on a wide range of issues in the years to come.
Many points have been raised and I shall deal with as many as I can without, I hope, wearying your Lordships at this time on a Friday afternoon. Some of the points that have been raised are Committee points but I shall concentrate, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the major ones. I am grateful for the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, on what should be the correct maximum sentence for riot. I said in my opening remarks that the Government do not have a closed mind and that we shall consider carefully what has been said. However, I would remind your Lordships that the argument is not completely one-sided. The existing maximum sentence for the common law offence of riot is life imprisonment. We are to some extent raising the threshold for when the offence may be committed by raising the number of persons from three to 12 and providing that only someone using violence may be guilty of the offence.
I turn now to the matter of Clause 5 in a variety of different ways. There were those who suggested—and among them, to some extent, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and I think also the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson—that perhaps this clause raised the matter of "sus" by another name. They expressed more general doubts about the clause. There is no intention to penalise simple high-spiritedness or behaviour which might be a nuisance but cannot be considered to be anything more than that. The new offence in no way represents a resurrection of "sus". Unlike "sus", the offence requires the presence of a victim. The prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was someone within sight or hearing of the accused's behaviour who was likely to be alarmed, harassed or distressed by it. For an offence to have been committed, the accused must either have intended or have been aware that his conduct was or might be threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly; and by virtue of Clause 5(3)(c) it is a defence for the accused to show that his behaviour was reasonable.
The Government do not believe that is too much to ask that people let off steam without causing misery to others—and misery it often is; or that providing additional protection for the victim of the hooliganism is other than a wholly proper course of action. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, suggested that the concept of "substantial" in this regard was too vague. We decided to omit the qualification, "substantial" which was proposed in the White paper because—if I use shorthand—first, harassment, alarm and distress are all in themselves strong words and, secondly, a number of organisations when they were consulted, including the Law Society, questioned what the courts would make of "substantial" and whether it added anything. We decided on reflection that it added very little and was better omitted. The Opposition in another place accepted the need for a new offence and did not question the elements of alarm, harassment or distress. If they now think that they can improve on "distress" I certainly look forward to hearing what
580
those proposals might be. I should also mention that the examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, of anti-social behaviour, although she related them more to trespass, are very largely met by what is written into Clause 5 of the Bill.
As to the suggestion by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that there should be a statutory right to demonstrate, it may have been suggested by some that the Bill should incorporate that right; but in public order law, as in other aspects of the law in this country, it is a basic assumption that anyone is free to do something unless there is a specific rule to the contrary. If we were to provide a specific right in statute to demonstrate or march, that would undermine the presumption—an important presumption at that—that the law gives to others rights which might, by implication, narrow the liberties we all enjoy. I think that might be counter productive and go even beyond what is suggested in relation to some of the worries that have been raised today.
I listened with care to the remarks about the right to protest and the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, that advance notice is a serious infringement of it. The advance notice requirement is a purely regulatory measure. An advance notice requirement already exists in many local Acts, and most organisers already inform the police before a march takes place. No change will result from formalising these arrangements for responsible march organisers but a number of marches are not known to the police in advance and, because of that, they may lead to greater disruption than either the police or the marchers themselves intend. The advance notice requirement will trigger discussions between the police and the organisers; and that surely must be to the benefit of both.
The Select Committee in another place and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in his report both accepted that there was now a need for advance notice of all marches. Because the majority of organisers tell the police about their plans in advance, that does not dispense with the need for a statutory requirement to extend these arrangements to the irresponsible few. Judging from the support given to this proposal by the majority of commentators on the Green Paper, it seems unlikely that those who currently give advance notice will have any reason to object to a statutory requirement. It is no more than a formalisation of what most regard as good practice, which exists now. As for the definition, over which concern has been expressed. I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, that the definition of "procession" in Clause 16 re-enacts that which has served us well for the past 50 years or so in Section 9 of the Public Order Act 1936.
It was suggested that the new powers to impose conditions on assemblies might be a serious erosion of civil liberties, and I shall deal with this at some length. I said in my opening remarks that it was nonsense to suggest that the provisions in Part II of the Bill were any threat to traditional democratic rights, including the right to march, demonstrate, or picket peacefully and lawfully. It was suggested that we should produce evidence to support the extension of the Public Order Act controls to static assemblies. This is set out in full

581
in the White Paper (paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2) but, briefly, between 1974 and 1980, of the 17 events in the Metropolitan Police district at which serious public disorder occurred, eight were processions, three were meetings and six were assemblies.
Since 1980, some of the most serious public order problems have been associated with static demonstrations, most notably of course during the miners' dispute. The Government therefore believe, like the Select Committee on Home Affairs, in the light of the major disorder associated with static demonstrations in recent years, that it is no longer acceptable that they should be completely exempt from the Public Order Act framework of controls.
But conditions are imposed on marches under the 1936 Act very rarely indeed, and we do not expect the powers with respect to assemblies to be used frequently. That is because the tests which need to be satisfied before conditions can be imposed are indeed tough ones. Most of the examples given of petty inconvenience occasioned by marches or assemblies would simply fail to satisfy those tests. Mere inconvenience and simple disturbance really will not be sufficient. The senior officer needs to form a reasonable belief, challengeable in the courts under the judicial review procedure, that a march or assembly is likely to result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community or the intimidation of individuals.
Of course, both the Government and the community at large accept that any demonstration will cause some disturbance and might annoy a few people. That is a fair price to pay for an important democratic freedom. As for the suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, might be moved on if there is a risk that a crowd of 20 attracted to a meeting would be likely to result in serious public disorder, the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who sadly is not here—he let me know that he has gone to alarm and harass some sinners—always speaks with particular conviction and wisdom, and I should have thought that, with his enormous power and following, he would be the last person to do anything likely to provoke serious public disorder. I should have thought, with the words he has at his command, that he was much more likely to be able to prevent it.
As to the question of relocating assemblies, the police cannot relocate an assembly merely because of the risk of some sort of disorderly conduct. Again, it comes back to the test of serious public disorder. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, gave a couple of examples and I shall, of course, explain them to him more fully in writing. He was basically correct, but since he is not here I shall not go into it in any more detail.
Advance notice was an important point raised by my noble friend Lord Broxbourne. Advance notice of assemblies is covered in paragraph 5.4 of the White Paper. The police do not want it, because they would he swamped with paper to little benefit. Taken over the country as a whole I am sure my noble friend will see the force of that argument. Equally, no government or the people it serves could accept that rights to demonstrate or protest are absolute and outweigh the rights of others to live their lives free
582
from violence and chaos. As I said earlier, there is a balance to be struck.
The evidence of the past decade or so is that there is perhaps, a growing willingness on the part of some to use violence or weight of numbers to secure their aims, and the serious disruption that the effective deployment of such numbers can cause, to prevent people from going about their business, or to force them to do what they have no wish to do. There is no clearer example than some of the disgraceful intimidatory tactics employed during the miners' dispute, but it is equally apparent in provocative marches by right wing extremists in areas of high ethnic concentration, or anarchist marches, like those designed to "Stop the City". At present, the police can act if a breach of the peace is occasioned or is imminent, or if an obstruction is caused. The Government believe that the citizen deserves greater protection than this and the police effective powers to prevent such mischief before it occurs.
It was suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that perhaps advance notice should be given to the local authority and not to the police. The whole purpose of the advance notice provision is to ensure that those responsible for policing demonstrations and keeping the Queen's peace will be able to make proper plans. The local authority has no responsibility for maintaining public order. If they received advance notice they would only pass the information on to the police, so that I do not think it would do precisely what is intended. As to the question of judicial review, which was also raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, the new statutory powers to impose conditions will need to be capable of exercise on the spot. Where the police can foresee serious disorder and disruption, they will be able to impose conditions in advance. The conditions imposed in this way will be subject to judicial review. But occasions will arise when the police need to divert a march on the day because of a bomb scare, a burst water main, or something of that kind, or to move an assembly.
Here again, there can be no immediate recourse to judicial review, but on occasion the organisers may wish to mount an action for judicial review after the event—for example, because they propose to organise a similar event in the future and fear that the police will impose similar conditions.
As to the matter of trial by jury, which was an important point also raised by the noble and learned Lord, in relation to Clause 14, the breach of conditions imposed under Section 3 of the Public Order Act 1936 is a summary offence with a maximum of 3 months' imprisonment or a £1,000 fine. We have adopted the same penalty for breaches by organisers and incitors of conditions imposed under Clauses 12 and 14. But, in relation to the rank and file, we have removed the power of imprisonment and have reduced the maximum penalty to a fine of £400.
Those are the right penalties for relatively minor summary offences. To introduce a right of trial by jury, we should have to consider increasing the penalty to one more appropriate for indictable offences. I do not believe that that is what the noble and learned Lord would want.

583
Before concluding, I should like to answer some of the important but disjointed comments that have been made—disjointed only because I have not been able to stitch them into the speech that I reckoned that I should probably have had to make. I shall need to study other points very carefully in Hansard later. I will begin with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, on the question of the definition of violence. I will simply say that this is a long and complex provision. We do not dispute that, but it is a provision that is the product of very careful thought as a result of undertakings in Committee in another place. I am sure that the noble Lord will recognise that we have reached the same conclusions as the Law Commission. Indeed, Clause 8 follows the Law Commission's draft Bill in that respect.
As to the question of violent disorder, and whether or not a threat could consist of words alone, the answer is that, yes it could—as long as they are so ferocious as to cause a person of reasonable firmness, if present, to fear for his personal safety. That may not fully satisfy the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, but I suggest to him that it is a pretty strong test. I do not believe that he could sensibly hold that that word, which he did not actually tell the House, would on its own cause a person fear for his personal safety.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, asked, in relation to riots, whether or not the numbers found not guilty because they used violence in self-defence would affect whether or not the remaining number would still be guilty. No, they would not. The offence requires 12 people to be using or threatening unlawful violence. Self-defence is not unlawful, and so if four persons were found not guilty, there would be only eight persons using or threatening unlawful violence. That would be sufficient, but they would then be guilty of violent disorder.
My noble friend Lord Middleton asked for a specific assurance on whether or not the three tests would be sufficient in the case that he proposed. I can give my noble friend that assurance. It largely related to the matters to do with the so-called peace convoy that were raised by many noble Lords and to which I referred in my opening remarks. I said then that the Government are fully aware of the strength of feeling on those matters. We are considering whether the police need new powers or whether the law should be changed in some way.
Of the options that have been put to us, one is to extend Clause 14 to private land, and we shall look at that. However, I am not yet sure whether it would be effective in dealing with a convoy or that it would not catch those whom we do not want to catch. The example given in the letter from the NCCL to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is something of a red herring. I am advised that, where the trespass affects only a single landowner, that is most unlikely to be a sufficient mischief to pass the threshold established by the test of serious disruption to the life of the community. The test is far stiffer than that.
There are other options, including a new offence of some form of trespass. We are looking at all the options and we are consulting widely on them, but it
584
would be wrong of me to pre-empt that consideration and those discussions at this stage. We are alive to the difficulties and I hope I shall be able, as I said earlier, to give a clearer indication of our thinking on this very important matter during the Committee stage. The remarks that have been made by your Lordships today will of course be taken fully into account in considering precisely where we go.
On the point raised towards the end of the debate by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, the powers in Clause 14 certainly do extend to English Heritage land at Stonehenge, which is a public place, for the purposes of Clause 16, but the powers do not extend to any other land there to which the public have no right or permission of access. However, I note the very serious points which my noble friend raised about the heritage and I can assure him that we will not lose sight of the point that he raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, in citing his experiences in Northern Ireland, asked whether or not there was any hope of extending this Bill, or something similar to it, to Northern Ireland. I can say that I understand my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be reviewing the law there in the light of the passing of this Bill. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester and others asked about guidance to the police and about codes of practice. The Home Office will issue a circular to the police about the Bill. It will remind the police of the importance of the traditional rights of free assembly and the European Convention on Human Rights. A copy of the circular will be placed in the Library. I can accept that the police should be reminded of these points by way of a Home Office circular but not that we should attempt to bind the police rigidly, in the judgments which they have to make, through the issue of some statutory code or other restrictions. I understand the force of the right reverend Prelate's arguments and those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, but I believe that our proposals are the best way to proceed. Your Lordships will no doubt comment on that circular when it is placed in the Library.
I turn now to two matters raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter—Wapping and the anti-nuclear protestors. All responsible people will deplore the violence and disorder seen at Wapping. Over 330 police officers have been injured during the dispute. It is clear that some demonstrators have come prepared for, and have been intent on, violence. I am sure we all agree that that is wholly unacceptable. The Bill's provisions may go some way towards helping the police in such situations, particularly those provisions relating to the control of public assemblies. However, the way forward in this particular dispute lies in sensible co-operation between the police and the organisers of the demonstrations to reduce disorder and prevent violence, which only the troublemakers want.
Regarding the anti-nuclear protesters, the Government recognise their valued right to peacefully demonstrate, but we certainly condemn the wholesale flouting of the law and the frequent acts of criminal damage which have occurred, particularly at some

585
military bases. Again, the Bill's provisions may be of some help to the police with the new powers that it provides for the control of static demonstrations.
The Government believe it is essential that our public order framework is made adequate to deal with the public order problems that arise today, and flexible enough to cater adequately for changes in the law. That is the purpose behind this measure. The Public Order Act 1936 has done its job for 50 years and on the whole has done it well. The common law public order offences are of even greater antiquity. This Bill will bring both up to date and will give the police the powers they need. I agree with my noble friend Lord Peyton and others that they deserve our full support.
In Part I of the Bill we are concerned to ensure that there is a range of public order offences to deal with everything, from petty hooliganism which eats away at the tranquility of people's lives to riots where groups of people use ferocity and violence to effect their common purpose. We have been concerned that these offences are clearly stated in a language which can be understood by layman and lawyer alike.
In Part II of the Bill we have kept firmly in mind the need to strike a balance between the rights of those who wish to demonstrate and the interests of the wider community. We will be providing the police with effective preventive powers.
In Parts III and IV we are dealing with specific mischiefs that plague our modern society. Football hooligans and racists intent on stirring up hatred and disorder have few friends anywhere and none in your Lordships' House.
There is a common thread which runs through this Bill. It has been clearly spelt out by my noble friend, Lord Beaverbrook, and it is that the liberties we all cherish can only be enjoyed when there is order in society. No one doubts the value to a democratic society of plurality of views; of the freedom to assemble to protest against the decisions of Government or others; or of the simple capacity to seek to persuade others to a point of view. Here, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. But such rights are an illusion unless they are underpinned by respect for others and other people's rights not to demonstrate, or to stick to their own views, or simply to go about their business in peace. So, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and my noble friend Lord Beloff, I viewed the ideas of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for an alternative society with great dismay and not a little sorrow.
There is no special virtue attached to collecting together in groups, whether as a picket or a demonstration, that confers special rights and privileges on those who do so, so that they can ride roughshod over the right of the individual to live his life as he wishes.
586
Freedom can never be the excuse for tyranny of the individual by the mob. Good order is the guarantor of freedom because it preserves a balance of rights. On that basis I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister sits down may I rectify an omission of which I am guilty? I was charged by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones to apologise to your Lordships for his absence from the closing speeches because he had important public duties to fulfil outside London.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Crown Agents (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
House adjourned at nine minutes past five o'clock.

  GIBRALTAR: EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT REPRESENTATION
  GIBRALTAR: EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT REPRESENTATION